the following might help clarify the different Things we mean by Theory
and Model in the Social Sciences
http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp99_33.htm
Dr Gavin Melles
Head, Industrial & Interior Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Office: +613 92146851
Mobile: +61 (0)414374368
Skype: gavin.melles
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 05/09/10 12:04 PM >>>
Since we're sharing definitions, let me through a few others into the
mix:
Model: an incomplete/imperfect representation of a thing intended for
some
specific purpose.
Theory: a model of a thing intended to explain certain features or
behaviours of it.
In the case of both terms, I tend to think that one can rank alternative
models or theories based on these characteristics:
* the simpler the model/theory, the better;
* the fewer violations with other knowledge not covered by the
model/theory,
the better;
* the greater predictive power of the model/theory, the better.
2 cents.
Cheers.
Fil
On 6 May 2010 08:48, Jean Schneider <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Eduardo and Terry,
>
> I must say that I don't understand what is at stake. It seems to me
that
> there is a confusion between "theory" and "model".
> A theory (at least as I understand it) is declarative. A model is
> prescriptive. A theory can exist without any model; a model can exist
> without a theory behind. Because both of them often use the rethorics
of the
> hard sciences, both might appear formal enough to support this
confusion.
> The touchpoint between the two is when they are performative : when,
within
> a given situation, they allow you to distinguish between "cause" and
> "consequence", for instance...
> But it seems to me that the scope of design escapes partly from
formalism,
> and therefore that there is little benefit to gain from theory. Or,
should I
> say : the benefits can be political (more respect, more funding, more
> teachers... more power etc.), and this can justify the effort; but are
> limited when we come to "the act of designing".
> This doesn't mean at all that I am against rigour : in the words, in
the
> discourse, in practice. There is a need for clarification,
articulation,
> concepts etc. But the challenge is to avoid falling into formalism.
Maybe my
> lazyness puts me to think that if so many clever people have tried to
> develop theories of design that never went beyond a school and some
books,
> it must be because something essential lies elsewhere and escapes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean
> Le 4 mai 10 à 18:50, Eduardo Corte Real a écrit :
>
>
> Dear Terry,
>>
>> As you probably know, otherwise you wouldn’t ask, Disegno helped to
>> separate the intellectual work of artists from the hand work of
artisans.
>> For me this is the real root of Design as a discipline and a
profession. I
>> refuse to call Designer (this implies both discipline and profession)
to
>> someone that works other than in the theoretical level. A Design is
always a
>> theory about how a thing will perform.
>>
>> Let me go back in time. A few months ago, talking with Victor
Margolin,
>> and Rachel Cooper, heading for the Lisbon Museum of Design, MUDE, I
risked a
>> definition (it is more a kind of declaration): “A theory is an
explicative
>> description of identified regularities in the real done in a
stenographic
>> way.” (well we discussed it briefly and seemed a little bit crooked
>>
>> I should briefly state what I mean by Explicative Description,
Regularity
>> and Stenography:
>>
>> Explicative Description: an account of something resulting from its
>> perceivable features and their relations.
>>
>> Regularity: an order or disposition of repetitions and
non-repetitions.
>>
>> Stenography: an abstract economical symbolic system
>>
>> So, expanding:
>>
>> A theory is an account of an order or disposition of repetitions and
>> non-repetitions, resulting from their perceivable features, in the
real,
>> done by an abstract economical symbolic system.
>>
>> W>> something abstract and more economic than the real. The stenography
may be
>> highly sophisticated or very simple. It can range from classical
Greek to
>> Post Modern Mathematics. In the stenography we find the possibility
of
>> working “outside the real” we have explained descriptively and
generate new
>> hypothesis or make predictions relying in the regularities we once
found.
>>
>> The other meaning of Disegno, Drawing, is the most incredible of
theories
>> when, finally gave visibility to the Euclidean Geometry. Alas, all of
the
>> sudden: A descriptive explanatory device that we can abstractly
manipulate
>> to create (and here is the twist) not predict, new facts concordant
with the
>> identified regularities. Disegno was a Design theory in the sense
that was
>> putting new regularities in the real in concordance with the
Euclidean
>> Theory of Space.
>>
>> Disegno was so cool that it was also the place for mediating and
>> negotiating several other theories like Astrology, or the aesthetics
of
>> classical orders or physiognomy, before putting something into
production.
>>
>> Well, but these guys were our grandparents, and what about now?
>>
>> Change some of the names of the sciences and you will have it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Eduardo Côrte-Real
>>
>> Dr Arq. Ass. Professor, IADE - Lisbon
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04-05-2010 15:14, Terence Love wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eduardo,
>>>
>>> How are you going. My complements to your daughter. She sounds a
delight.
>>> Complements to your other children also.
>>>
>>> I've found it helpful to distinguish between design and theory:
>>>
>>> 'Design': a description of how to make or do something.
>>>
>>> 'Theory': a description of how and why the behaviour of somethings
change
>>> as a result of changes in the behaviour of other things.
>>>
>>> Does this fit with the Designo view of design?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> -----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
>>> Eduardo Corte Real
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2010 6:06 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Theory Construction Challenge
>>>
>>> Dear List,
>>> Thank you guys for trying to develop a theory of theories while
trying
>>> to define a theory of practice.
>>>
>>> I’m very lucky if i try to do it also because my younger daughter
(10
>>> year old) is always making theories, in a daily basis, to be more
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> She normally starts with “Dad, I have a theory about…
>>>
>>> She also engages normally in several projects that include fairies,
>>> giraffes, pirates that end in something that vaguely looks like an
>>> illustrated book, even with accidental pop ups, or, to my dismay, in
>>> PowerPoint presentations.
>>>
>>> Her theories range from “why my second button in the uniform is
always
>>> falling down” to “what will happen to the volcano ashes”…
>>>
>>> Being such a theoretical character she has no theories about her
>>> projects… It is a mystery for me how can she engage in so many
practical
>>> projects without any theory construction related to that.
>>>
>>> Before you start calling me Forrest Gump let’s move to another
level.
>>>
>>> “There is nothing more practical than a good theory”. I read this
>>> sentence in the TAP Air Portugal magazine, making time for one of
those
>>> brilliant aero meals. This was proclaimed by the CEO of EFACEC, one
of
>>> the biggest electromechanical companies in Portugal. This guy
discovered
>>> something that my daughter will soon discover. The pun isolates
theory
>>> as something different from practice however essential for practice.
>>>
>>> Either if I’m trying to find the Higgs boson by crushing particles
or
>>> design a silent vacuum cleaner I rely in the relation of theory with
>>> practice.
>>>
>>> At the first sight a Design Theory would be a theory of Practice.
Ken
>>> a>>> sometimes a theory about NOT substituting things for others just
because
>>> a guy in Perth happens to suggest it. Part of the theoretical part
of
>>> Ken’s discourse is describing a system. The other part, the part of
how
>>> can we, BEFORE doing it, improve an existing system is the Design
Theory
>>> part.
>>>
>>> You may say: wait are you, c’mon are you suggesting that Design
Theory
>>> is equal to Design?
>>>
>>> Yes, Design is the theoretical way of doing things. That’s what
>>> differentiates the act of changing my position in bed into a
preferred
>>> one from designing a laptop computer that is also a toothbrush.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Eduardo
>>>
>>>
>>>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
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/
|