Hi, Terry,

Your latest note to Ranjan has some bearing on the question you have not yet answered concerning epistemologically adequate theory. You write to Ranjan, “…I’ve found that organisational planning issues are so complex that they require symbolic visualisation. Understanding or predicting the *dynamics* of the outcomes of any intervention (such as national change to design education in India) involves predicting the ways things will change over time in a highly interacting political environment. This can often only be achieved by dynamic modelling and then watching the outcomes of the modeller play out to see what is likely to happen at different times.”

Ranjan has actually been working with such systems. Like most of us, he has had some successes and some failures. That’s why he advocates humility.

You’re suggesting that Ranjan should use dynamic modeling with abstract symbols. What kinds of symbols do you suggest? It seems to me that this points back to earlier threads on cliometrics. Or it may involve some kind psychohistory as practiced by the fictional mathematician Hari Selden in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series.

While this works in science fiction, it’s not clear that there is any theory for this kind of work in our present world. I know of no workable systems for dynamic modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life. To be sure, economists use this kind of modeling on limited aspects of economic systems, but there are many jokes about throwing out the data that don’t fit the theory.

What kinds of symbols permit us to undertake dynamic predictive modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life? Have you actually done work of this kind, or is this merely a suggestion? If you have done this kind of work, have you published it in any form that allows others to understand and test your methods for themselves? Or, if you have not done this kind of work, can you suggest some responsible publications that demonstrate such a system or show it in operation?

These kinds of symbolic modeling work in disciplines such as physics, chemistry, or molecular biology. Scientists in those field have established a common vocabulary, symbols have been defined carefully, and the operational mathematics used in each field is built on several centuries of progressively advanced work subjected at every stage to empirical testing, peer review, and new theory – followed by empirical testing, peer review, and another round of new theory.

I don’t see anything like this in design, and I am not sure that this is even possible. That’s why Herbert Simon described design science as partly heuristic and partly rigorous. It’s also why effective designers work with stakeholders, and why they prototype and trial whatever they design through repeated iterations.

On numerous occasions, your posts suggest that there is an epistemologically valid theory of design allied to some form of dynamic symbolic modeling that allows people to design complex adaptive systems such as organizations embedded in political systems. You have repeatedly stated that design students can’t do this kind of work. While I agree with you that design students can’t do this work, the nature of this is not clear. What is it? How does it function? Who does it?

You have also stated that nearly none of us on this list can do this kind of epistemologically valid work using dynamic symbolic models for predictable outcomes. As I understand it, you argue that our problem is that we are lodged in or burdened by what you describe as an atheoretical discourse.

In contrast, you argue for a theory-driven discourse. Your posts seem to claim that you engage in theory-driven discourse and you suggest – without stating so directly –that you can indeed practice design by using epistemologically valid theory and work using dynamic symbolic models for predictable outcomes. What you have not done is to describe this kind of work or show that you have done it.

So I’ll ask again: How do you define epistemologically valid theory? What is your list of specific, interlocked criteria for epistemologically valid theory?

What kinds of symbols permit dynamic predictive modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations and political life? Have you actually done work of this kind? If you have done this kind of work, have you published it? If you have not done this kind of work, do you know of any publications that demonstrate such a system in operation or even in theory?

Yours,

Ken

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




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