Hi Gunnar,
Good to hear from you. I love reading your messages. Wow - design BEFORE
computers! Makes me remember when Aldus or Adobe added the new feature of
being able to show an image through a text outline. Design suddenly wasn't
'high quality' unless it had see-through text.
Yes, I agree with you about thinking whether design fields are simply 'true
in and of themselves' and exist separately with their own design theories.
Its a tempting idea that seems to solve a lot of problems.. In general
terms, this idea of incommensurability between design fields was proposed
with a very detailed justification by Sargent. When you test it, however, it
falls over.
The incommensurability axiom (my name for it) and any similar theories that
design fields' theories are each valid in their field and independent of any
other design field must satisfy the usual 'necessary and sufficient' test.
That is, does the theory (about independence/incommensurability of design
fields and their theories) explain 'all the necessary reasons' for the
phenomena (different theories and perspectives on design in different design
fields) and is it sufficient in and of itself' to explain these phenomena
(i.e are there bits left unexplained and does it require some extra theory
to complete the job). If its not 'necessary' and 'sufficient' then it fails
as a theory.
You can check for necessary and sufficiency conditions using as many tests
as needed. Some of the ones that disprove the incommensurability axiom and
similar theories are :
1. Are there epistemological foundations that work across design fields?
Yes, there are. So how does incommensurability explain this - it doesn't.
2. Does each design fields design theories stand up to critical scrutiny?
That is, are they theoretical entities unique to each design field that
themselves can represent each design field in its claim to uniqueness? The
answer , easily tested is NO. Design theories, definitions and theory
concepts in individual design fields do not stand up to critical scrutiny.
I've done this analysis for key theory elements such as 'design', 'design
process', 'design problems', 'design thinking', 'creativity', 'intuition',
'design and emotion', 'design cognition' and 'collaborative/participatory
theories of design' (see sundry of my papers).
3. Are the definitions and theories of each design field complete in and of
themselves? To check this requires developing an epistemological test of
coherency. This must offer a means to check whether any individual theory is
justifiably linked to theories above it and below it (i.e the theories that
it depends on and the other theories that depend on it), and whether these
make a coherent, complete, sensible and justifiable single theory body.
One of the outputs of my research in the 80s and 90s (and my PhD) was such
a test (the 'meta-theoretical hierarchy test' ) it was published in Design
Studies in 2000 (Love, T. (2000). Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical
Structure for Design Theory. Design Studies, 21(3), 293-313). If you cannot
easily get the original, there is a pre-print at ww.love.com.au .
4. Are there explanations of how designs are created in different design
fields that involve similar core foundations for explanations of processes,
activities and behaviours that apply across design fields? There are many
and for many different pathways. For example, the fact that humans are
involved in design in different design fields means that 'explanations of
the foundations of what it is to be human and create designs' applies across
design fields. Simialrly, the use of prior knowledge and experience
(learning - whether human or machine learning) applies across design fields.
Taken together (and there are more!), these are pretty strong evidence
against any claim for a theory of uniqueness of individual design fields.
Yet, it is self-evident that theories and practices developed in different
design fields differ.
There are two obvious potential explanations:
1. That theories in each design field accurately represent the specific
conditions of design activity in that particular field.
2. That the differences in theories in different design fields is due to
some other reason.
The first would make sense, except the different theories in individual
design fields don't stand up to critical epistemological scrutiny. Therefore
they cannot ' accurately represent the specific conditions of design
activity in that particular field'.
There are several possible explanations that fit the second point. The
'Parochiality Axiom' seems to be the simplest coherent theory that fits the
evidence.
The evidence for an overarching single theory of design is strong:
1. Design is an activity undertaken by humans and automated through other
mechanical means. The nature of 'what it is to be human' and the realities
of the worlds of the physical and subjective are the same in all areas of
design. Hence, it would be expected that foundational theories would apply
across all design fields.
2. Repairs to fix up the weaknesses in the design theories of individual
design fields result in theories that are very similar.
3. Identifying the exact bounds to design activities, theories and options
and the reasons for them provides a tight constraint on theory making for
all design fields and this results in similar design theories in all design
fields. (I seem to be the only design researcher working on this issue of
bounds. If you or anyone else knows of anyone else please could you let me
know?)
4. The purpose of all designs is as instructions to do or make something.
The uses of designs in production, manufacturing, service provision,
management etc. are all 'real world' activities. The similarities in the
nature of 'what designs are used for' results in similarities in the
theories about 'how to make designs that fulfil purposes in the world'.
5. All designs regardless of the design field involve and depend on
inclusion and consideration of 'social, environmental, ethical and technical
factors' . Hence, all complete theories about design regardless of the
design field must address how 'social, environmental, ethical and technical
factors' are integrated in the activity and outcomes of designing. This in
and of itself, presents a powerful limitation on variations in design
theory.
Looking forward to meeting up with you again. If I remember right, last
time we met was at the Undisciplined conference in Sheffield with
rock-climbing gymnasts doing somersaults over our beers and Chris Rust
bought the beer.
Again, I'm nowadays publishing my research and analyses direct to the public
domain. This email describes some of this research. I claim moral ownership
of this material, the research I've undertaken and the research findings and
ask that people reference and credit it appropriately if they use it in
their own research and publications.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----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 Gunnar
Swanson
Sent: Saturday, 30 June 2012 12:05 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Design fields research
Terry,
On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Terence Love wrote:
> one development I identified from researching design fields behaviour
> was the 'Parochiality Axiom'. In brief, this indicated that all
> individual design fields tend to create a sub-set of design theories
> and definitions that they regard as 'all of design'.
Is it possible that there is no "all of design," and each of the fields is
right? The people in design [definition x] have defined "all of design
[definition x]" and the people in design [definition y] have defined "all of
design [definition y]"? What is the evidence that there is an "all of
design" other than the accumulation of the various parochial design fields?
> This has many implications
> for understanding design theory more generally.
I am not claiming that there is no design theory more generally but I'm not
convinced that any more general theory can fully comprise the parochial
individual design fields.
> Another example was the 'Design Theories-Tools-Materials-Activities
> Dependency Axiom'. In brief, evidence across design fields indicates
> that design theories, concepts and ways of viewing design in any
> design field are, through psychological fixation, dependent on the
> design tools used in that design field and the material and activities of
design outcomes.
A few years back, I was teaching at University of California Davis and one
of my students proudly informed me that he'd come up with a great definition
of design: "Art using computers." He didn't have an answer when I asked him
what that did to the first decade of my design career.
But trying to avoid the sort of tautology common in the art world--art is
what artists do; artists are those who do art--leaves me not completely
clear when (as a practicing graphic design, design educator, and design
writer) a particular activity of mine is design and when a particular
activity of mine is not design. It's not surprising that people use "how I
get my job done" as a model for an activity that they have defined as
"design."
> Another example, is how design fields that use
> 'creativity' as one of their most common tools define design in terms of
> 'creativity'.
If creativity (make that "creativity." I think you're right to put it in
quotes) is central to design [definition x] but not to design [definition y]
and something not central to design [definition x] is central to design
[definition y], what is the hope of an "all of design" theory being central
to either?
On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Terence Love wrote:
> I claim moral ownership of this material, the research and research
> findings and ask that people reference and credit it appropriately if
> they use it in their own research and publications.
Someday when we find ourselves on the same continent again, I'd like to buy
you a beer and probe the "moral ownership" phrase. I suspect that might be
too cumbersome to do by email.
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|
