Dear Ken,

Conversationally speaking:  

On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:

> 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.

I intended this remark to alert less experienced readers to aspects of the subject not covered in your article. Perhaps the word caveats was not adequate for that purpose.

Then you wrote:  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. 

Absolutely right. I should have done a better job of situating that within my primary, more general, objective - to articulate a theory that could be used in any goal oriented thought or activity. My main concern is to avoid constraining the theory to the circumstances  of a particular situation , or way of working. To me that is in the domain of methodology (research or practice), and not general theory.

Then you wrote "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." 

I cited Miller to point to an article that was not a digest of research findings but a powerful insight, defined more in semantic, even theoretic terms, than by references to research findings. There have been many studies and conceptual specifications motivated by the article. I will try to pin down the one that motivated me to use the terms "absolute judgment". Miller may not have been the source but if you follow the implications of his remarks you can see that choice of words. Seven to nine entities is an absolute judgment of the number of categories/items to consider - especially for short term memory. (Lets not go there yet.) It is no accident that eight bit computer code was the early norm, and that its extensions, require compression to be at a "human scale" useful to most of us.  

Then you wrote: ..."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." 

I think this sentence is typical of how you interpret and critique many things. I was making no "truth claims", just noting the pragmatically determined use of seven distinct categories to represent many subjects. I don't claim truth for any of them. Similarly, if you haven't seen them in a reference, their must be no evidence. Only Miller counts as the authority. The idea put forward is not explored, just rejected as unsupported by your reference/

Then you wrote: "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."

This may not help my cause with you but it is a good example that you too are subject to error: My paper at Common Ground was on Intentionality in Design. You are thinking about my presentation at the conference in Helsinki where we first met.

Then you wrote : "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."

I would have preferred a reasoned discussion of the problems with my assumptions. The operational model was not a subject of the paper. ou can get some feeling for one aspect of its operation from the computational system diagram in "A Theory of DesignThinking", which was motivated by your conference but not presented there.

This was too long for me. I hope it clarifies without distorting our views.

Best regards,
Chuck

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