Hi Ken,
Varian's is a nice answer outlining reasons why, as I proposed earlier,
modelling is the effective way to address wicked problems.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----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 Ken
Friedman
Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:00 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: design theory testing
Dear Jurgen,
You are quite right to note that neither I nor most others writing on design
theory construction haven't written much on testing. This is a gap in the
literature.
A theory is essentially a model. The point of modeling - and of theory
construction - is showing how things work. Testing helps us to know whether
are models are adequate to the questions we try to understand.
With respect to testing, I draw on useful concepts from economist Hal Varian
in the longer conference version of a paper on theory construction in design
research (Friedman 1997, see also Friedman 2003.) The paper is available at
URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
Varian (1997) addresses these issues in a playfully titled but
scientifically astute article, "How to Build an Economic Model in Your Spare
Time."
"Most of my work in economics involves constructing theoretical models,"
writes Varian (1997: 1). The article discusses the challenges of theory
construction and some of the approaches that Varian himself found helpful.
"Over the years, I have developed some ways of doing this that may be worth
describing to those who aspire topractice this art. In reality, the process
is much more haphazard than my description would suggest - the model of
research that I describe is an idealization of reality, much like the
economic models that I create. But there is probably enough connection with
reality to make the description useful - which I hope is also true for my
economic models."
Varian's key involves representing aspects of reality in robust yet simple
ways. Rather than starting with literature or seeking general features, he
advocates seeking useful data on interesting issues. This requires testing
and either prediction or retrodiction against empirical data:
"So let's skip the literature part for now and try to get to the modeling.
Lucky for you, all economics models look pretty much the same. There are
some economic agents.They make choices in order to advance their objectives.
The choices have tosatisfy various constraints so there's something that
adjusts to make all these choices consistent. This basic structure suggests
a plan of attack: Who are the people making the choices? What are the
constraints they face? How do they interact? What adjusts if the choices
aren't mutually consistent?
"Asking questions like this can help you to identify the pieces of a model.
Once you've got a pretty good idea of what the pieces look like, you can
move on to thenext stage. Most students think that the next stage is to
prove a theorem or run a regression. No! The next stage is to work an
example. Take the simplest example---one period, 2 goods, 2 people, linear
utility---whatever it takes to get to something simple enough to see what is
going on.
"Once you've got an example, work another one, then another one. See what is
common to your examples. Is there something interesting happening here? When
your exampleshave given you an inkling of what is going on, then you can try
to write down a model. The critical advice here is KISS: keep it simple,
stupid. Write down the simplest possible model you can think of, and see if
it still exhibits someinteresting behavior. If it does, then make it even
simpler.
"Several years ago I gave a seminar about some of my research. I started out
with a very simple example. One of the faculty in the audience interrupted
me to say that he had worked on something like this several years ago, but
his model was 'much more complex.' I replied 'My model was complex when I
started, too, but I just kept working on it till it got simple!'
"And that's what you should do: keep at it till it gets simple. The whole
point of a model is to give a simplified representation of reality. Einstein
once said 'Everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler.' A
model is supposed to reveal the essence of what is going on: your model
should be reduced to just thosepieces that are required to make it work."
Hope this helps a bit. There is still a gap, and notes to this thread
suggest ways forward.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask] |Phone +61 3 9214 6102 |
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
References
Friedman, Ken. 2002. "Theory Construction in Design Research. Criteria,
Approaches, and Methods." In Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design
Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September
5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton, Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK:
Staffordshire University Press, 388-414. Available at URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
Friedman, Ken. 2003. "Theory construction in design research: criteria:
approaches, and methods." Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507-522. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
Varian, Hal R. 1997. "How to Build an Economic Model in Your Spare Time."
Passion and Craft. Economists at Work. Michael Szenberg, editor. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
