Hi Ranjan,

I think you misunderstood my post a little.

The target was primarily the weaknesses in meta- analysis of theory making
in design research rather than the subjects of those theories ( i.e. design
activity). I'm pointing primarily to the problems that result from design
researchers' fairly common conflation of  different _types_ of theory (as
well as theory about different aspects of design) and how they can be
avoided.  I'm suggesting not only that things must be separated into layers
of concepts and theories but for theory making a key factor of this
'separation into different layers of concepts' must be on grounds of clean
epistemological distinction. I.e. avoiding epistemic/conceptual overlaps
because these introduce ambiguity, lose conceptual integrity, introduce
unnecessary interdependency, massively increase the opacity and create the
opportunity for duplicate theories.
This latter is a significant problem in design research.  Across the
literature there are many multiple, relatively weakly justified theories and
concepts that cover the same territory of the study of design activity in
ways that are loosely defined (Klaus/Dick if you dispute - see the
references and analyses in Love (1998)). This problem has resulted in
significant research resources in the field going into building new theory
on poor foundations and on discussion and dispute between people putting
forward competing theories.

I'm suggesting that one of the reasons that design research has been very
slow to advance is that theory making has been very poorly done by design
researchers because of this problematic habit of conflation and lack of
conceptual discrimination in design research. The pace of development is so
slow that many  of the theories presented as 'new' today were common
currency in the 1960s and 70s. In deference to Klaus and Dick, I've attached
a list of publications from that era  below that address much of the same
theory territory as proposals I've read in Phd-design recently. The
publications from 30 years ago below also include some that caution against
the above problems of poor theory making in design research and the effect
that it has had on the field.

Just to confirm I'm not arguing against conflation in _design activity_.
It's absolutely essential because it provides the means of bridging between
things. It's one of the key processes in the essence of what Chris has
recently been talking about in generating new ideas from making things
rather than reasoning. I'm arguing against careless conflation in design
research. 

Warm regards,

Terry

Love, T. (1998). Social, Environmental and Ethical Factors in Engineering
Design Theory: a Post-positivist Approach. Perth, Western Australia: Praxis
Education.

Akin, O. (1979). Exploration of the Design Process. Design Methods and
Theories, 13(3/4).
Alexander, C. (1963). The Determination of Components for an Indian Village.
In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on Design Methods. New
York: Macmillan.
Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Alexander, C., & al., e. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., & al., J. e. (1977). A Pattern
Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Altman, S. M. (1974). How long can we go on this way? In W. Spillers (Ed.),
Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing
Company.
Archer, L. B. (1965). Systematic Methods for Designers. London: Design
Council.
Archer, L. B. (1968). Structure of Design Processes. London: Royal College
of Art.
Archer, L. B. (1973). Development of Mathematical and Operational Modelling
Techniques for Application in Equipment Design. SRC Report. London: Royal
College of Art.
Archer, L. B. (1979a). The Three Rs. Design Studies, 1(1).
Archer, L. B. (1979b). Whatever became of Design Methodology? Design
Studies, 1(1).
Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to design. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bazjanac, V. (1974). Architectural Design Theory: Models of the Design
Process. In W. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company.
Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Board of Directors ECPD Inc. (1977). Engineers' Council for Professional
Development. Code of Ethics. In J. H. Schaub & S. K. Dickison (Eds.),
Engineering and Humanities. USA: James Wiley & Sons Inc.
Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in Architecture. London: Wiley.
Brotchie, J. A. (1974). Urban Design. In W. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions
of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative Engineering design. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
University Press.
Calahan, D. A. (1974). Exploiting Palallelism in Design Algorithms. In W.
Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing Company.
Carter, H. (1972). The Study of Urban Geography. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Cross, N., & al, e. (Eds.). (1974). Man-Made Futures. London: Hutchinson &
Co (Publishers) Ltd.
Darke, J. (1979). The Primary Generator and the Design Process. In N. Cross
(Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Director, S. W. (1974). Towards Automated Design of Integrated Circuits. In
W. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company.
Downs, D. (1978). The Socially Acceptable Power Plant. Proceedings of the I.
Mech. E., 192(33).
Duggan, T. V. (1970). Applied Engineering Design and Analysis. London:
Iliffe Books.
Eastman, C. (1968). Explorations of the Cognitive Processes in Design (PhD
thesis). Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University.
Eder, W. E. (1966). Definitions and Methodologies. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.),
The Design Method (pp. 19-31). London: Butterworths.
Editorial. (1979). Design as a Discipline. Design Studies, 1(1).
Fielden, G. B. R. (1963). Engineering Design (The Fielden Report). London:
H.M.S.O.
Forrester, J. W. (1968). Market Growth as Influenced by Capital Investment.
Industrial Management Review, 9(2).
Gasparski, W. W. (1979). Praxiological-systemic approach to design studies.
Design Studies, 1(2), 101-106.
Gero, J. (1974). Ethics in computer-aided design: a polemic. In W. Spillers
(Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing
Company.
Glegg, G. L. (1969). The Science of Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Glegg, G. L. (1971). The Design of Design. Cambridge, UK: The University
Press.
Glegg, G. L. (1972). The Selection of Design. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Graham, S. (1974). The Design of Programming Languages. In W. Spillers
(Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing
Company.
Gregory, S. A. (1966). The Design Method. London: Butterworths.
Gregory, S. A. (1966a). Design Science. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The Design
Method. London: Butterworths.
Gregory, S. A. (1966b). The Human Perspective, the Design Situation and its
Opportunities. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The Design Method. London:
Butterworths.
Gregory, S. A. (Ed.). (1966). The Design Method. London: Butterworths.
Harrison, M. A. (1974). Some Linguistic Issues in Design. In W. Spillers
(Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing
Company.
Hillier, B. (1972). Knowledge and Design. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in
Design Methodology. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Himmelblau, D. M. (1974). Design in Chemical Engineering. In W. R. Spillers
(Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing
Company.
Jones, J. C. (1966). Design Methods Reviewed. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The
Design Method. London: Butterworths.
Jones, J. C. (1970). Design Methods: seeds of human futures. London:
Wiley-Interscience.
Jones, J. C., & Thornley, D. G. (Eds.). (1963). Conference on design methods
: papers presented at the Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in
Engineering, Industrial design, Architecture and Communications, London,
September 1962. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kranzberg, M. (1977). Ecology of Technology. In J. H. Schaub & S. K.
Dickison (Eds.), Engineering and Humanities. USA: James Wiley & Sons Inc.
Leech, D. J. (1972). Management of Engineering Design. London: John Wiley &
Sons.
Levin, P. H. (1966). Decision-making in Urban Design. In N. Cross (Ed.),
Developments in Design Methodology. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Lewis, B. N. (1964). Communication in Problem Solving Groups. In J. C. Jones
& D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on design methods (pp. 169-184). New
York: Macmillan.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row,.
Matchett, E. (1963). The controlled evolution of an engineering design.
Paper presented at the Conference on Systematic Design Methods.
Matchett, M. (1967). FDM - a means of controlled thinking and personal
growth. In E. House (Ed.), Proceedings of the State Conference of Designers.
Bristol, England: Czechoslovakia Scientific and Technical Society.
Middendorf, W. H. (1969). Engineering Design. Boston, USA: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.
Motard, R. L. (1974). Design Theory: a chemical engineering view. In W. R.
Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory (pp. 143-146). Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company.
Nevill, J. G. E., & Crowe, R. A. (1974). Computer augmented conceptual
design. In W. R. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
O'Doherty, E. F. (1964). Psychological Aspects of the Creative Act. In J. C.
Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on design methods (pp. 197-204).
New York: Macmillan.
Ostrofsky, B. (1977). Design, planning and development methodology. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Page, J. K. (1963). Review of papers presented at the conference. In J. C.
Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.), Conference on Design Methods. England:
Pergamon Press.
Perrow, C. (1967). A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of
Organisations. American Sociological Review, 32.
Powers, G. J., & Rudd, D. F. (1974). A theory for chemical engineering
design. In W. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company.
Purcell, T. A., Mallen, G. L., & Goumain, P. G. R. (1974). A Strategy for
Design Research. In W. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Pye, D. (1964). The Nature of Design. London: Studio Vista Ltd.
Ramscar, M., Lee, J., & Pain, H. (1966). A cognitively based approach to
computer integration for design systems. Design Studies, 17(4), 465-488.
Rittel, H. W. J. (1971). Some Principles for the Design of an Educational
System For Design. Design Methods Group Newsletter, 4(4).
Rittel, H. W. J. (1972a). On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the
First and Second Generations. Bedriftsokonomen, 8.
Rittel, H. W. J. (1972b). Son of 'RittleThink', DMG  Occasional Paper No. 1
(Jan 1972). In n.a. (Ed.), Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary Report (pp.
5-10). na: Design Methods Group.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. W. (1972). Dilemmas in a General Theory of
Planning, Working Paper, Institute of Urban Development, No 194. Berkely,
USA: University of California.
Roe, P. H., Soulis, G. N., & Handa, V. K. (1966). the discipline of design:
experimental edition. Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo.
Ross, I. M. (1966). Effect of Organisational Procedures on Design - An
Outline of the Problems. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The Design Method (pp.
269-277). London: Butterworths.
Schon, D. (1974). Design in the light of the year 2000. In N. Cross, D.
Elliott & R. Roy (Eds.), Man-made Futures. London: Hutchinson Education.
Siddall, J. N. (1972). Analytical Decision-making in Engineering Design. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge Mass: MIT
Press.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The Structure of Ill-structured Problems. In N. Cross
(Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology. London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Slann, P. A. (1963). Foreword. In J. C. Jones & D. G. Thornley (Eds.),
Conference on design methods: London 1962 (pp. xi-xii). New York: The
Macmillan Company.
Spillers, W. R. (Ed.). (1974). Basic questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam:
North Holland Publishing Company.
Svennson, N. L. (1974). Introduction to Engineering Design (2nd ed.). NSW,
Australia: New South Wales Press Ltd.
Tart (Editor), C., T. (1969). Altered States of Consciousness: A book of
readings. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Thomas, J. C., & Carroll, J. M. (1979). The Psychological Study of Design.
Design Studies, 1(1), 5-11.
Westcott, M. R. (1968). Toward a contemporary psychology of intuition : a
historical, theoretical, and empirical inquiry. New York: Holt Rinehart and
Winston.
Westerberg, A. W., Stephanopulous, G., & Shah, J. (1974). The Synthesis
Problem with Some Thoughts on Evolutionary Synthesis in the Design of
Engineering Systems. In W. Spillers (Ed.), Basic Questions of Design Theory.
Wong, A. K. C. (1974). Bioengineering design. In W. R. Spillers (Ed.), Basic
Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Woodson, T. T. (1966). Introduction to Engineering Design. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

-----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 Ranjan M
P
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2007 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: needs, desires and problems

Dear Terry

I agree with you when you say that we need to avoid conflating things
(concepts and domains) when we discuss theory and action in design.
Design is particularly difficult as it is easy to slip from one level of
discourse to another during a single process or moment, from the particular
to the general and back again without quite sensing these macro-micro shifts
of reference. This is at the very heart of the nature of design as an
activity.

We have come across numerous situations when these shifts have been
necessitated as we move from the abstract principles to the specific cases
and as Nelson and Stolterman tell us even to the "Ultimate Particular",
which is the goal or intention of design, to satisfy each and every
stakeholder in unique ways, if possible, called mass-customisation or just
plain customisation as in the crafts and the creative industries of the
exclusive and handmade for you situation.

Design itself, as a human activity, will therefore need to be seen as a
multi-layered multi-level acvtivity which in a paper that I had penned in
1998 I called the design activity as four level activity named in that paper
the "Tactical Level", the "Elaborative level", the "Creative Level" and the
"Strategic Level". Each level deals with a different set of requirements and
contexts and I now see it as a growing range of concerns that are brought
into the purview of the designers attention, which is best explained by the
"Stone in the Pond" metaphor that I use with my students to explain this
expanding role and scope of design, from the material to the spiritual if
you like.
("Levels of Design Intervention in a Complex Global Scenario", Graphica
98 - II International Congress of Graphics Engineering in Arts and Design
and the 13th National Symposium on Descriptive Geometry and Technical
Design, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil from 13 to 18 September 1998) This
paper can be downloaded from my website link below.
<http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/About_Design_Theory/FileSharing83.html>

We understood these issues through our engagement with the industry and the
community level design projects that we undertook over the years from 1970
onwards at the NID. In one instance in early 1981 we had one of our then
leading car manufacturers came to us for a stated brief, design of a "new
front end and back end aesthetics". The writing was already on the wall, and
it was eveident to the designers that the car industry itself needed
substantial and complete reappraisal and while the company representatives
were talking about new "tail lamps" the design teams were looking at wasted
opportunities to design a whole new car for India!! better safety, less
pollution and a systems approach.
Much confusion and with very little communication taking place across the
table, and we were told that the client is always right. However, that
company has almost ceased to exist today from being one of the leaders in
the country. I offer this story as an example of "conflation"
and the ease with which design discourse can slip onto both the "layer
confusion trap" as well as the "domain confusion trap" and as you mention
the  "epistemological confusion trap", if we are not alert to this
possibility in design on a daily and constant basis. We did not know at that
time what we know today about design, so the results and actions of the
design team and the clients could not be set in a framework that could be
explained as we believe we could today. however design is still far deeper
than our current understanding of it and therefore the need for sustained
research.

With warm regards
from my Mac at home on the NID campus
2 May 2007 at 9.20 am IST

_______________________________________________________________________
Prof M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID) Chairman,
GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India) (2006-2008) Faculty Member
on Governing Council (2003 - 2005) National Institute of Design Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India

Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090 (changed in January 2006)
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
Fax: 91 79 26605242

email: [log in to unmask]
web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/ web domain:
http://www.ranjanmp.in
_______________________________________________________________________

Terence Love wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris, Chuck, Fil, Ken and all,
> 
> I've found there is some benefit in avoiding  conflating   things that are
> epistemologically distinct e.g.:
> 
> Design - the human activity
> Research into design
> Theories about design
> Epistemological analyses about factors that justify theories about 
> design The factors that influence theories about design The factors 
> that influence designers Designs (as in drawings and specifications) 
> real things created from a design Individuals reflecting about their 
> designing Individuals and their internal behaviours Individually 
> specific  external behaviours Defining groups of individuals 
> Behaviours 'en masse' of defined groups of individuals Problems (as a 
> concept) Specific problems that  individuals conceptualise situations 
> Problems as an epistemological perspective for making theory Etc
> 
> I feel  that avoiding confusing different items on this layered 
> multiplicity of theory things is what makes design research  more 
> difficult and interesting than research in simpler disciplines.
>  Separating out epistemologically inconsistent ideas is complicated  
> but not complex and its useful cos' it shows up lots of the  errors of 
> muddy thinking.
> 
> I think there is some confusion on this because many of us are both 
> designers and design researchers. _Avoiding conflation_ is absolutely 
> essential for theorists and researchers. On the other hand, conflation  
> of things is an essential skill for designers so its important to 
> avoid confusing the hats (or trying to wear both at the same time!)
> 
> A blast from the past from Simaqi, a member of the Naqsbandi (Masters 
> of the Design), in the Middle ages,
> 
> "If you take what is relative to be what is absolute, you may be lost. 
> Take nothing, rather than risk this."
> 
> Simaqi (in Shah, I. 1979, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin Books Ltd, 
> England., p. 166)
> 
> As a corollary, I've found it helpful to remember that the primary 
> role of design researchers is making theory and making definitions of 
> concepts. This suggests its better to avoid asking questions as if knowing
the 'word'
> provides the answer. I've found it theoretically more productive to 
> ask 'What is the best use we can make of a definition of the term 
> (say) 'design'? Than to ask 'What is design?'. The second is like 
> someone who thinks they are rich because they know how to spell the word
'gold'
> (probably something else from Shah or maybe Terry Pratchett).
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> -----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 Charles Burnette
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2007 7:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: needs, desires and problems
> 
> Chris
> 
> Thanks a bunch for referencing my thoughts to those of Margaret Thatcher!
> 
> The goals couldn't be more different.
> 
> On 5/1/07 6:56 PM, "Chris Rust" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > If that approach works what becomes important is not people's needs 
> > and desires, which are elusive, but their responses to propositions, 
> > their behaviours, which are observable. So the second art is to put 
> > people together with (materialised) propositions in fruitful ways, 
> > and the third is to "read" their behaviours and see new 
> > possibilities in what you observe.
> 
> Unfortunately this is often how we get the lousy answers many accept. 
> We often don't (even try to) read behaviors any better than we (even 
> try to) read needs. I'd a lot rather look at needs and misunderstand 
> them perhaps than look at behaviors responding to propositions based on
who knows what.
> Designers need to talk to users before they "proposition" them. This 
> doesn't stand in the way of making things physical fast and getting
feedback.
> 
> Best regards,
> Chuck