Hi Lubomir,

I must agree with much of what you argue here. I'm not sure I can agree yet
with the idea that your structure of enquiry is a universal, but certainly
it is an algorithmic process one could use.

The reason I compared these two views was to throw the pair into contrast as
two possible alternate cultures, not to propose them, but as a prelude to
asking for diversity. One should also be aware that there may be more than
these, of course - I don't see this as a binary, or even two points on a
continuum.

You raised some very valid objections to each model, particularly the
dangers of positivism which I point to elsewhere on this list; however, I
also feel each has a role to play in a multi-perspective approach to design
as an activity. I suspect that in order to reconcile these, (groan, here
comes the old saw...) further work is required...

I would distinguish a theory, in the strict sense Terry uses, from a
concept. I think that, for design, further work might be beneficial if it
were done at the conceptual, pre-theoretic level - the level at which we
structure our thinking into theories. Pre-theoretic conceptualisations seem
to be at the root of the major disputes on this thread anyway...

Cheers
Adam


On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Dear Adam,
>
> Your statement is very interesting: "the idea of a syncretic, cohesive
> identity
> to design theory might be a mirage - or, dare I say it, a delusion?"
>
> The first step to developing a theory is to pose the question: Is this
> theory possible? The second step is to ask: How is this theory possible?
> Actually, this is a universal algorithm in developing conceptual products.
>
> You also mention: " The question is - what are we interested in doing?
> Prescribing what design theory will be from very clear prebaked definitions,
> or allowing lived
> socially-defined design practices to inform our theorising?"
>
> There should be several caveats here. If you develop a notion of design
> theory based on contemporary practices we risk to follow a fad, a desire,
> and so on. If we ask our design colleagues about the research they are doing
> and on the basis of their answers we develop a notion of research, I bet
> that this picture will be completely different than the current notions in
> philosophy of science. (Consider the pressure of academic requirements for
> promotion that press designers to name everything they do as research.)
>
> Institutionalizing a status quo or a desire or a label/name is a risky way
> of developing a notion of design theory.
>
> On the other hand, a top-down, deductive approach might be equally
> dangerous. Imposing positivist criteria from the natural sciences might be
> detrimental to the development of design theory.
>
> The concept of theory is borrowed and used by many professions and
> disciplines in very different ways. Crime investigators develop their
> theories. Actually, these a hypotheses or conjectures that they go on the
> field to prove. Their "theories" guide their acts and their search. In this
> regard it can be conceptualized even as a methodology of the search.
> Actually, many theories can assume methodological status if they are used as
> guiding tools. If the investigators do not resolve the crime, their
> theory/hypothesis is refuted. If they resolve the crime, they this "theory"
> is confirmed by the very act of their professional success.
>
> Above I touched the issues of methologization of a theory. If a theory
> becomes an instrument for doing something, it acquires a methodological
> status and has to be treated accordingly in methodological context. However,
> the methodologization of a theory usually involves complex translation and a
> lot of innovation and invention. When we accept that there is nothing more
> practical than a good theory (Kurt Lewin), we mean that opportunity.
> However, a theory for itself and by itself is not a tool. It has to be
> translated, transform, adapted, and so on, so that it can be used as a
> guiding tool in performing particular activity.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lubomir
>
>
> -----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 Adam
> Parker
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 10:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theoretical Issues for Design Thinking
>
> To try to extract something for myself from Jeremy's and Terry's comments
> to
> date:
>
> Given this idea of Jeremy's, that there is a socio-cultural construction of
> design theory's identity through exhaustive taxonomic cataloguing, as
> opposed to Terry's construction of a design theoretic process that seeks to
> abstract categories, we seem to have at least two seemingly valid ways of
> contemplating how design theory is to be built from the ground up - and, a
> comparison that demonstrates that the idea of a syncretic, cohesive
> identity
> to design theory might be a mirage - or, dare I say it, a delusion?
>
> The question is - what are we interested in doing? Prescribing what design
> theory will be from very clear prebaked definitions, or allowing lived
> socially-defined design practices to inform our theorising?
>
> Must we be forced to abandon one in order faithfully to serve the other?
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > >Jeremy: yes, most theories may be a design theory.
> >
> > Then probably best to not use concept of 'design theory' as it doesn't
> > define anything.
> > Too inefficient for discussion except by academics who need word volume.
> > T
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Parker
> Senior Lecturer, Games Design
> Qantm College
>
> Qantm College Melbourne Campus
> 235 Normanby Rd
> South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia
>
> +61 (0) 3 8632 3400   | Phone
> +61 (0) 3 8632 3401   | Fax
>
> www.sae.edu  | Web
> www.qantm.com.au  | Web
> www.saeshortcourses.com  | Web
>
> SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F.
> SAE
> Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973
>
> This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject
> to
> legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
> email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
> intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with
> any
> copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes saving,
> printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and may result
> in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you wish to
> unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic messages
> from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send an email
> this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>



-- 
Adam Parker
Senior Lecturer, Games Design
Qantm College

Qantm College Melbourne Campus
235 Normanby Rd
South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia

+61 (0) 3 8632 3400   | Phone
+61 (0) 3 8632 3401   | Fax

www.sae.edu  | Web
www.qantm.com.au  | Web
www.saeshortcourses.com  | Web

SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F. SAE
Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973

This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with any
copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes saving,
printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and may result
in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you wish to
unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic messages
from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send an email
this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.