Hi, Terry,
It still seems to me that you don’t quite understand the issues at stake in history or historical studies.
The argument I make for history and historical studies is not a matter of theory formation. I say this as aproponent of theory and the importance of theory construction, and I think it’s fair to say my work in this area is widely acknowledged and cited. (See, f.ex., Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5).
The value of history involves understanding the past, developing a repertoire of situated examples, forming a basis for ethical decisions based on past actions and consequences, and shaping a conversation across generations. I could repeat Victor, Derek, and Kari, and I could also apply what Don said with respect to different approaches to teaching and using history.
History and historical studies are not studies in design theory. We need history and theory both. They are different. Each is necessary. Both are valuable.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty ofDesign | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design>
|