Dear Ken and All,
Thanks for your detailed description. For me the problem with that kind of description is that it seems too altruistic as if the understanding of the why and how comes from abstractly observing codified interactions of practitioners.
I suggest looking at the personal and emotional drivers of why people create and use theory gives a potentially better understanding of how theory and practice fit together.
From observation (and some research) of engineering design, information systems, organisation design and management the main drivers for creating and using theory seem to be:
1. Avoiding financial adverse litigation and other costs from failures. In this case, theory helps predicting design outcomes to minimise these financial costs.
2. Monetising theory. This includes gaining financial benefit by competitive advantage; selling theory (patents, consultants etc); , keeping one's job (for academics); using status from theory creation and use as the basis for income generation.
3. Habituation and repetition (driven by education and training, shortage of time, lack of energy, authority issues etc)
Discussions about the relationship between theory and practice often seems to assume the interaction between theory and practice is altruistic and the understanding of the process defined only by process logic deciphered via observation.
Focusing on the personal and social motivations of the creation and use of theory provides a different, more practical and in many ways , deeper, explanation of such behavioural observations of the relationship between theory making and use and practice.
This, however, leads into difficult terrain around personal issues that many researchers avoid.
For example, it suggests a better starting point of understanding the relationship between theory creation and use and professional practice is in terms of personal fear, greed, and repetition.
It implies a better understanding of the issues comes from a better understanding of how personal attributes and emotions drive the social dynamics of professional practices (including research theory-making).
Similar reasoning would likely apply to understanding the success or otherwise of highly innovative firms such as Apple and IBM.
Terry
==
Love Design and Research
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
=
-----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 Ken Friedman
Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2012 6:54 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Theory-Practice-Theory was: Anybody want my Job?
Dear Friends,
This is an amusing quote, but once it goes round the third time on a research list, I'd say it requires a brief comment. It is not correct practice follows theory, at least not the way it is stated. Theory in nearly every professional practice builds on inductive observation. In the theory of research-based practice, therefore, most form of serious practice start with observing what works, what doesn't, how things work, the context in which things work differently in changing context, and so on. Then you try things out, tweak, and see what happens. In any serious professional practice, however, it is equally untrue that theory follows practice as though the only theory that works follows practice. A great deal of modern medicine grew on theories following from inductive observation of what did NOT work. People tried out different things based on various theories, and some of these slowly moved through argument and contestationto become a usable theory of medicine. If theory followed practice without the rich cycle of interaction between practice and theory that is typical of advanced medical practice, physicians would still be bleeding and purging us, while they'd be performing surgery in street clothes as they smoke cigars, and they would not wash their hands. I am always skeptical when designers use such quotes, since much work in our field probably functions at the level of medicine in the 1890s: things don't work and we don't know why. Fortunately, this is not the case across the entire field, and we have pools of excellence based on empirical research and a close relationship between practice and theory and practice and theory in increasingly improved cycles, along with a better understanding of what works, how and why. Knowing what Chris actually did at Sheffield Hallam and knowing the quality of his PhD graduates, I'd say that this typifies the work that Chris has been doing. Back to bicycle quote, says I.
Ken Friedman
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:41:45 +0000, Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
" In theory, practice follows theory, in practice theory follows practice".
|