Terry,
I am sadly now even more confused.
You state:
> For any single theory to make sense it has to
> link with theories on all layers.
Why? I don't see the necessity in this statement. This is an assertion not an argument. One could equally well assert that a theory can only make sense if it ignores any link with theories on other levels.
What has to be teased out here is what you might mean by 'making sense'. Is there some type of 'making sense' that is better than some other? If you believe that is the case then you are arguing for a particular epistemology, a type of knowledge that is for some reason better than other types of knowledge. Is that what you want to argue (or just assert)?
Your example of the medicine bottle example—one I know a little about—seems oddly confusing to me.
You state:
> There are many types of theory about how people interpret and act on the
> instructions on a medicine bottle.
Fascinating! What are these types of theory. Can you point me to the literature? Or are you just saying that there are many possible ways of explaining how people interpret and act on the instructions on a medicine bottle? If the latter, then you are not really saying anything very interesting. The interesting question for me is which of the many possible explanations is the one or group of explanations that enables me to do something useful, like design a better label, or help governments regulate the design of labels and provide industry with guidelines on how to design better labels.
You go on to state:
> At the moment, the theories don't fit together well
> with each other, with the empirical evidence and with theories more broadly
> (neuro-cognition, affective-cognition, cultural factors social issues...)
> and they don't define design guidelines.
Now I always thought that theory and 'empirical evidence' go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. Are you suggesting a kind of radical empiricism in which 'empirical evidence' is theory free?
Also what is the imperative that makes it necessary for theories to fit together. Is this some form of academic housekeeping in a messy world. (BTW, we have sign up in our office which says: 'a tidy home is a sign of a wasted life').
There is not much point in bringing in 'neuro-cognition, affective-cognition, cultural factors, social issues... etc etc, unless these things can usefully add to what we want to do, which is help the public avoid death and harm by misreading medicine labels and misusing medicine. However, if they can be demonstrated to be useful, bring them in.
As to the question of design guidelines, we seem to have done quite well in developing those both for regulators and industry. Now there is always room for doing things better, and taking account of the context in which medicine labels are used is part of that, as are the findings and ideas from of other disciplines. But is it really necessary or even productive to cloak any of this in terms such as 'theory', 'epistemology' or 'neuro-cognition'
These terms seem to me to be the sorts of things you put in fairy tales or text books to frighten little students. If what you are saying, through all of this is that we need to be systematic and rigorous in our thinking about what we do and how it might relate to things that other people do, well of course we should! And should we look at our own thinking and that of others and try and see common patterns that we might usefully share, well yes indeed! And should we question the assumptions that lurk in our thinking, yes we should!
Now, having cleared the decks, what is this new field of design research?
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
|