Don
I appreciate both the tone and content of your post.
An interesting link between theory and design for me is that theories, at least scientific 'theories', are specialized forms of schema. Schema of all types are seminal to design. I don't believe design is possible without the use of design schema, including formal scientific 'theories'. However, there are many more types of schema than just formal 'theories'. Such schema that can be considered to be valuable if they are judged to be useful to designing. These schema are different from 'theories' which gain their value if they are proven to be true or at least not untrue. There are many different types of schema and a very large number of useful or practical schema that have been used by designers in different contexts at different times. The talent is in the ability to create schema that are useful and appropriate for different settings and outcomes. I doubt that there is a comprehensive set of schema that would define the domain of design in the way that people often assume the domains of science can be defined by a set of 'theories' that have been proven to be true. The use or application of particular schema is interesting from a case study perspective, but the competence to create schema, especially design schema, in the first place seems particularly important for design education and practice.
Regards
Harold
TheDesignWay.net
AccidentalVagrant.blogspot.com
AdvancedDesignInstitute.blogspot.com/
OrganizationalDesignCompetence.com/
On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I've followed the discussion initiated by Victor Margolin with interest.
> Here are some quick opinions.
>
> Design is an incredibly complex (complicated) topic, with each of the many
> parts requiring very different skills, approaches, techniques, and
> therefore, theories.
>
> Some parts are much easier to benefit from theory (or to even have theory)
> than others.
>
> I've taken an easy route: focusing upon psychological principles -- already
> tested in the peer-reviewed debates in that field -- and applied them to
> design. Sometimes the application required stretching what was known (which
> is why I love applied fields -- they teach us about the limits of our
> theories and push he theorists to do better). But all my work has attempted
> to have a firm grounding in the experimental research literature of
> cognitive and psychological sciences.t
>
> Other areas of design are critically important, and although I would like
> to contribute to them, I don't know how. Many still depend upon the skill
> and insights of the individual workers (or teams), and perhaps that is
> right and proper and will always remain so.
>
> Citations.
>
> I have been strongly influenced by my readings of many designers, but I
> seldom credit them in my publications. Why? Because in science, we credit
> the immediate sources relevant to the statements being made. So, for
> example, Victor Papanek was perhaps the first designer I ever read, and he
> had a great influence on me. Design of Everyday Thongs was patterned (in my
> mind) after his writings. But I never cited him -- my work was quite
> different, so there was no opportunity.
>
> Herb Simon was a friend and greatly influenced me. I don't think I ever
> cited him in my design works, although I have cited him in my psychological
> studies. Same with George Miller -- a strong influence, but never cited.
> Donald Schon's reflective practitioner is important, but only in my growth
> and understanding, not for any of the particular publications of mine, so
> he is never cited. Etc.
>
> Lack of citation does not mean lack of influence. The small influences are
> easy to cite: (S. S. Stevens did pioneering work in the measurement of
> "loudness." I cite him. The big, overarching influences are difficult to
> cite. Schon did pioneering studies of design teaching and practice: his
> influence was large, but never specific enough on anything I have written
> to warrant citation.
>
> Design theory is hard. There aren't very many entry points.
>
> There are many theorists i respect who are working in design. But it is
> perhaps too early to build a substantive structure because we must all
> cover so much ground. When we get a good ground coverage, then we can start
> to build upon it.
>
> I am very pleased with the people who have extended -- and often,
> challenged -- my own work. Challenges are good, and as a result of some of
> them, I have modified my views. But it is the rare area of design that
> affords such constructive interaction.
>
> I do not blame the design practitioners: I blame the area covered by
> design. The modern approach to design is still new, especially its home in
> research-based universities and the establishment of the PhD in design.
> This movement is less than 100 years old, and the required breadth so
> large, that it is not surprising that so little has been done.
>
> So take some pride in the lack of substantive growth: it is a reflection of
> the fact that we have chosen a very complex and difficult filed to work in.
> That's good: all worthy problems are difficult.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> --
> Don Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded<http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
> (DOET2). Pub date: November 2013
> Course: Udacity On-Line course based on
> DOET2<https://www.udacity.com/course/design101> (free).
> Nov 2013.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|