Dear Chuck,

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were asking in your reply. This was framed by your first comment that you found my article (Friedman 2003) wanting in two specific respects. First, you said that there is a gap because it, “does not explain how a theory may arise or be developed to address a situation in context.” Second, you found that it “lack[s] demonstrative narrative.” You asked for development and demonstration.

Then you asked readers to “critique my exposition by applying McNeil's criteria.” Since you addressed this to me as well as to other colleagues after commenting on my article on theory construction (Friedman 2003)

Available at:

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

it seemed to me that you asked me to critique your article (Burnette 2013)

Available at:

http://independent.academia.edu/CharlesBurnette/Papers

with respect to D H McNeil’s (1993) eleven general criteria for a theory. That’s how I understood your earlier post.

What I tried to do was to evaluate your paper with respect to McNeil’s eleven criteria. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.

There remain differences between us on two issues.

1) From your critique of my article – “It does not explain how a theory may arise or be developed to address a situation in context” – I thought that you were seeking a way to generate theory that addresses a situation in context. Theories are models, at least as I see them, and I thought your paper was an attempt to create a theory or model of how to generate theory in situated practice.

You state that you are “not interested in a theory of how to generate a theory in situated practice.” Even so, the purpose of your paper as you describe it in your recent post would cover that purpose. You are trying to “elaborate a simple operational model suitable for use in purposeful thought or design thinking on any subject by any individual, group, or company using any medium appropriate to their tasks. It is intended as a general theory, a common ground, that can be used to structure research, facilitate practice, or build learning experiences.” I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that this includes the purpose I understood in your earlier post.

2) You did not simply divide your thoughts into a useful seven-part structure. Had you done this, I wouldn’t have remarked on it. Instead, you stated a purposeful, pragmatic decision to use a seven-part structure, and you explained your decision. You supported your explanation with a scientific truth claim, “Seven plus or minus two components are also generally acknowledged to be the limit on ‘immediate memory’ and ‘absolute judgment’ (Miller, 1956).”

You make the claim that seven (plus or minus two) is the limit on absolute judgment, and you attribute this to George Miller and one of the most famous articles in modern psychology. It is also one of the most highly cited – Google Scholar shows more than 16,500 citations. You made a powerful claim to external authority to support your views.

In this case, the authority – George Miller (1956, 2003) – said something quite different to the position you attributed to him. I noted this. Had you not attributed your views to Miller, I would not have noticed. When you did, it caught my eye.

It seems to me inappropriate to define me as judgmental. You asked for critique. Critique is a form of judgment. Related words include appraisal, assessment, evaluation, and analysis.

Like you, I seek to “inform, broaden, or assist the effort at hand, adapting and satisficing as I go.” One does not inform or broaden by acceding to inaccurate information. This is absolutely not what Herbert Simon would have termed “satisficing.” Simon, who developed the modern usage of the word, pointed to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary: “To decide on and pursue a course of action that will satisfy the minimum requirements necessary to achieve a particular goal.” Positing a truth claim based on external evidence changes the nature of minimum requirements. When such a claim is brought forward, one minimum requirement is that our statements and claims accord with the evidence we cite.

On one hand, I feel a bit puzzled. You asked for a critique based on McNeil’s eleven criteria. I provided it, or rather, I provided a statement explaining what doesn’t work in your paper with respect to McNeil’s eleven criteria. I noticed a couple of problematic claims and I pointed to them.

On the other hand, having done so, you’ve put me under the gun as a judgmental kind of guy in contrast with yourself as a generous, broadening, informative pragmatist.

You write, “A good example of how we reason differently is the 7 component issue you dwell on in your comments. You cite some references. I use seven distinctions because that number of them has a pragmatically successful history in conveying the scope of a subject and has the demonstrated capacity to fit the problems I am addressing.” You did more than use seven distinctions pragmatically. You justified your decision by citing George Miller. I referred to Miller because you cited him.

Miller did not assert that seven, plus or minus two, is a limit on absolute judgment. The number seven does not have a pragmatically successful history in conveying the scope of any subject. Many subjects are divided into fewer categories, but many others require far more. If seven topics fit the problems you address, you might simply have used the structure without bringing Miller in.

It seems to me an odd critique to chide me for following up the material you cited. I gather that you don’t care for citing evidence. You made many truth claims that rest on science rather than on design without providing evidence. Even so, if you had not cited Miller, I would not have done so.

This entire interaction bugs me. You put the paper forward and asked for a critique with respect to McNeil’s eleven criteria. I thought the paper was interesting. Even so, it does not meet all the requirements of McNeil’s eleven criteria for a general theory, and it doesn’t actually explain how to build “a simple operational model suitable for use in purposeful thought or design thinking on any subject by any individual, group, or company using any medium appropriate to their tasks. It is intended as a general theory, a common ground, that can be used to structure research, facilitate practice, or build learning experiences.”

I responded by writing what I thought. I took this for a first draft position paper. I said I’d like to read a paper with enough detail to demonstrate the simple operational model. That doesn’t seem so bad.

If you hadn’t asked for a critique, I doubt that my reply would have seemed at all judgmental. I would have simply said, “This is an interesting paper. I’d like to read more.”

My own take on critique is simple enough: when we publish something, everyone is free to state their views. If we disagree, it’s our job to explain why. At least it’s our job when we post our views in a scholarly forum. If we post research requests, conference calls, journal calls, or holiday menus, there is no need to explain. When we put forward views on research issues and or we make truth claims based on citations to facts outside the logic of our argument, then I’d say that we must explain our position.

For example, you stated that my article (Friedman 2003) was a “digest of selected writings on theory.” It seemed to me that this was wrong: I did something with all those writings, bringing an original article forward in the process. I explained myself, and I was neither grumpy about it nor unhappy to do so. While I disagreed with your view, I did not criticize you for being fussy and judgmental, and I did n0t contrast my position to yours, stating that I publish articles to “inform, broaden, or assist the effort at hand, adapting and satisficing as I go.” I rather assume we all do this – and no one gets an article into a peer reviewed journal without some adaptation and satisficing. In this case, I had to make many choices in reducing a 14,000-word paper to a 7,000-word article.

Chuck, you are a terrific architect and designer. I’ve admired your work for years, and some of your presentations are real highlights for me – for example, your research on automobile dashboard panels at Common Ground, the Design Research Society Conference at Brunel University.

When you respect someone, you answer honestly. One of the perpetual dilemmas on this list involves how it is we are to develop a reasoned and responsible foundation for the knowledge of the field while embracing that pragmatic, development heritage of design. This is part of the challenge of design theory – and it is the challenge of any “simple operational model suitable for use in purposeful thought or design thinking on any subject by any individual, group, or company using any medium appropriate to their tasks. It is intended as a general theory, a common ground, that can be used to structure research, facilitate practice, or build learning experiences.”

Building such a model is difficult. While your paper states useful components, there seem to me to be problems with some of the assumptions, and you don’t show an operational model or how to achieve it.

One serious problem in many examples of design research is that designers can develop and demonstrate a designed artifact or process that works even though they do not know why it works. To do that, designers must understand a wide range of issues, and they often lack this knowledge. (See, f.ex., Norman 2010.)

Theories may be wrong, for any number of reasons, even theories about things that work – or seem to work. Developing robust theories with genuine explanatory and predictive power takes a great deal of work.

When stumped by a serious problem, a colleague of mine used to chant a cynical but cheerful mantra:

“Theory is when things don’t work, and we know why they don’t. Practice is when things work, but we don’t know why they do. Usually we combine theory and practice: things don’t work and we don’t know why.”

My hope for our field is that we move toward making things work, knowing why they work, and developing the capacity to do this consistently.

In response to your post, I looked at the working paper (Burnette 2013) and stated my views. If other list members have other views on your working paper, they are welcome to post them.

For that matter, everyone is free to critique the article with which you began this thread (Friedman 2003). I published it, and I’m prepared to listen to comments, answer questions, and respond to critique.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China

Reference

Burnette, Charles. 2013. “Issues, Assumptions, and Components in A Theory of Design Thinking.” Unpublished working paper.

Available at:

http://independent.academia.edu/CharlesBurnette/Papers

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

Available at:

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

McNeil, D. H. 1993. “Reframing systemic paradigms for the art of learning.” Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics.

Miller, George A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Miller, George A. 2003. “Response to The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.” The Work of Edward Tufte and Graphics Press. URL: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000U6&topic_id=1

Norman, Don. 2010. “Why Design Education Must Change.” Core77, 2010 November 26. http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp  Accessed 2013 April 2.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------