Hi, Terry,
My apologies. You used the terms “theory-driven” as contrasted with “atheoretical” with respect to discourse. From this, I made a clumsy reverse formation – that is, theoretical as the opposite of atheoretical. It only goes to show me that I ought to take my own advice when quoting others. I should have checked the source text rather don’t relying on memory.
Nevertheless, the meaning of the phrase “a coherent and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design theory” isn’t obvious. If it were obvious, I guess we’d all hold to the same views that you hold. If we all agreed with you and we all held the same views you hold, there wouldn’t be much to criticize in what so many others have written.
Since this is not the case, the meaning of this term as you see it is not obvious.
Changing the terms “coherent,” “epistemologically valid,” “justified,” “theoretical framework” and “design theory” to opposite terms doesn’t tell me any more than your original. To speak about an “incoherent, epistemologically invalid, unjustified theoretical framework for design theory” still doesn’t state explicit criteria for “a coherent and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design theory.” It merely suggests that there must be differences between the two. Substituting opposite words won’t help. What I’m asking for is the meanings you attach to the words you use.
How do you define epistemologically valid theory? At one point, you sent me a list of eight or nine specific, interlocked criteria. As I recall, you offered this as an explanation of valid theory, and you argued that this and only this constituted an epistemologically valid theory. It’s your views on these issues that I’m trying to unpack.
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
--
Terry Love wrote:
--snip--
Puzzled. Where have I written ‘theoretical theory’? Isn’t “a coherent and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design theory” obvious? Sure its dense perhaps, but to unpack it more obviously start changing words to opposites and see how the meaning changes.
--snip--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|