Dear David, dear Terry and list-members,

I am following the discussion with interest. In my own PhD-thesis I  
wrote intensively on design epistemology and interferences between  
design and knowledge discourses. (The thesis is written in German and  
will be published at the end of this year at transcript publisher:  
Mareis, Claudia: Design als Wissenskultur. Interferenzen zwischen  
Design und Wissensdiskursen seit 1960. Bielefeld 2010).

Coming from a German academic background, the notion of  
"epistemology" is here recently quite often used with regard to  
research in the history of science. Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, director  
of the Max-Planck-Institute of Science in Berlin, coined the term  
"historical epistemology" with regard to the historical work of  
Gaston Bachelard, Ludwik Fleck and others. (In English published is  
the following book: Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. Toward a history of  
epistemic things: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford,  
Calif. 1997.)

Roughly said, he argues that nowadays every theory/philosophy of  
science (and knowledge) requires a meta-theoretical epistemological  
reflection that considers the historical (cultural, social, material)  
influences and circumstances which shaped those theories. Here the  
term "epistemology" is used, as David said, as "theory of knowledge"  
– but it is not just another theory on a theory of knowledge, rather  
it is the critical analysis on how theories developed trough history.  
One could argue, that the (more or less) recent »paradigm shift«  
within philosophy of science is one towards a historical  
consciousness for its own historical conditions.

Regarding this, also epistemic objects, materials and spaces come  
into the focus of interest. This mean that historical epistemology is  
closely connected to similar approaches in Sciences and Technology  
Studies, such as Actor-Network-Theory.

I found the readings on historical epistemology very interesting and  
helpful in terms of a better understanding of knowledge discourses in  
design. So, I do agree, that this is definitely a field of basic  
research interest for design research. Thanks for bringing the topic up!

Best wishes,

Claudia

...



Dr. Claudia Mareis

Research Lecturer
Theory and History of Design Research

Research area 'Communication Design'
Berne University of the Arts
Fellerstrasse 11, CH-3027 Berne

Phone: +41 31 848 39 41
Fax: +41 31 848 38 51

[log in to unmask]
http://www.hkb.bfh.ch/fspkommunikationsdesign.html

Am 29.04.2010 um 09:38 schrieb David Sless:

> Hi Terry,
> Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this. We have had a  
> sudden influx of new projects and they take a while to set up,  
> taking much of my time.
>
> Returning to this thread. I'm not sure that I understand what you  
> are saying, and it may be that others on this list are having  
> similar difficulties, so I have a few questions.
>
> When you use the term 'epistemology' are you using the term in its  
> common and classical philosophical usage to mean 'theories of  
> knowledge', covering such divergent theories as idealism, realism,  
> empiricism, or constructionism? Or are you using the term in some  
> special sense that I'm missing?
>
> If you are using the term in its common usage then your phrase
>> the 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory'.
>
> spells out to be: ' the theory of knowledge of Design Knowledge and  
> Theory'. This is the point at which I find myself getting lost. Can  
> you enlighten me?
> David
> -- 
>
>
>
>
> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO • Communication Research Institute •
> • helping people communicate with people •
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
>
> On 26/04/2010, at 12:34 PM, Terence Love wrote:
>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> Thank you for great questions.
>>
>> When I started to answer them, I realised I've been explaining  
>> things from
>> the perspective of a new field of design research,  the  
>> 'Epistemology of
>> Design Knowledge and Theory'. This field of Design Research is not  
>> actually
>> that new. It is more that it has been hidden or ignored. It is   
>> found only
>> in a very small number of sub-fields of Design.
>>
>> This 'new' field of Design research focuses on the 'Epistemology  
>> of Design
>> Knowledge and Theory' and its application in design practice, design
>> theory-making and design research. My previous posts since the 90s  
>> have
>> pointed to this approach but I hadn't realised till now it is a  
>> missing
>> field generally in Design Research, Design Practice  and Design  
>> Education.
>>
>> The focus of 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory'  is to  
>> look at
>> the epistemological characteristics of knowledge and theory  
>> relating to
>> design and by making theory using these epistemological  
>> characteristics,
>> improve design practice, theory and research.
>>
>> A practical example is to look at the  epistemological  
>> characteristics of
>> (say) a group of design problems. The approach contrasts with the
>> traditional design research and design  practice approaches in  
>> which the
>> focus is primarily on the concrete aspects of content and contexts  
>> of design
>> situations .
>>
>> Say for example, the focus was 'Design problems associated with  
>> people's
>> interpretation of medicine bottle labels'. A typical design / design
>> research approach would be to look at the characteristics of the  
>> labels
>> (fonts, layout, colour, etc)  and to look at the context (how they  
>> are used,
>> the users, user behaviour, success in interpreting the labels,  
>> etc). More
>> advanced approaches might include  (say) theories about cognition,  
>> social
>> construction of knowledge, affordances etc.
>>
>> An approach from the field of 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge  
>> and Theory'
>> , however,  would be to stand back  one or more levels of  
>> abstraction and
>> look at the characteristics of the  theories we use and make  
>> about  this
>> situation.  The focus would be on the epistemological  
>> characteristics of
>> theory and practice of  interaction in this situation and creating  
>> coherent
>> models about the structural relationships of these theories into a  
>> situation
>> 'type'. This  would be  an epistemologically-based model of the   
>> theory
>> structure of the situation.
>>
>> The approach is important because it is epistemological similarity  
>> that
>> allows us to justifiably transfer knowledge from domain to domain,  
>> design
>> situation to design situation, and to avoid design research and  
>> design
>> practice being blinkered by being context and content specific.
>>
>> What?! Why?! I can almost hear people ask.
>>
>> Looking at the epistemology of the  knowledge and theory of design
>> situations  is useful on at least six counts:
>>
>> 1. Because the behaviours of any design  situation are more  
>> transparent (if
>> you have the ways of looking) in ways that are much more powerful  
>> than the
>> more blinkered  approach of focusing only on the concrete issues  
>> of design
>> content and context.
>> 2. Understanding the behaviours of design situations in this way  
>> is much
>> more powerful than traditional approaches based on design principles,
>> elements , context and user characteristics.
>> 3. It is easy to  draw on knowledge and findings about  
>> epistemologically
>> similar design situations in completely different fields in which  
>> the design
>> situations and contexts are not similar in the concrete.
>> 4. It can become almost trivially easy to identify types of design  
>> solutions
>> likely to be successful to many complicated design problems that  
>> would
>> commonly be called 'wicked problems'.
>> 5. It points to approaches that will improve on existing research  
>> approaches
>> and design practice.
>> 6. It provides a sound basis for optimising design solutions and  
>> design
>> research approaches.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> ____________________
>>
>> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
>> School of Design and Art
>> Director 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
>> Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise  
>> Development
>> Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
>> ____________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----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  
>> David
>> Sless
>> Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 1:25 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Limits of prediction (was Re: Are visual approaches to  
>> design
>> outdated?)
>>
>> Hi Terry,
>>
>> You say:
>>> You are right that there is a shift in this case, Most of the  
>>> analyses I
>> do
>>> are of  theory qua theory and hence a lot of it requires a high  
>>> level
>> view.
>>> Looking at evidence of  the limits to competence of us as individual
>> humans
>>> is different.
>>
>> Are we not human beings when we do theory qua theory?
>> As theorists, are we not subject to the same limitations of  
>> competence?
>> Or, is there a special dispensation for theorists?
>>
>> It strikes me that theory, anyway, is at its best when it is based  
>> on a
>> collection of individual cases.
>>
>> When it comes to predicting outcome, there are a few things that  
>> are worth
>> teasing out. On the one hand there are things which are difficult  
>> to predict
>> simply because we don't know all the factors that contribute to  
>> the outcome.
>> In this case understanding multiple feedback loops may be important.
>>
>> More interesting are those phenomena which are non-predictable  
>> because it's
>> impossible to determine the outcomes from the starting conditions,  
>> and no
>> amount of feedback loops will help us. There are lots of physical  
>> and social
>> phenomena of that kind. A lot of design fits into this type of  
>> phenomenon.
>> The best we can hope for is that we try out a prototype on a small  
>> scale,
>> and discover the unintended consequences, before we inflict them  
>> on an
>> unsuspecting world.
>>
>> As to the limited forms of prediction open to us in areas like my  
>> own, the
>> most we can really say with any confidence about the way people will
>> interact with our designs is based on the testing we do on  
>> prototypes before
>> implementation. There is no massive body of theory behind such  
>> prediction
>> but rather a simple assumption that if people can use a design in a
>> particular way during testing, they are likely to be able to use  
>> the design
>> in this way in the world. Or, put simply, if people can do  
>> something today,
>> they are likely to be able to do it again tomorrow. Equally, if  
>> they cannot
>> do it today, they are unlikely to be able to do it tomorrow: it's  
>> called
>> suck-it-and-see. Not much of a theory I admit, indeed not really a  
>> theory at
>> all, but about the best we have.
>>
>> If there is any theory it is the processes we use and the way we  
>> describe
>> them based on multiple individual cases. But even there, all we  
>> are really
>> saying is that using this process worked in the past, so lets use  
>> it again.
>>
>> David
>> --
>>
>> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
>> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>>
>>