Dear Esra,
A defining factor in your question is 'purpose'.
Why would you want to know more about the 'concept of function'?
The most obvious reason is to *use* your 'improved knowledge of the concept
of function' in a different way from how it would normally be used.
Three issues come to mind:
1. The large number of variants of meaning of the term function in existing
disciplines. The variation in meaning of the use of the term 'function'
across all disciplines is far larger than across the 700 or so design
disciplines and that is far larger than the variant in meaning of
'function' across the 40 or so disciplines of the Art and Design cohort.
Some use the term carefully and others less carefully. For some the care
extends across all dimensions of theory making and for others it is
specific to particular aspects of theory. The 9 categories of meta-analyis
of they I devised in the 90s is perhaps of use for separating these (Love,
2000)
2. The second issue is potential for variation caused by translation. This
may be crucially important, if you are needing accuracy of meaning for using
of 'the concept of function' in a different way from how it would normally
be used. An example, is the problem with the translation of Vetruvius' work
into English (and perhaps Portugese) that Eduardo has already identified.
The word 'function' comes to us in English from Latin (functio) which means'
performance' and 'execution' in the sense of something having been done and
completed. It did so via early French via the accusative form. That is, it
is a noun that is the object of a transitive verb. The standard structure
of a transitive sentence is 'Eduardo (subject - noun) painted (transitive
verb) the wall (object - noun)' . In this case, the term 'function' is
defined as always having the properties of the 'object'. For example, 'the
artist (subject) completed (transitive verb) the performance (object). A
problem for defining the term 'function' with regard to translations of
Vetruvius is he *didn't use* 'Functio'. Vetruvius used a completely
different term 'Utilitas' which has a very different meaning. 'Utilitas'
means the use of something, or in abstract form its utility. As Eduardo has
pointed out something can have a function (performance) and not have utility
and vice versa. It may be the substitution of 'utilitas' by 'function' in
translations of Vetruvius by writers in architecture was potentially
motivated by the benefits of a political sleight of hand to bolster
functionalism. Those who have criticised architects use of 'form follows
function' may have more accurate information on this.
3. Perhaps most important, is the scope of accurate conceptual detail in
critiques, derivation and use of a concept of function'. Defining the
concept of function is a non-trivial task. It is much more difficult than it
appears to produce such a definition at appropriate doctoral level that can
form the basis for sound theory making an design research. The extent and
number of boundary conditions that need to be address is large and both
contradictory and difficult. For example, does a broken watch have the
property of having the function of a watch? Is a function in a
part-completed thought of a design still a function? The only text that I
have come across that addresses these issues of 'the concept of a function'
with the epistemological and ontological detail necessary for acting as a
foundational theory for theory making in design research is Houkes, W and
Vermaas, P. E (2010) Technical functions: On the Use and Design of
Artefacts. Drodrecht: Springer. This text is also of interest because they
offer a different way of defining design as an activity. I reviewed the
book fior the publishers and was surprised and delighted by the authors
exact and accurate care and attention to conceptual and critical detail. It
also has an excellent bibliography of texts that provide the theoretical
foundations for understanding the concept of function. I've attached the
review below. The book is really useful and requires a careful read.
If your intention is a comprehensive understanding of 'the concept of
function', I expect that after reading Houkes and Vermaas book 'Technical
Functions', you would likely interpret other texts about 'the concept of
function' and 'function in design' in a more critically detailed way and
perhaps differently from how you might first interpret them - I did. It's a
book I'd recommend to anyone making theory about design at doctoral level
and above.
Best wishes,
Terence
=== Terence Love (2011) 'Review of Houkes, W and Vermaas, P. E (2010)
Technical functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Drodrecht:
Springer'. Perth: Love Design and Research.
This book on technical functions in the use and design of artefacts follows
the sequence in the title with the authors' emphasis on use of artefacts.
The book is deeply useful for anyone making theory in design realms
involving artifacts of any sort.
This is a text that contributes to theory foundations in Philosophy and
Technology Studies and Design Research in general. It develops a critical
and clearly articulated theoretical foundation for the idea of 'technical
functions' as it relates to the use and design of artifacts. In parallel,
the authors go some way to contributing to the theory foundations that
underpin the idea of a 'designed artifact'. In parallel, this has
implications for how they authors define the activity of 'designing'.
The essence of the book is simple: cleaning up the theory around how
technical functions are attributed to artifacts. It is an unusual and, to
this reviewer at least, a peculiarly exciting book. The authors embark on
their task by locating artifacts, design and use in the realm of activities
with their consequent choice of an 'action-theoretic' theory foundation
driving the whole book from the start, including a necessary redefinition of
design as the 'creation of "use plans"'. A 'use-plan' being implicit or
explicit set of indications or instructions for the user of an artifact for
doing something with it, and, importantly for designers, being knowledge
used by designers to design the artifact.
The authors assume designers have in their minds how users of an artifact
will use it. That is, designers consciously or subconsciously identify use
plans for future users and undertake design activity with these use plans in
mind to create artifacts that satisfy these use plans. From the authors'
action-theoretic perspective, they define the technical functions and
functioning of an artifact in terms of, and as the fulfilment of, the
artifact's 'use plans'. In some ways, this can be seen as extending the
theoretical basis of the concept of usability.
The overall problem that authors contribute to addressing is that the
widespread superficial assumptions of the relationships between 'function'
and 'artifact' do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Conceptual and
theoretical weaknesses in this area mean that more advanced theories are
often on weak foundations and this in turn compromises or calls into
question large swathes of the theoretical literature involving artifact
design and use.
The book extends prior analyses and theories in relation to the current
literature on theories of functions. The authors categories this previous
literature into three main groupings (I, C, and E): 'Intentional' theories
of functions ('I theories' in which the functions of an artifact depend on
the intentions of designers and users); 'causal' theories of artifacts ('C
theories' in which the functions of an artifact depend on what changes it
causes); and 'Evolutionary' theories of functions ('E theories' in which
artefacts and their functions are assumed to develop over generations to
fulfil particular functional roles). The book both complements and extends
these earlier theories into a unified ICE form that substantially combines
their better aspects whilst minimising and avoiding their limitations.
The reasoning that underpins the authors' new theories has three stages:
. Analysis relating to the role of 'use-plans' in exposing the detail
of different aspects of functions ascribed to the use and design of
artifacts
. The development of their new theory perspective, the ICE perspective
and its variants.
. A review of this new ICE approach to looking at 'functions',
'artifacts' and designing' as they apply to improving on the existing I, C
and E function theories and in coherently addressing 'edge' conditions: for
example to artifacts that don't work, artifacts that are used for a
different purpose from that intended, and designed artifacts that do not
have 'use-plans'.
The authors painstakingly work their way across all of this territory, using
real world exemplars to dot the 'I's and cross the 't's of their new
analyses, reasoning and new theory developments. This care of analysis is
impressive and something that is widely missing from much of the design
literature.
The major findings in the book comprise the outcomes of the authors'
critical analysis of existing theory foundations representing and explaining
technical functions relating to the use and design of artifacts. Of benefit
in this is the authors' approach which identifies 'desiderata' that such
theories must address. The main finding is however, the development of the
authors' own theory of technical functions, the ICE theory. This
action-theoretic ICE theory combines aspects of existing theories of
technical functions to gain the benefits of all of them and remove the
majority of their weaknesses. In addition, it extends the scope of their ICE
theory to areas not well addressed by any of the other theories.
The book potentially has significant impact on the field of Philosophy and
Technology Studies through providing a sounder theoretical foundation for
research and theory development. Creating the future is a central concern of
Philosophy and Technology Studies and creating the future depends on the
design and use of artifacts and the technical functions that they offer.
This book provides an improved theory foundation relating to the ways
technical functions are associated with artifacts. The authors' new
developments potentially impact through all areas of the Philosophy and
Technology Studies realm.
For readers, the book has at least three different roles and is of benefit
to three different groups of readers: undergraduate's studying design and
the use of functions in design; professional designers; and academics and
researchers in the realms of Philosophy and Technology Studies and Design.
Selected parts of the book are appropriate for teaching undergraduates new
insights into understanding the roles of technical functions in the use and
design or artefacts. The second is for high level designers working at the
cutting edge of design of products as the book assists them to think beyond
traditional design theory and practices, most of which are do not stand up
well to critical inspection or are dated to the point of being irrelevant.
Having done this, professional designers have a new jumping off point for
developing products with a new direction for the inclusion of functions that
more authentically relates to their human usage. This opens up potential for
improvement in participatory and collaborative design processes. The third
role of the book is for academics and researchers involved in building a
body of sound theory about the use and design of artefacts in terms of
activities, practices, problems, products, systems and processes. In this
context, this book acts as a source of well-developed theory in its own
right; as a source of inspiration in developing new design theory; and as a
reference text for the many elements of design research analysis that the
authors have either coined or referred to.
While the authors have gone a long way to making the material easily
accessible through the use of simple real world examples throughout the
book, this is a solid read. It's a book that works in two ways. The first is
to read it in mentally bite-sized pieces following the flow of argument.
Much of the book can be read relatively randomly providing the early
chapters are read thoroughly. The second is as a reference to understanding
how technical functions can best be attributed to artefacts when artifacts
are viewed in terms of their roles in activities. It reads at times like a
much longer book that has been stripped back to its essence.
The quality of writing is both sound and precise. The authors have created a
coherent thread through the book that first identifies the weaknesses of
existing theories of Technical Functions and establishes a position to stand
in critiquing exit sing theory in focusing on an action theoretic
perspective and use-plans and developing a coherent list of desiderata that
new theory must satisfy. y. The authors then carefully develop new theory
and test it against a wide range of theoretical situations identifying
improvement and limitations on the way. This is a book written in an area of
theory that is intellectually 'tough' territory and the authors provide an
appropriate suite of analyses.
The logic and reasoning of the text stands up to detailed scrutiny and the
authors are to be commended on their thoroughness in identifying the wide
range of issues that impinge on the new theory model and on which the new
theory has an impact. I was impressed by their level of detailed analysis.
This is not to say that the reading of the text is effortless. This is a
text that is substantially philosophical in nature and rewards (and often
charms) the reader when read slowly and carefully. After reading, it offers
a useful role as an ongoing reference.
Terence Love
===end
-----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 Esra Bici
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012 3:02 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: The concept of function.
Dear all,
Hope you have a nice day.
I would ask you if you recommend me any reference about "the concept of
function".
Kind regards,
Esra.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
