Dear Tim,
One of the widely acknowledged problems across the design research and
design literatures is that design theories are contradicted by
well-established theories in other disciplines.
It is almost effortless to identify errors and invalid aspects of
individual design theories using material from other fields. Clearly,
whatever testing strategies are used for design theories, they are typically
not effective.
Popper's Three World model points to a way forward to resolve this problem
and improve the testing of design theories.
1. First, test any new theory to confirm:
a) Its internal theoretical consistency
b) Its lack of contradiction by related theories in other
fields
c) Its coherence across all levels of theory (see, Love,
2000 - meta-theoretical analysis tool*)
2. Second, test the theory to confirm:
a) All predictions made on the basis of the theory align
with dynamic and static real world outcomes
b) Lack of contradiction of the theory and its predictions
by any evidence of dynamic and static real world situations
c) Predictions from the theory are coherent with evidence in
dynamic and static real world situations in other fields
3. Third, test the theory to confirm:
a) All predictions made on the basis of the theory make
sense subjectively
b) Lack of contradiction of the theory and its predictions
by any subjective mental constructs
c) Predictions from the theory are coherent with subjective
understanding of other fields
The reasons for doing the tests of 1a-1c first are A) they are cheap and
relatively fast; B) they are usually the reasons why design theories fail;
and C) they provide the best information for putting design theories
straight.
My apologies, for not explaining the above in more detail earlier. I'd
assumed it was self-evident.
You asked for citations to published work. This is an area in which
reasoning directly currently works better than references because the
material is limited and much of it is as flawed as design theories
themselves and appears to be so for the same reasons. I've referenced the
literature identifying the flaws in design theory in an earlier paper. If
you want to find them, they are in one or more of the pre-prints at
http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/publications.htm
* Love, T. (2000). Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical Structure for
Design Theory. Design Studies, 21(3), 293-313.
NB: PhD-Design is a publication and the main way that I publish. if anyone
finds this post useful, please reference it appropriately as authored by
myself.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK
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 Tim
Smithers
Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012 6:32 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Testing design theory - Popper's three worlds (was 'design
theorytesting')
On Dec 19, 2012, at 03:57 , Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Keith,
>
> Sure. I agree, but that is primarily testing the
> usefulness(applicability) of a theory. It is not testing the validity
> of the theory - which seemed to be what Jurgen and Tim were discussing.
>
Dear Terry,
No! I think you're mistaken here. Jurgen, in his opening post, of December
17, 2012, wrote:
"I was looking into the possibility to find some articles
about 'testing of design theory' and I haven't found too
many articles. ..."
My reply too talked plainly of testing a theory of designing, and the paper
I attached is about testing to see if work on a theory of designing was "on
the right track," not about testing its validity. So, I think it's clear
that neither of us just asked about testing the validity of a theory.
The discussion from the start has been wider than just how to test validity.
Look at what Keith, Jurgen, Charles, and Ken have all subsequently posted.
It's you who have narrowed the discussion to validity testing, not me, not
Jurgen, and not others.
And, if I may add, it's you who have diverted the discussion into a dark
corner by throwing in Popper's tiny worlds notions ... Oops, sorry! I mean
Sir Popper's "Thee Incommensurate Worlds" view.
Plonking this into the middle of the ongoing discussion with no attempt to
explain why and how you think this helps at all, has simply diverted the
discussion, not progressed what was already on going. You don't tell us how
Popper's views usefully address issues already raised, or how they identify
and usefully resolves important issues others have failed to acknowledge in
the ongoing discussion.
You have taken us into this dark out of the way corner where I, for one, see
no useful enlightenment. It's therefore up to you to put some light on the
matter. So, please, show us, with citations to published work, how you have
found Popper's Three Incommensurate Worlds view to be useful in testing some
theory of designing. Just asserting that you have found it useful does
nothing for the discussion. And please note, I say theory of designing, not
any kind of theory. So, let's keep the discussion relevant to the topic,
please.
Best regards,
Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|