Dear Gavin
Interesting and useful link in your post, particularly in light of the reaction to the crisis in Greece as a design problem. I would suggest that arguably, business managers’ current strong interest in design has evolved in three steps. Initially, design was seen as a marketing tool, more specifically as an approach to improving the look and feel of products. Next, designers were acknowledged as experts in understanding and shaping human experience. Hence, instead of restricting their role to ‘packaging’, designers got involved throughout the entire development process, tasked with creating ‘high-experience’ products and services. Finally, designers are increasingly seen as role models for creative problem solving, especially for creatively resolving tensions between economic, technological and aesthetic constraints. It seems to me that once you separate out the domain specific skills the process becomes a dance between judgement and ideation, very much located in the live world and the unity of of experience. As Simon said,
> Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. (Simon, 1996: 111)
Being trained as an architect (where it seemed that no problem was not a design problem) this makes perfect sense to me. Consider the opportunities that communication technology presents in light of a Habermmasian communicative ethics approach to design, where those impacted, including previously silent voices (ANT) actually have a say in the world we live in and the possibilities of computer modelling. Personally, I am terrified at the state of the world that I my daughter is inheriting and sincerely believe that we need to put some of the more creative minds and more resources into that problem space. If people react against calling this design, so be it, but as Einstein said, you cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it.
regards
we
On 2010-05-09, at 12:12 AM, Gavin Melles wrote:
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/
|