Hi Tim,
Good to hear form you again. Where've you been!
I agree with you on several points. A sensible theory of design thinking
should be useful.
I too looked deeply at using Newell and Simon as the basis for design theory
(during the 1980s and 1990s.)
I agree with you that the work of Newell (and Simon) in relation to
categorising information (or knowledge) is useful, especially, as you say,
for developing automated design support systems - particularly if the
problem with capturing design rationale info can be solved in the near
future.
A BIG question is whether these other approaches (knowledge and process
models etc) aren't better seen as being part of and perhaps more ably done
in other disciplines than design research.
Researching the behaviour of objects is better done in the natural sciences
or the dozens of engineering disciplines (engineering being different to
engineering design). The skills for researching the behaviour of things
relating to information/knowledge/data are better found in the information
disciplines. The locus of skills for research about people's behaviours and
perceptions towards designed outcomes are in disciplines such as Marketing,
Psychology, Social Sciences. Expertise in research into complex processes is
located in Systems fields. Etc, etc
The only area that is really specific to design research is research that
focuses on the thinking, feeling, creating, deciding, judging and other
internal human activities involved in designing.
There is some confusion I think about the core problems of researching
design thinking.
Some see it as too hard and prefer to retreat into superficial simple and
fallacious representation of what happens when someone is designing, such as
models of design process, reflective practice etc. I agree that it can be
useful even if it isn't true to what happens.
It’s a problem when people hold it up that it is the reality of human design
thinking. It's a kind of self-delusion and there are several reasons people
offer:
1. To do otherwise is too hard.
2. Designers who have become design researchers can't understand the
material
3. If everyone does things differently then how can you make a theory about
it (your comment).
4. Its too difficult to bridge the different disciplines that need to be
brought together.
3. is important to tackle first. At root, there is no overall difference in
the way that we as individuals do designing. We do it biologically and we
have similar bodies. There is a similarity at a very deep level of
biological processes. Theorising can reliably start at this point. The
problem is that humans at a more superficial level of thoughts, feelings,
don't design the same way - not even if they repeat the same thought in
quick succession. The problem is that it is at these and higher levels that
the design research field has tried to make theory and assumed it reality
The silliness of what has happened in design research is easier to see in
relation to other disciplines. For example, architecture and building
construction theory and research explores the underlying abstract reasoning
for the shapes of buildings and the processes of building them. Imagine if
the theories and research were based only on observations at a superficial
level. What has happened in theorising about design thinking is a bit like
trying to create a body of architectural theory only on observations of the
ways that carpenters put their tools in and out of their trucks - a cargo
cult explanation - I'm exaggerating a little but not much.
The challenge of points 1,2, and 4 is a challenge of competence and learning
of design researchers. Many researchers in other fields have to be skilled
and knowledgeable in multiple areas. Design research spans more areas than
most. A key question is whether design researchers are training themselves
up enough. Whether we have the necessary multidisciplinary research skills
and knowledge levels for undertaking design research, or whether we are
expecting that the professional skills of designing are enough for the task.
The evidence of the literature is the latter isn't enough.
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
===
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Smithers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Smithers
Sent: Friday, 30 March 2007 6:40 AM
To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A problem of wicked problems for design research
Dear Terry,
I agree with you that trying to get at any thinking that goes on in
some designing, via external observables--behaviour, sketches, models,
notes, etc--is not going to work. But, what is going to work?
Also, does a theory of designing need to be a theory of the thinking,
feeling, creating, deciding, judging in designing: does a theory of
designing need to be a theory of design thinking? You're own example
of counting being a uniform observable behaviour with individually
different internal goings on, thinking, (I take it you mean) suggests
that a theory of design thinking is going to be difficult to develop,
not least for the difficulties of testing it. And, it's not just the
science needed here that looks challenging, the philosophy looks
worrying too, not to say hopeless. If each designer thinks
differently when doing the same designing (like in counting), then all
this variation in design thinking must be counted as normal variation
by our theory of design (thinking). It's not normal plus some
statistical variation (noise), each and every different thinking is
true design thinking: all of it, the thinking of designers past,
present, and future. But we cannot know what different thinkings
future designers will do, so how do we develop a theory that can count
them all in as normal, and count as out that which is not normal
because it's somehow not designing?
Theories should demystify and explain. Any theory of design thinking
looks to me like it's going to have an impossible job to offer
demystified explanations of designing when the thinking that is
supposed to be the demystified and explained target of the theory is
so shrouded and unknowable.
My question was rhetorical: I think that a theory of designing does
not have to be a theory of design thinking; I think it can be a theory
about the structure and organisation of the external observable and
identifiable aspects of designing, about the process of designing.
Furthermore, I think such theories of designing are best constructed
in abstraction of the agents doing the designing, and, in particular,
any and all thinking these agents may do.
One way of developing such a theory of designing (as a processes) is
using Newell's Knowledge Level and his concept of knowledge that goes
with this--knowledge is a capacity for rational action. Rational
action can be observed, characterised, classified, identified, even
quantified. From observations of rational action we can infer the
possession of knowledge, the capacity for the rational action
observed. (This is the basis of all Knowledge Engineering methods and
practices today.)
Building a Knowledge Level theory of designing necessarily involves
inventing some theoretical concepts that may not, in and of
themselves, be easily observable, but which together can be used to
offer useful demystifying explanatory accounts of designing, of why it
happens the way it does. A Knowledge Level theory of designing says
what kinds of knowledge is necessarily and sufficiently needed to do
designing, the roles these kinds of knowledge play in the design
process, and the way they relate, combine, interact, and inter-play.
What a Knowledge Level theory of designing will _not_ and cannot do,
is say anything about the cognitive goings on in any designing agent:
it cannot be a theory of design thinking.
I have worked on this kind of thing, and have claimed that Knowledge
Level theories of designing could be useful for offering theoretical
support for the development of knowledge based design support systems.
They are not simple to develop--nothing interesting is--but they are
possible to develop in practice, and can offer at least some kinds of
demystifying explanation and understanding of designing.
Best regards,
Tim
Donostia / San Sebastián
The Basque Country
======================================================================
At 07:32 +0800 29/3/07, Terence Love wrote:
>Dear Klaus and all,
>
>I agree.
>
>I feel that one of the roadblocks in building coherent design theory and a
>sound discipline of design research has been the peculiar focus on
>attempting to use external things to try explain internal human activities
>such as feelings, creativity, thinking, deciding, judgement etc.
>
>It simply doesn't work. Its like trying to explain the way the motor in a
>power drill is constructed by looking at drilled holes. Even worse, it is
>like trying to develop a model of humanity with our complex of human
>functioning, thinking, feeling, illusions, delusions, hidden knowledge,
>motivations and all those fuzzy human internal functions that are dictated
>by our biological evolution - by looking at holes drilled by power drills.
>Silly.
>
>The obsession with wicked and ill-defined design problems has a similar
lack
>of connection with design thinking. To attempt to use wicked problems as
>the basis for a theory of design thinking is epistemological dodgy -
>regardless of the emotional feelings that designers may have that they feel
>that design thinking is represented by wicked problems. We all have 'common
>sense' simplifications and naiveties but those are no basis for
>epistemologically sound theory .
>
>It makes perfect sense for a DESIGNER to be interested in classifying types
>of problems. A designer's primary interest is trying to solve them. It
>makes good sense for someone trying to invent automated design methods to
>classify design problems. Their aim is to use physical knowledge of the
>external world to predict and identify design solutions to difficult
design
>briefs. The terms wicked, ill-defined, variation, routine etc are simply
>classifications to make process identification and automation easier.
>
>To try to use wicked or other problem classifications as the basis for
>theorising about human internal feeling-driven design thinking behaviours
is
>epistemologically incoherent. Daft.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Terry
>
>===
>Dr. Terence Love
>Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
>Mobile: 0434975 848
>[log in to unmask]
>===
>
>
>-----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 Klaus
>Krippendorff
>Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 12:32 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: wicked problems
>
>"ill-defined" is a category from inside the problem solving paradigm.
>it signifies being closed to other ways of thinking of conceptualizing
>design.
>klaus krippendorff
>
>-----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 Gordon
>Rowland
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:08 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: wicked problems
>
>For related early work, also see the following. Reitman referred to these
>sorts of problems as ill-defined.
>
>Reitman, R. R. (1965). Cognition and thought: An information processing
>approach. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
|