Dear Terry,
You say
"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. ..."
I thought I new quite a lot of the design research and design
literatures, but I find myself completely ignorant of these
"widely acknowledge problems." Please could you provide some
good pointers to these problems and their "wide
acknowledgement" in these literatures.
Also, please could you identify these "well-established
theories in other disciplines" that contradict design
theories, and which design theories they contradict. Once
again, I have to confess to knowing nothing of these.
My ignorance extends to not understanding why it is important
for a theory of designing not to be contradicted by other
well-established theories in other disciplines. So, please
could you explain this too. It's not a condition on theory
development that I have come across before, in design
research, nor in other fields I have worked in. So which
other disciplines are we talking about here?
Think of this as a request from a new PhD student in need of
some good pointers and basic explanations from a concerned and
supportive supervisor.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Tim
-- who is thinking of doing a refresher PhD, since the one he
has looks like it's worn out.
===============================================================
On Dec 20, 2012, at 05:13 , Terence Love wrote:
> 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
> ==
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|