Hi, Terry,
Thanks for your reply. I have downloaded the literature review to which you referred. It runs 82 pages, so it’s going to take a few days to digest.
At the calculated risk of starting a new thread, I want to ask a question that you have not answered, at least not on the list. On several occasions, you have referred referred to such concepts as epistemologically valid theory, theoretical theory versus atheoretical theory, and now “a coherent and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design theory.”
You have never defined these in any of your posts to the list.
How do you define epistemologically valid theory or the kind of theory you label theoretical theory? What characteristics or criteria do you require of a coherent and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design theory?
Since the answer to this question will clarify many recent threads, as well as placing your literature review in context, I should like to your definitions and criteria.
With the answer to this question as a background, I will respond to the literature review on the weekend or early next week.
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|