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.
>
> Well where the pig twists its tail is precisely in the stenography,  
> 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
>> answered Terry’s challenge by not answering it. Design Theory is
>> 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
>>
>>