Friends,
The thread on theory and theory construction in design addresses issues
that we've talked about for several years. While it seems to me that the
conversation reveals new issues and considerations in each iteration, I
suspect one or two basics have vanished.
Theory can be described in many ways. Some theories are complex and
sophisticated. Others are simple. Thomas Mautner (1996: 426) defines
theory as “a set of propositions which provides principles of analysis
or explanation of a subject matter. Even a single proposition can be
called a theory.” I've always seen a good theory as a kind of model.
Like a model train or a model of the solar system, it bears a
relationship to that which it describes. When it works, you can see in
it the properties of the thing modeled or described in the theory to
understand it better. What makes profound theory exciting is that in
some cases, the model reveals properties that have hitherto been unclear
or hidden, or it demonstrates relationships.
The problem of levels of theory that Terry describes involves a range
of properties that ought to obtain in a theory that describes things
well. Donald McNeil (1993: 8) proposes eleven characteristics of any
general theory. 1) A theory has a constitutive core of concepts mutually
interrelated with one another. 2) A theory has a mutually productive,
generative connection between central concepts and the peripheral
concepts where theory verges onto practice. 3) The core concepts of a
theory are stated in algorithmic compression, parsimonious statements
from which the phenomena in the theory can be reproduced. 4) A theory
has an irreducible core of concepts, a set of concepts in which no
central concept can be removed without altering the scope and
productivity of the theory or perhaps destroying it entirely. 5) Two or
more of the core concepts in a theory must be complementary to each
other. 6) The central concepts of a theory must be well defined and must
harmonize as much as possible with similar concepts of enlightened
discourse. 7) The central concepts of a theory must be expressed at a
uniform level of discourse. Different levels of discourse must be
distinguished and used consistently. 8) More general theories
(higher-level theories) must relate to less general theories
(lower-level theories) and to special cases through a principle of
correspondence. This principle confirms and guarantees the consistency
of the more particular theories and their applications. 9) Explicitly or
implicitly, a theory describes dynamic flows with contours that trace
relatively closed loops as well as relatively open links. 10) A theory
states invariant entities in its assumptions or formulas that provide
standards for measurement. 11) Theories describe phenomena in the
context of a conceptual space. This implicitly establishes a
relationship between the observer and the phenomena observed.
That's kind of a long way round, but there is a reason for each of
these criteria -- there are also theories that do not function as
general theories that still help us to understand things.
Nearly all design proceeds from some kind of theorizing -- that is,
some kind of model of how things work. Even though we may not state our
theories explicitly or even understand them well, we use them. One of
the aims of design research is to surface and render implicit theories
explicit as part of the work of understanding better what we do.
As I see it, this is an area where design research has much to offer
design practice. I'm not proposing that every designer should be a
theorist -- I am saying that every designer in some sense adopts
theories of design activity and puts them to work. Because of this, the
role of design research in understanding better a theory (or theories)
of design also helps to advance design practice. We require bridges
between the two realms to serve the design profession by doing so -- but
we don't serve the design profession very well at all if we leave the
serious work of theory construction undone.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
References
Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
McNeil, Donald H. 1993. “Reframing systemic paradigms for the art of
learning.” Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics.
|