Hi Fill,

Just to clarify regarding your comment: "Lubomir,
I might suggest that a theory of *designing* is a methodology, but "design" should be recognized as usable as a noun too, theories of which would then
not necessarily be methodologies."

What you say is correct. I make a shortcut. In the context of this thread, I am talking only about theories of designing. When we look at the discipline of design, we will have several types of theories. We will have theories of natural phenomena (e.g. human-environment interactions) and theories about designing these interactions or designing for these interactions. The discipline and profession of design involves many types of theories, like theories about the natural, the artificial, the process of artification, the dialectics of natural and artificial, and so on. 

Here we enter into a labyrinth of types and possibilities. I will abstain of going further, at least at this moment.

Best,

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 Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theoretical Issues for Design Thinking

Adam,
Yes, there are exceptions; that's why I included all those ifs ands and
buts. :)

Indeed, I might suggest that if innovation seems to happen when an expert in
one field is exposed to a (substantively) different field, then we *should*
keep quite crisp boundaries between disciplines to ensure that those
conditions can be made to happen.  If fields are not kept separate, then no
expert will ever be exposed to an "other" field and thus not be in a
situation where innovation can happen....

Engineers have no problem with "sloppy" boundaries.  Indeed, every boundary
in nature is not-crisp.  We call them "boundary layers" - regions where a
phenomenon transitions between two sometimes very different regimes of
behaviour.  I'm a big fan of boundary layers - what others might call "the
grey area in the middle."

Lubomir,
I might suggest that a theory of *designing* is a methodology, but "design"
should be recognized as usable as a noun too, theories of which would then
not necessarily be methodologies.

Cheers.
Fil

On 19 February 2011 10:30, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> When you use "may" in the paragraph below you actually put us in a
> conundrum. No one can refute you because the contingent nature of "may." You
> leave a lot of room open for interpreting your statement.
>
> Also, it depends on how you interpret what is a design theory. If you say
> that most theories can be used or contribute in some way, then again, it is
> difficult to argue.
>
> If we develop a more clear categorization of types of theories, and if we
> define a design theory much closer in relation to the design process, then
> we can say that design theories are a particular class of theories that may
> or may not be accepted by general philosophy of science as theories.
>
> Actually, a real design theory is a methodology. Theory of an activity
> (design is an activity, research too) is a methodology. Methodology is the
> study or/and theorizing about methods. From this position, theories about
> doing can be interpreted in a completely new ways and can be differentiated
> very easily from theories about natural phenomena. Here I have to mention
> that I simplify the subject matter. Once we enter the realm of design
> theory, we open Pandora's box. We have to consider a number of aspects and
> situations. We also need to use the apparatus of the science of artificial
> (as much as it exists), theory of ratification, and so on. In this way we
> will come to the need of developing a General Theory of Artification and
> actually a relevant discipline in order to deal with the questions posed by
> the nature of design theory. I construe ratification as a more general
> notion than design.
>
> Best,
>
> 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 jeremy
> hunsinger
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 9:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theoretical Issues for Design Thinking
>
> yes, most theories may be a design theory.  It depends on designers.   this
> is the problem of definitions, which is a classical modern problem.  almost
> every definition that centers on a process that is general in society has
> problems at the boundaries.   the question is how hard you want to make the
> boundaries, i'd say make the boundaries soft like those around games and
> play instead of hard like those around 'frying an egg'
>
> Jeremy Hunsinger
> Center for Digital Discourse and Culture
> Virginia Tech
>
>
>
> Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
> -Jules de Gaultier
>
> () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
> /\ - against microsoft attachments
>



-- 
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/