terry,
why do you call the various arguments against you proposition weak reasoning or associative? could it be that your axiom is weak by importing metaphors that entail a lot of epistemological baggage, thereby inviting too many objection, rendering it not an axiom others could accept?
klaus
________________________________
Från: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design genom Terence Love
Skickat: sö 2008-10-12 20:56
Till: [log in to unmask]
Ämne: Axiom indicates weaknesses in theorymaking in design research
Dear Ken, David, Fils, Teena, Harold, Klaus, Eduardo, Matti, Fils, Suresh,
and anyone I've missed,
Three weeks ago, I proposed an axiom as a small part of a foundation for
building design theory. The axiom simply stated "ALL design methods are
information gathering methods."
This was intended to make a start addressing two problems of design
research: one epistemic and one cultural.
1. Design research has inadequate foundations for theory making
2. Design theory (and design research in general) has been plagued by
associative thinking instead of reasoning.
The axiom was very specific. Its focus is 'design methods'. It does not not
address the human activity of 'designing', or creativity, or understanding,
or research or a host of potentially associatable design related issues and
concepts. The axiom simply stated "ALL design methods are information
gathering methods."
The axiom is congruent and coherent in that it defines both subject and
object as the same type of entity (methods). It is singular in that it
refers only to one characteristic of design methods (information gathering).
The nature of the statement does not suggest that design methods are
exclusively information gathering methods. For example, they may be also
useful for jogging one's memory, changing one's emotions, a reason for
getting the client to pay a higher fee, a tool for collaboration, or even
something cool to draw out on the white board to get more status.
In reasoning terms, the test of the axiom is simple and singular. The axiom
fails if there exists a 'design method' that does not gather information
using a method. So far, no one that has challenged the axiom has gone this
route.
At this point the axiom stands. It potentially provides one touchpoint for
starting to build coherent design theory. Hopefully others will start to
identify other singular foundaitons.
The second issue is that of the problem of associative thinking in design
research.
Reasoning and the analytical thinking of research are radically different to
th eassociattive thinking of design. This difference was identified a long
time ago. For example it appears in the writings associated with the
philosopher Pythagoras around the 6th century BC.
Associative thinking is a psychological foundation of design activity. When
a designer thinks of something (e.g. a characteristic of a problem or a seed
for a design) then other associated thoughts come to mind.
A cultural problem of the design research field is that many of us are also
designers and thus also have the mental habits of designers, and this
results in weak or reasoning in the realm of theory making. Look at the
elements of the discourse following the axiom proposal:
1. I propose a simple axiom that relates two categories: 'design methods'
and 'information gathering methods'
2. Several people associatively connected 'design methods' to 'design', and
'design' and 'information' to the old debates from the 70s about whether it
is good to have an informatic perspective on design. Very little of this has
anything to do with arguing for or aginst the validity of the axiom. The
most targetted challenge is whether information is a thing or a process (as
part of a debate as to whether it exists outside or inside humans).
3. Klaus and Eduardo associatively debate 'what is done after something is
gathered'
4. There is an associative detour via 'organs' and definitions and formal
language.
5. Klaus, Matti, Teena and Fils come in on target on the information
thing/process issue
6. Clive associatively and irrelevantly claims that understanding is central
rather than information. This is fallacious diversion - though it might
make the basis of an alternative axiom.
7. David points to the dodginess of understanding as a concept.
8. Harold associatively draws in 'action' and makes a bridge to problems of
design research and design scholarship
9. Ken associatively connects this to a discussion about reducing research
to information.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FRDS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Founder member Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research
Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
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
____________________
|