hi susan,

only briefly,  i think metaphors are not as undesirable as you seem to
suggest they could be.  framework is a metaphor from carpentry.  theory was
once a metaphor (in ancient greece what the spectator sees),  approach is a
metaphor, having to do with moving towards something, entailing a process,
etc.  we can't speak without metaphor.  the point is to use what is most
appropriate -- glad you mention lakoff and johnson among others.

as you said, frameworks of thinking or conceptualizing are not to be
avoided, but they have their dangers that one needs to be aware of.  when i
think of design i think of a process of going where others have not dared
and enrolling others into that direction as well

klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Susan M. Hagan
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 3:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design & Theory


Hello Klaus,

I apologize for the longish post, but you bring up some interesting
stumbling blocks that seem reasonable to me. My response would be that
these potential pitfalls do need to be considered carefully. And so...
>
> to go back, framework conjures images of putting things on shelves or
> filling the cells of a grid.  maybe this isn't quite what we want.

On further reflection, I think that you make a good point. It is enticing
to make everything very neat, and in that way, ignore some of the
interesting complexity. For example, a framework that aids designers in
making, can become too pat when considering how an audience might react to
the thing made. I'll go back to Arnheim again. The ways contrast can be
introduced, (providing heuristics without pigeonholing the designer) led to
conclusions that an audience can be perceptually locked into looking at a
painting or design using something of a shared visual order. Eye tracking
studies (Buswell, 1935; Norton and Stark, 1971) confounded the notion of
shared visual order pretty quickly (even though I think that the idea lives
on in some circles to this day). Solso (1994) argues that looking involves
our own histories and interests (aided I think by the conflict reduction
provided by contrast and groupings). So your point is well taken. The
heuristics that opened up creative thought and inquiry, closed down
thinking concerning interpretation. I don't think that eliminates the
usefulness of frameworks, but it does point to a danger.
>
> conceptual analysis is mental on the one hand and analytical on the
> other.  yes, analysis of the context into which a design is to fit is
> important, but this precedes design.  the point of design is to propose
> something realizable, producible, and usable.

As someone who finds making concrete solutions as interesting as teasing
apart that concrete thing in order to see what makes it tick, I would argue
that a frameworks can be helpful in both processes.
>
> there is another idea that is worth exploring, and this is the approach
> taken.  the metaphor of approach acknowledges that you always come from
> somewhere, that you chose among approaches that you could have taken, and
> that you bring with you certain concepts, tools, ways of handling things.
> to study the approach that one is taking is to explore the vocabulary and
> the practices someone is committed to apply.  it is more dynamic than
> either framework or conceptual analysis, and, unlike theory, it involves
> bodily participation, personal engagement, or commitment to a way to
> solve problems and change the world.

But I worry about metaphor as the end tool even to explain process (and I
would also push back here and say that design has more to account for than
the process of the designer). Metaphor can be a slippery communicator.
While I agree with Lakoff and Johnson (1980), as well as Turner (1996) that
metaphor and analogy are both invaluable and necessary communication tools,
metaphor requires that we build shared visualizations. I would say that
those visualizations (especially in new areas of exploration) are not
always as shared as we might wish. Both A. L. Becker (1991) and Jean
Aitchison (1994) have noted that words come with slippery meanings. Paul
Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (2003) point out that human language
does not result in one form leading to one meaning. When we try to
construct a visual image that is crucial to understanding, and used to take
the field to new ground, the metaphor can seem to  make our task more
dynamic, but it can also make it more difficult??. Multiple, and unintended
variations can begin to muddy the waters. Still, I can agree that it can be
a useful place to begin the dialogue. And in that, I would point to Petrie
and Oshlag (1993), who see metaphor as crucial to learning new concepts
that go against established thinking.

Best,

Susan

Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental
lexicon (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.??
Buswell, G. T. (1935). How people look at pictures: A study of the
psychology of perception in art. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.??
Hopper, P. J., & Closs Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. UK:
Cambridge University Press.??
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.??
Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Eye movements and visual perception.
Scientific American, 224, 34 - 43.??
Petrie, H. G., & Oshlag, R. S. (1993). Metaphor and learning. In A. Ortony
(Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 579-609). New York: Cambridge University
Press.??
Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
??
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213

v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989