Hi Fil, Andy and all,
Peirce was perhaps the main original proponent and definer of abduction.
His definition of 'abduction' was 'to guess' - nothing more complex.
This suggests that the value of the concept of abduction is limited in
design research unless one creates a whole lot more theory sophistication
about the activity of 'making a guess'.
In which case, using the term (and concept of) 'abduction' (with its
limited meaning) isn't that helpful.
Best wishes,
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 Filippo
A. Salustri
Sent: Friday, 1 April 2011 3:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in desgin [was: NASA,
Hasmat, etc.]
Andy et al,
I agree with you:
> The key difference between the natural sciences and design synthesis is
the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning.
Though I'm not sure if it's *the* key difference or just *a* key difference.
My question is: why do I find myself agreeing with both Derek and Andy?
Cheers.
Fil
On 31 March 2011 06:15, Andy Polaine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi folks, this is really a follow on of Derek's post that started with
"Does anyone remember: NASA, 1980s, Hazmat,the future?"
>
> Derek wrote:
>
>> My observation has been less eloquent that yours. It's more Austin Powers
than Blake, namely, "They'll steal my mojo!"
>>
>> The funny thing about scientists is that they don't fear this. Yes,
someone else might "get there" first, or worse, a competing theory may win
out, and all that bother, but there isn't a sense of being redundant as soon
as one becomes proficient. In fact, I'm argue that serious scientists, upon
achieving a certain level of expertise, realize how rare indeed they are in
the world, and how much value they can offer.
>>
>> I hope designers get there too. I don't think all design practice should
be elevated to theory, just as I'm not convinced that the art of writing can
be taught, whereas the craft indeed can be (I'm thinking of John Gardner
here, who was divine at teaching this). But just as one can practice writing
or study it as literature, I see a future when design too may need to grow
comfortable with its duality, just as the productiion of literature is not,
and need not be informed by, the theory of it. And so too can great
historians and theorists exist on writing without even trying their hand at
the craft.
>
> As you and I have talked about before before, I think you're making
assumptions about the way designers work and what they value here in the
same way that you would accuse designers of making assumptions about the
fields your working in and that design is wanted to tackle (social issues,
development, etc.). I can understand why, because I think designers have
themselves to blame in this regard – the analytical process of synthesis,
moving from research data to insights to concept ideation, is poorly
articulated and poorly documented by designers themselves. Yet it's perhaps
the most crucial part of design activity, more so than the artefacts –
images, diagrams, objects, products – that are most often considered
"design".
>
> Designers have also too often bought into the idea of "mojo," of talent
and inspiration being their secret ingredient to what they do. It is, I
believe, a reaction to the way the arts are positioned in school education
versus the STEM - science, technology, engineering and maths - subjects. I
don't really want to veer off into that area now, but the key point is that
buying into the talent myth not only re-charges the ego, but also gives
designers something of worth that they feel they can sell. This is a
terrible error on the part of design because it hides the very process
(synthesis) that it should be making a point of explicitly stating. It also
devalues the experience and practice that goes into making a good designer.
(It's also why it is offensive to say a musician who practices 4 hours a day
is "lucky" to be so "talented").
>
> The key difference between the natural sciences and design synthesis is
the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning. That's a
comparison that one can intellectually grapple with and each side can state,
analyse and value (if they're open enough to it). Normally the
science/design difference is stated as reason versus "mojo" – by both
designers and non-designers. That's not and apples to apples comparison and
it's also one deeply damaging to design. Historians and archeologists, to
mention just two areas with established methdologies, both use abductive
reasoning to work with incomplete data and draw "best guess" conclusions. In
both cases these can also be prototyped and tested, which is what design
does, of course.
>
> By failing to articulate this properly, the field of design has set up a
false dichotomy between theory and practice (and practice and research) that
is less prevalent, if at all, in the natural sciences. A scientist in a lab
doing research is doing science and is using and developing theories. Design
education has generally failed to integrate these and so design practice is
seen as a different thing from design theory or research. This is a huge
problem for students and educators, because the practice vs theory rift in
institutions is quite prevalent and ultimately destructive.
>
> Practice is theory and research. At least it should be and most practicing
designers do do this even when they don't articulate and thus can't sell,
explain or argue the case for it. That leaves it open to the accusations
that you make, Derek. I'm going to quote your lecture on design and ethics
back to you and others on the list, because (apart from the slightly
patronising use of "grown up") it sums up the issue very well:
>
> "These [armed conflict, violence, peace, security and development] are
real, grown up issues that need real, grown up attention by people who are
committed — professionally – to trying to figure out what is wrong with
their own ideas, and not what is right about them. Designers are worryingly
not involved in that process. Design is trying to prove itself, rather than
disprove itself. It is the latter, though, that will serve the social good."
>
> As you point out, science tries to disprove itself all the time. That's
what powers its advance and allows the rather odd combination of
simultaneous competition, sharing and collaboration. I think design is well
placed to add a powerful set of insights and approaches to science's often
too reductive nature, especially with regards to human interactions, issues
and needs. Analysing and designing solutions for these is what design has a
long history and deep understanding of. The problem isn't a lack of ability
or maturity, it's a lack of vocabulary (which, one might argue, maybe comes
with maturity).
>
> Design's adoption and engagement with methods and practices from areas
such as sociology (specifically ethnography) and psychology – to name but
two – is a positive step, not only because it makes for better design
practice based on grounded, human-centred foundations, but also because
those fields have more established and better articulated methodologies
that can add to design's vocabulary.
>
> Refs:
>
> Here's the link to Derek's lecture for those who are interested:
http://www.unidir.org/bdd/unidir-views-fiche.php?ref_uv=27
>
> Much of my thinking on synthesis has been inspired and influence by Jon
Kolko's writing on the subject:
http://www.jonkolko.com/writingAbductiveThinking.php and
http://www.jonkolko.com/writingSensemaking.php and his recent book:
http://www.methodsofsynthesis.com/
>
> p.s. Derek, I don't agree with the point about not doing a PhD in creative
writing, but that's another conversation that turns around the word "in."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
> –
> Hochschule Luzern
> Design & Kunst
>
> Sentimatt 1 | Dammstrasse, CH-6003 Luzern
> T +41 41 228 54 64, F +41 41 228 56 99
> M +49 151 1964 2581
> Skype: apolaine
> Twitter: apolaine
> http://www.hslu.ch/design-kunst/
>
> Dr. Andy Polaine
> Forschungsdozent Service Design
> Research Fellow / Lecturer Service Design
>
> T direkt: +41 41 249 92 25
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Co-author: http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/service-design/
>
>
>
>
>
--
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/
|