Dear All,
Without entering this thread or becoming too grumpy, I point once again to the problem of black-and-white misreading. I did not argue AGAINST theory, but FOR evidence-based design. This theme has rarely been addressed. We need BOTH evidence-based design AND design theory development supported by evidence. Evidence-based design involves practice. Design theory development supported by evidence involves research and theory construction as well as practice.
The thread on evidence-based design emerged from my sharing a specific lecture. While it is a single lecture, you will find a specific comment on the need for theory within that lecture. I wrote,
“Design requires a foundation in theory with concepts and models that support advanced professional practice. This is a serious and challenging problem for design as a professional field with no recognized discipline to advance the development of practice. ... Some aspects of design are general to all design problems. These issues require a general theory of design and broad models.”
It seems that Terry missed the section of the lecture in which I call for design theory development supported by evidence. You’ll find it in the lecture on evidence-based design — and the next article down is a specific article on theory titled “Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria, Approaches, Methods.” Both are accessible on the Academia.edu page:
https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
One very specific misreading appears in Terry’s post. The specific example I gave for evidence-based practice shows one useful method in one area of practice. I did not advocate this as the only method, and it doesn’t work for all design practice. Terry is wrong in saying that designers use this approach “after the designing has occurred.” Evidence-based designers test and retest in the successive iterations of the design process. People collect evidence during the evolving phases of the design process to guide the next steps. One uses such methods as the “Super Cruncher” approach after one stage in design has occurred and before the next. As iterations proceed, one applies the method again, and again, and then again. This is equivalent to some aspects of Buckminster Fuller’s concept of the “design science event flow.” As with my lecture, Terry drew an overly hasty conclusion apparently without reading the lecture slides and apparently without reading the book.
Please forgive this modest grumpy moment. I’m not debating Terry here — I am saying that Terry did not represent my lecture accurately, and he did not represent the Super Crunchers book especially well.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|