Dear All,
Reading the current thread, I find myself wondering whether people
really have a sense of what theory is and what relation theory has to
practice. The issue is not the problem of a false dichotomy between
theory and practice. It is rather that some folks imagine there to be an
abstract function in the world known as "theory" and another function
known as "practice" that has properties inconsistent with theory.
Practice is inextricably linked with many kinds of knowledge. To reach
from abstract knowledge (information) to doing requires practice. To
reach from doing to active knowledge (embodied, practical knowledge,
deep knowledge, mastery), one requires the articulation and critical
inquiry that allows a practitioner to gain reflective insight. W.
Edwards Deming (1986: 19) explains it: “Experience alone, without
theory, teaches ... nothing about what to do to improve quality and
competitive position, nor how to do it. If experience alone would be a
teacher, then one may well ask why are we in this predicament?
Experience will answer a question, and a question comes from theory.”
At the risk of immodesty, I'll point to an article in Design Studies
that explains what theory is, how we build it, and what to do with it:
Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research:
criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003),
507–522.
You can find a slightly earlier and more extended version in the
proceedings of the DRS Common Ground conference:
Friedman, Ken. 2002. “Theory Construction in Design Research.
Criteria, Approaches, and Methods.” In Common Ground. Proceedings of
the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel
University, September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton,
Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 388-414.
You can download a version of my final draft here:
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:9598?conjunction2=AND&field2=Text&from=&query3=&conjunction1=AND&field3=Text&to=&query2=&f0=subject%3A%22Design+research%22&field1=creator&query1=Friedman&y=6&source=Advanced&x=35
This and other recent threads address provocative points. I'd be more
comfortable if I had the sense that these conversations demonstrated a
sense of what we already know about these issues. But that brings us
back to Don Norman's (2010) comment on how often our papers and
conversations fail to address what is already known.
Best regards,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Dean, Faculty of Design |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
References
Deming, W. Edwards. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Quality, Productivity and
Competitive Position. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, Don. 2010. "Why design Education Must Change." Core77. 26
November 2010. URL:
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp
|