dear lubomir,
i would start your two questions with:
0. what should design theory explain? what is the range of observations that
design theory should generalize?
without answering this and your two questions (and agreeing somewhat on the
use of 'design theory') we are using that word without or with unexplained
meanings -- aspiring to be scientists but not knowing what it takes to be
one.
klaus
-----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 Lubomir
S. Popov
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse
Hi Klaus,
In your previous mails you wrote:
... i suspect that knowledge conducive to design is not captured by theory
and that the term design theory might well be empty -- unless proven
otherwise.
I agree with you. You are right in both parts of your statement. And I read
it as a suggestion to look at the larger question. Before we go into
particular design theory issues, it is important to resolve the basic
philosophical problems with design theory. There are at least two
fundamental questions:
1. Is design theory possible? If the answer is Yes, then the next question
is:
2. How is this theory possible?
The design research community has to come with some answers to these
questions. In the 1970's and early 1980's Gerald Nadler has extensively
written on these issues. He frames design theory from a systems perspective.
However, now his work seems too much on the positivist side. Besides, I am
aware that the questions that I wrote above come from a strong objectivist
perspective. I am open for alternative approaches.
Kind regards,
Lubomir
Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Interior Design Program
School of Family and Consumer Sciences
309 Johnston Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059
phone: (419) 372-7935
fax: (419) 372-7854
[log in to unmask]
|