Dear Andy,

You asked 

> For such a new theory frame for design research to be successful, the
primary criteria of its comprehensiveness is whether it can explain and
predict mistakes and failures in individuals design activities and in the
development of designs that fail.

I'm curious as to why the prediction of mistakes and failures should be the
primary criterium. There are several other criteria that one might focus on
(the ability to achieve a certain goal, the ability to affect behaviour,
etc.)

Answer: It's a standard test for good theory making and encourages deeper
learning and understanding.

Its effortless to make theories that explain a limited picture of a
phenomenon (such as the ability to achieve a certain goal).  It's usually
possible to think up  many theories that will do that job. The problem is
that then people tend to assume that that theory will predict more that it
was  invented to do - there is no reason, however, why it  should be valid
for anything more than it was invented
Except... if theories will represent a phenomena accurately AND will
accurately represent , explain and predict  failures in that phenomenon,
then the theory's predictive scope is more reliable, more extensive and less
illusory.

Example 1: make up a theory about why bridges stay up - attached to
invisible balloons; God holds them up; localised negative gravity,....?
Now make up a theory that explains and predicts the conditions in which a
bridge will fail. Looking at the specifics of the cusp with failures
requires better understanding and better theory.

Example 2: Make a theory about how people think - ideas in the head, little
pictures on a screen in the brain, god sends images into people using
angels...?
Now make up a theory that explains how thinking can stop and why people go
mad, and predicts the conditions in which both happen.

Example 3:  Make up a theory of thinking up designs - special genius; skills
at 'design thinking'; collaboration between designers...?
Now think up a theory that explains exactly why designers sometimes cannot
think up designs and  think up designs that don't work, and accurately
predicts when these will happen.

It's an old test and teaching method. For example it's found in the
Naqsbandi (? - can someone confirm or otherwise?) Islamic design method of
'always designing in a single mistake'.  If one tries, for example to design
in a single mistake in a drawing of  a circle, one soon finds out that one
needs to know a lot more about what it means for something to be a circle.


Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI 

Senior Lecturer,  Design
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]

Director, Design-based Research Unit, Design Out Crime Research Centre

Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal

Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________