Dear Rosan, Erik, and All,

It is a quiet Sunday afternoon in my little village overlooking the 
Oslo fjord, the first Sunday in Advent. Padding to the computer to 
check in on the list, I discovered Rosan's question to Erik on 
philosophy of design and Erik's answer. The question is important. 
What is philosophy of design?

I am going to offer a few reflections on Rosan's questions. In doing 
so, I am going to disagree politely with Erik. In my view, Erik 
Stolterman and Harold Nelson have indeed written a philosophy of 
design. While it is heuristic rather than dogmatic, open rather than 
closed, and systemic rather than linear, many philosophies meet those 
criteria. As I will demonstrate, it meets the key definitions for a 
"philosophy of."

I hope Erik won't be terribly upset if I try to demonstrate that he 
and Harold are "real" philosophers where it comes to the description 
of this book.

Rosan suggested that Erik and Harold might have done better to avoid 
the word philosophy in describing The Design Way. She suggested 
replacing it with a vaguely cheerful term such as "narrative" or 
"story." In effect, she suggest that Harold and Erik are telling a 
story, a nice story much like any other story in this nice world of 
ours.

This is not the case as I see it. Harold and Erik are not narrating a 
"story" or proposing a "scenario." Their book is an attempt to 
develop a philosophy of design in the strict meaning of the term. 
What, strictly speaking, is a "philosophy of" a field? In this case, 
they develop a philosophy of the design field. Whatever the field may 
be, large or small, anchored in art-and-design or wider and more 
pluralist, they clearly propose a "philosophy of design." They key 
question is what we mean when we speak of a "philosophy of [design]".

Let's start with the relevant definition in Merriam-Webster's, the 
desk dictionary use by most university presses, academic publishers, 
and journals. Merriam-Webster's (1990: 883) defines philosophy as:

"2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of 
values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational 
means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing 
fundamental beliefs 3 a : a system of philosophical concepts <Kantian 
philosophy> b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity 
or thought <the philosophy of cooking> <philosophy of science> 4 a : 
the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or 
group <the hippie philosophy>."

The Oxford English Dictionary, that most comprehensive dictionary of 
English language dictionaries, supports this view with the first and 
main definition. The OED (2002: Unpaged) defines the relevant aspects 
of the word philosophy the same way:

"1. a. (In the original and widest sense.) The love, study, or 
pursuit of wisdom, or of knowledge of things and their causes, 
whether theoretical or practical." To speak of a "philosophy of" is 
to discuss "The study of the general principles of some particular 
branch of knowledge, experience, or activity." OED cites this usage 
example, "Expressions like 'philosophy of science', 'philosophy of 
history', 'philosophy of government', 'philosophy of law', 
'philosophy of religion', and so forth creep into the language, 
indicating that after scientists, historians, statesmen, jurists, 
priests, and the rest have said all they have to say, there is still 
need of a special kind of knowledge to inform us what it is all 
about."

The Design Way fits these definitions. The Design Way is not a 
"scenario," a "narrative" or a "story." It may be a "'design' of 
design," helping people to "design" their use and practice of design. 
That is partly what a "philosophy of" does in any field.

Another definition may explain the reason for Rosan's discomfort. 
Rosan often rejects crisp terms and clear definitions in favor of 
labeling any contribution as a "narrative" or "story." These terms 
sound gentle and democratic, leveling distinctions and making them 
sound the same. That's probably why I think twice before using them.

The larger Webster's International Dictionary (1913: 1077) defines 
philosophy as "1. Literally, the love of, including the search after, 
wisdom; in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained by, 
and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and laws. When applied 
to any particular department of knowledge, philosophy denotes the 
general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena 
or facts relating to that subject are comprehended."

Erik and Harold have written a book that is too systematic and 
comprehensive to pass as a simple story. Nevertheless, the term 
"philosophy" is not "loaded." It is a precise and clear description 
of their aims. While Harold and Erik develop a new range of issues 
and perspectives, this is more than a narrative or a story or a 
scenario. They attempt to develop a philosophy exactly as 
Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary define the term.

The cataloguers at the Library of Congress and the British Library 
seem to agree. The first term in the catalogue entry is 
"Design-philosophy." This cataloguing description translates into 
everyday English as "philosophy of design."

There are five conclusions here.

1) Rosan could relax her critique by allowing people to use their own 
vocabulary, particularly when their vocabulary states what they set 
out to do. Erik was right earlier on when he described his book as a 
philosophy of design. While the expanded vocabulary of his answer to 
Rosan also makes sense, this does not render the earlier label wrong.

Reading The Design Way, it seems to me that Harold and Erik wrote a 
philosophy of design. So do the cataloguing experts at the Library of 
Congress and the British Library. While Erik's modest reply allows us 
to relax, I prefer vigilance to relaxation where clarity is 
concerned. I'd argue that the proper use of the word philosophy makes 
the critique irrelevant.

2) Allowing for a wider range of contributions would invite the 
diverse range of voices Rosan requests. Many researchers use a 
vocabulary of distinctions within a pluralist conceptual framework. 
In contrast, Rosan frequently asks people to label many different 
kinds of contribution as narratives, stories, or scenarios.

Reducing everything to scenarios, narratives, and stories erases the 
qualities of distinction. Describing every contribution as a story 
reduces pluralism. It suggests that all things are of the same 
nature. This, in turn, reduces diversity.

There is another problem in designating a scholarly and scientific 
contribution as a mere "story." If I were to parody this position, 
I'd say it leads to the notions that there are no significant 
differences between the different "stories" of the universe as 
Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein tell them. They are 
all stories. This particular construction of the world offers clear 
advantages to poor fellows like me. In a world where all scientific 
accounts are simply stories, I have just as much to say about the 
universe as Einstein! Lucky me.

There are problems here, too. Saying that all accounts are stories 
offer political advantages to the rich as well as to the poor. In 
this world, George Bush and his fundamentalist friends have just as 
much to say about the universe as I do. That does not please me 
nearly as much as taking my place next to Albert Einstein.

Mr. Bush seems to believe that the creationist account of the 
universe is a valid story, and that we ought to be teaching 
creationism along with, say, the theory of evolution. In the gospel 
according to Bush, these are both stories. Darwin narrates one story 
and the Bible narrates another. Mr. Bush believes that good education 
and good science require us to teach both stories on an equal basis.

Now that is the kind of line I'd pursue if I were to write a parody 
of the position that all we really do in research is narrate stories. 
The unfortunate reality is that this is not a parody in some parts of 
the world. It is a reality. If all the business of research required 
of us was an opportunity to vote on the stories we like, we could 
forget about Darwin and move to Kansas.

Admittedly, the kind of scholarship that Erik and Harold have done in 
The Design Way is different than the scholarship required for 
cosmology, evolution, or even social psychology. The philosophy, in 
contrast, is reasonably similar and it lies on the continuum of 
scientific and scholarly inquiry designated as research. This 
continuum is different than the continuum on which we find the 
Genesis story, or the story of the Spider God, or the story of how 
the world began when Apsu created the heavens.

Theologians now distinguish between the creation account of the Bible 
and the accounts developed in scientific research. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Bush is as ignorant of theology as he is of science. I'd like to 
think that we can do better than George Bush. One was to begin is by 
distinguishing among the different kinds of accounts. Not all 
accounts are "stories," not even accounts that narrate an event or 
position.

3) In an earlier post, Rosan asked whether philosophy of technology 
subsumes design research. That post suggests that "philosophy of 
technology" is acceptable as a "philosophy." In contrast, the current 
post suggests that "philosophy of design" is merely a "narrative." 
This puzzles me.

In the earlier post, Rosan points to the possibility of a specific 
philosophy of design. She offered David Sless's Common Ground paper 
as an example. (The version posted to the CRIA web site was presented 
at the Design Education Association, but the paper is essentially the 
same.)

It seems odd to me that Rosan labels David's propositional sketch as 
"philosophy of design" while labeling Harold and Erik's systematic 
and carefully developed book as a "story."

4) These designations suggest two problems. The first is confusion on 
what a "philosophy of design" is or might be. The second neglects the 
literature of our field.

The past five years have seen two widely accessible collections of 
articles on philosophy of design. The La Clusaz conference (Durling 
and Friedman 2000: 3-132) addressed philosophies of design in one of 
four sessions. Two years later Per Galle and Peter Kroes (2002) 
edited a special issue of Design Studies on this topic.

Many articles in Design Issues and Design Studies deal with 
philosophy of design. So do such books as Bucciarelli (2003), Fry 
(1999), Simon (1969, 1982, 1998), or, in a slightly different frame, 
Margolin (2002).

One reason I describe David's paper as a propositional sketch is that 
he overlooks the literature. His paper offers interesting 
propositions whole bypassing a decade of contributions on the topics 
he explores.

If we're going to discuss the philosophy of design, we ought to dig 
more deeply, especially if we're going to describe philosophical 
propositions as philosophy while describing reasonably systemic 
efforts as stories.

5) This leads to my response. This topic has interested me enough 
over the past decade and a half to publish several papers. (See, for 
example, Friedman 2000, or Friedman and Olaisen 2000. There are 
more.) In addition to organizing the La Clusaz conference with David 
Durling, I organized a conference on the philosophy of design and art 
with my colleagues at the Design Research Center at Denmark's Design 
School and the Royal Danish Academy School of Architecture. I also 
took part in several others, including one that Anders Ekholm 
organized at Lund University and two that Mark Palmer and Robin Durie 
organized at Staffordshire University before the "Staffordshire 
Exodus."

What I have not done is to attempt some kind of systematic overview. 
I have been working slowly toward something systematic without making 
as much progress as I should. Rather than simply grumble about the 
neglected literature, I will follow this note with a research request 
to gather an overview of the literature.

Before saying much more on this, I think I will find out what others 
have been thinking and writing.

Yours,

Ken


References

Bucciarelli, Louis L. 2003. Engineering Philosophy. Delft: Delft 
University Press Satellite.

Durling, David, and Ken Friedman, editors. 2000. Doctoral Education 
in Design. Foundations for the Future. Proceedings of the La Clusaz 
Conference, July 8-12, 2000. Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom: 
Staffordshire University Press.

Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into 
Practice." In Design and Technology Educational Research and 
Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda. E. W. L. 
Norman and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design 
and Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69.

Olaisen, Johan and Ken Friedman. 2000. "Toward a philosophy of 
science for design research. An heuristic approach." In Doctoral 
Education in Design. Foundations for the Future. Proceedings of the 
La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. David Durling and Ken 
Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Staffordshire 
University Press, 101-108.

Fry, Tony. 1999. A New Design Philosophy. An Introduction to 
Defuturing. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Galle, Per and Peter Kroes, editors. 2002. Special issue: Philosophy 
of Design. Design Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3. (May).

Margolin, Victor. 2002. The Politics of the Artificial. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1990. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate 
Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts.

OED. 2002. OED Online. Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. J. A. Simpson 
and E. S. C. Weiner. Second edition, 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
Oxford University Press. URL: http://dictionary.oed.com/ Date 
accessed: 2002 January 18, verified 2005 November 27.

Simon, Herbert. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, 
Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Simon, Herbert. 1982. The Sciences of the Artificial. Second edition. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Simon, Herbert. 1998. The Sciences of the Artificial. Third edition. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Webster's. 1913. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G & C. 
Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for 
American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language). 
Chicago: Divisions of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL: 
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/ARTFL/forms_unrest/webster.form.html 
Date accessed: 2002 January 18, verified 2005 November 27.

--

Rosan Chow wrote:

Based on what you said below, isn't that more appropriate to 
charactarize "The Design Way" as a 'scenario', 'narrative', 'story', 
or even a 'design' of design...rather than seeing it as a philosophy 
of design .... 'philosophy' is such a loaded word.

For me, the criticisms of De Vries on "The Design Way" (or my 
questions) could be relaxed or even rendered irrelevant if we see 
"The Design Way" not as a philosophy, but as a truly 'design' 
discourse ... a discourse that is fresh, energizing, and 
complementary to other discourses ... not only in what it says but 
also the approach it takes to say it.

The most important of what you said below, for me, is "to find new 
ways of thinking that might help and support designers" ... this is 
such a different approach (or 'intention') to discourse that i would 
not like to call it a philosophy. It is a very brave 'design' 
disourse that comes out from Design Research.

It is extremely difficult to begin a different FORM of discourse (and 
to legitimize it) and there are still much work to do...but we should 
be proud of "The Design Way". What do you think?


Erik Stolterman wrote:


Dear Rosan and list

(even if this answer is about your question about our book, it is 
more general than that)

Yes, you are right. the book is a design of design. In the Prelude of 
the book (page 3) we actually write: "What is presented in this book 
is a composition of what we believe a broad and deep understanding of 
design--and designing as a tradition of inquiry and action--should 
include. This composition, is, in itself, a design."

So, it is (as you correctly states) not a "real" philosophy. The 
problem is of course how to describe this kind of work. The text is 
on a level of abstraction that people recognize as "philosophical" 
and we also deal with concepts commonly used in "real" philosophy". 
So, it easily becomes a book on "philosophy of design" ;-) We have 
really tried in the "Prelude" to make this clear and to argue for 
such an approach. For instance, we end the "Prelude" with --- "We do 
not try to provide universal definitions of these concepts that would 
apply across other traditions of inquiry and action. They are defined 
through use in pragmatic design ways, with the specific purpose of 
revealing our grasp of design as a whole".

The issue you raises is a sign of what our field (design research) 
has to deal with. If we as design researchers want to promote 
scientific approaches to design then we have to accomodate to the 
principles of the scientific tradition and "school of thought" we 
assign ourselves to. If we (as with "The Design Way") try to create a 
conceptual framework that would be useful for designer as a tool for 
reflection, we are entering the tradition of design, with other 
claims of success. For instance, I would be more worried if I heard 
that designers could not in any way be inspired in their design 
thinking by "The Design Way" than I am from criticism that states 
that the book does not comply with specific scientific standards. (I 
have no problems with a scientific perspective on design, but that 
has another purpose and should be evaluated in a different way. I do 
that kind of work too ;-) Best

-- 

Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management

Design Research Center
Denmark's Design School

email: [log in to unmask]