Dear Terry,

Thanks for your generous and thoughtful response to my previous
comments!  I find your reply illuminating: it covers a number of
important questions on what design research could and perhaps should
be concerned with.

In some ways I am sympathetic to your promotion of design thinking as
the core issue for design research.  However, if, in order to find a
common base to all the individual differences, we have to look at the
biology of designing, I wonder if there is really any designing to be
clearly distinguished from all the other kinds of thinking this same
biology also supports?  I see designing, and its thinking, as embedded
in a more complete cognitive science, and, since we are some way off
such a completion, it is, in practice, impossible to make much headway
on a theory of designing (= design thinking).

This, as you say, has not stopped attempts to develop what I've called
cognitive theories of designing, often with little or no real attempt
to connect them up with what more general cognitive science we do
have.  As a result they float free over the top, looking superficially
cognitive in nature by their frequent use of cognitive terms and
names.

My own work was developed and presented in AI in Design research, and
not in Design Research, though I did argue for a better connection of
AI in Design work with Design Research.  In particular, I complained
about the people with Computer Science and Engineering backgrounds,
who dominated the AI in Design scene, taking for granted what I saw as
a hopelessly inadequate understanding of real designing: design as
search.  So, I'm not so sure that the information processing or
knowledge based approaches to design research is at all better done by
Computer Science and Engineering types, not without a good
understanding of the nature and practice of some real designing.
Indeed, the reason I first started to try to work out a Knowledge
Level theory of designing was because my own research on knowledge
based design support systems became harder to keep coherent for the
lack of a good understanding of real designing: a Knowledge Level
theory, I felt, and still feel, offers a useful kind of theory of
designing to support work on design support systems.  But, as I said
before, its not a way of understanding human thinking in designing.

I, and, I think, many on this list would easily agree with you that
design research needs to bring together people from different
disciplines: we need a trans-disciplinary field, not a
multi-disciplinary field.  But, I would also say that the researchers
who joins in this trans-disciplinary project, do need to have, or
acquire a good understanding and appreciation of some real designing.

At the risk of being more controversial than I want to be, I think
Newell and Simon failed in this aspect.  Their characterisation and
treatment of designing as a kind of problem solving, not un-like
planning, scheduling, theorem proving, chess playing etc--all amenable
to problem solving as search--does not capture the fact that real
designing doesn't start with a problem at all, I think.

I _do_ think Newell's concept of Knowledge, from his Knowledge Level
paper, is important and useful for developing a practical kind of
theory of designing, but I do not think the Newell and Simon design as
problem solving (by search) is the right characterisation to use to
start building a theory of real designing--a view that gets you few
friends in AI in Design, where many papers start by saying designing
is a complex search problem, and proceed to present some way of
computing some kind of search.

So, if you're going to need biologists and others, how are you going
to ensure that they join with a realistic enough notion of designing,
so that designing doesn't get the poor treatment I would say it has
tended to receive in AI in Design?

Your reply deserves more responses, but I've probably provoked enough
here already, so I'll stop here.

Best regards,

Tim
Donostia / San Sebastián
The Basque Country

=========================



>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.