I am not sure, Terry. Unless a phenomenon is so
simple, that it can be defined with a couple of
aspects. Anyway, I am open for exception from the
principle of definition that I mentioned.
It is not about the complexity of design.
Everything in the world is complex. You might be
right about definition of concept and
abstractions, not phenomena. Mass and force are
concepts of Physics and in Physics they might be
defined unilaterally. I am not sure until a
physicist confirms it. However, defining real
phenomena is completely different situation. In
the social sciences definition phenomena is
always done by reducing these phenomena to one of a few of their projections.
Best,
Lubomir
At 09:04 PM 8/17/2007, Terence wrote:
>Hi Lubomir,
>
>Most other disciplines seem to get by in spite of this problem.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Terry
>
> _____
>
>From: Lubomir S. Popov [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2007 8:13 AM
>To: Terence; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining design? was: the joy of making...
>
>
>
>There is no way to produce a definition of an object or a phenomenon that
>will be comprehensive. This is by definition. Otherwise, the definition will
>spread on dozens of pages and I will not be astonished if it goes even with
>thousands of pages. Every definition is goal and aspect bound. A definition
>can encompass several aspects of the phenomenon, but not more. After that it
>will become a treatise. Most of the definitions that range from two to
>twenty lines comply with these drivers.
>
>A general definition is about a fundamental quality(s) of an object. It
>might be an ultimate abstraction. An absolutely "general' definition is
>impossible by definition. Any general definition is again restricted to
>particular features and qualities. However, these a some of the essential
>qualities of the phenomenon. Again, what will be treated as essential will
>depend on the particular purpose. Absolutes are impossible.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Lubomir
>
>At 10:31 AM 8/17/2007, Terence wrote:
>
>
>Juris,
>
>There are real practical urgent reasons for doing this basic work - however
>apparently naïve it might seem in anthropological terms.
>
>Part of the urgency in trying to develop some coherency in design theory is
>the reality that design research is in much the same place as it was 50
>years ago and with many times the amount of muddled theory - with perhaps
>the exception of technical design domains.
>
>It is clear that the choice to follow a pluralistic perspective on design
>theory has not produced significant benefits and instead has increased the
>theory mess and increased parochialism between design sub-fields.
>
>Small gains developed in individual areas have not propagated across the
>design research domain. In parallel, much of the design theory literature
>does not stand up to critical review on the basic tenets of making sense and
>of authors using concepts and terms in ways that enable simple reasoning of
>the sort required to underpin research.
>
>A big criticism is that the core theory concepts are so badly defined in
>most of the literature that they don't even make sense in the texts in which
>they are used.
>
>This is starting a long way back in developing a body of theory and
>literature to build design research. Parallels that come to mind are
>education before the Greeks and physics pre 1400s.
>
>Politically, the tension is between many hundreds of mostly very small
>sub-fields of design each trying to define design as if it is only them that
>does it, and an attempt by a small number of design researchers that work
>across multiple design domains to unify research across design fields.
>
>The 'pulling in different directions' approach over the last 50 years hasn't
>worked. Developing a unified basis for theory has worked successfully in
>many other research fields. It offers a way out of the theory muddle for
>Design Research.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Terry
>____________________
>Dr. Terence Love
>Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
>School of BEAD
>Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
>Institute
>Research Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
>Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
>Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
>Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
>UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
>Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
>Development
>Management School, Lancaster University,Lancaster, UK,
>[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]
><mailto:[log in to unmask]> ] On Behalf Of Juris
>Sent: Friday, 17 August 2007 9:21 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining design? was: the joy of making...
>
>I want to simply support the points made by Ben and Andrew, and perhaps add
>to that outline. I can claim no expertise regarding Simon's work, but
>Andrew's point about 'boundary condition failure', which even the most
>carefully explicated of definitions is prone to, is important to always
>remember. Definitions which attempt to 'uncover' universals will always be
>confronted with the unruly particularities of any given reality
>on-the-ground (a fact that anthropologists, like myself, are always
>championing and struggling with). Some notes: universalizing definitions
>often fail to account for change over time (another fundamental concern
>within anthropology). And if we utilize yet a third key strength of
>anthropology (though not exclusive to it) we have to consider the
>comparative power of any explanation of behavior or understanding.
>That is, if Simon's definition succeeds in describing what it is "to design"
>but fails to distinguish among the many possible variations (planning or
>action, human or dog, prehistory or tomorrow, pre capitalistic or
>neoliberal, revolutionary or hegemonic) then, again, it misses the
>opportunity to understand the complexities of historical, economic,
>symbolic, political and all the other myriad facets of socio-cultural
>context.
>
>But perhaps this is actually its intention. Perhaps what is more important
>is to ask what is accomplished by the effort to find a universal or
>essential quality and then describe it. What professional and political
>needs spurred Simon to attempt to find a universal? What are the current
>conditions that spur debate about the usefulness of the definition? What is
>being accomplished through the careful explication of those definitions,
>other than defining something? The need for universals is a kind of
>fetishization in itself, one that often justifies or fuels
>professionalization, and an aversion to the messy, inaccurate, 'anecdotal',
>or fluctuating particularities of lived experience (ie the social contexts
>and origins that Andrew mentions) is another kind of boundary maintenance,
>as is the tendency to remain in the realm of the neurological or
>technological to the detriment of the political- economic, cultural or
>social. That is, definitions that ignore the fact that the category of
>design is and continues to be socially constructed, and is therefore a
>political-economic domain of position taking and discourse shaping, are in
>fact themselves productive, in a socio-political-economic way - but this is
>perhaps not meant to be noticed. I am thinking here of Foucault's
>"author-function" and I would submit that, along side the very useful
>conceptualization of scale in Ken's last post, there is value in
>understanding the "design- function" as well.
>
>
>Juris Milestone, Ph.D.
>Department of Anthropology
>Temple University
>Philadelphia, PA
|
