Gavin et al,
I would suggest, given the breadth of design, that there is room for
diverse meanings (and kinds and applications) of 'theory'.
For those of us who have an interest in designing as a phenomenon worthy
"scientific" study, then we can use the scientific sense of 'theory'.
For those who have other interests (of equal value in the overall
enterprise of design research), other senses may be well-advised.
Indeed, I would be very happy of a variety of theoretical frameworks (is
that the right word?) all co-existed and even mingled, rather like more
conventional kinds of 'inter/trans/multidisciplinary' work does.
The one thing I'd suggest: no matter what sense one takes 'theory',
taking that sense should be motivated by some underlying goals and
philosophy.
Say there was a discourse-oriented theory of designing. What purpose
what it serve? What would we expect as a result of using discourse as a
tool of theory? What is offered by discourse-oriented theorizing that
is not offered by other modes?
I think these questions are of vital importance because it directs its
use, and if there's one thing I hope we can all agree with, is that a
directionless theory is relatively useless.
Of course, there may be some iteration required. We might not know what
direction discourse-oriented theory might or should lead us; and the
only way to find out is to try it and see. That's fine. But there
should be some underlying sense of having to eventually find a direction.
At least, in theory it should. :-)
Cheers.
Fil
Gavin Melles wrote:
> Perhaps at the heart of all this talk is also whether there is a sense of theory (and closer to the ground 'model') other than that which science and related empirical fields wants to use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and which, since Popper, includes notions such as falsification, induction (and ultimately objective knowledge) etc. If there is another more rhetorical ways of talking about theory (i.e. as discourse) then this will do different kinds of work for us in the intellectual inquiry we are pursuing. If, on the other hand, the Popperian mainstream model helps us do other things then stick with it. The assumption in this conversation that we may reach some sort of argued decision assumes that we share a certain set of assumption about what is important and useful (pragmatism again) - this is not necessarily and not ordinarily the case. Also for an entertaining read about alternative 'theories' or at least weltanschauung - form of life from a former colleague
at Melbourne read Science and the African Logic (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14593.ctl) by Helen Verran, who we hop to have with us next year 2009, Melbourne for the Cumulus Conference
> -----
> Swinburne University of Technology
> CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
>
> NOTICE
> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|