ok,
ken,
i apologize for confusing your arguments for design theory with terry's advocacy of predictive design theories.
i certainly did not expect you to answer on terry's behalf. i asked him a question and hope for an answer from him. but if i don't get one, this speaks for him, not you.
how is kalmar treating you?
cheers
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 11:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design theory
Dear Klaus,
Please keep me out of this. I am not advocating a "predictive design theory." I am describing Jeremy Bernstein's criteria of correspondence and predictiveness with respect to scientific theory.
Terry seemed to assert that there exists radical new methods of designing based on quantitative modelling methods for design that account for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way. Since this posits a scientific approach that makes prediction possible, it seems to me a scientific approach and I applied Bernstein's criteria.
While you and I have debated the nature of theories -- or whether theory is possible in design -- our conversation is quite different to the issues in the present thread. I see theory as a form of model-making, but I argue that there are several kinds of theories that function at different levels. I discuss this in my 2003 article on theory construction in design research. If you'd like to read it, you'll find it in the papers on my Academia page:
https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
I would have to give far more thought to the idea of "predictive design theory" to describe it. I am absolutely not prepared to "advocate" for such theory. If such a theory is possible, it would certainly have far more limited and nuanced predictive capacity than a radical new method of designing based on quantitative modelling methods for design that accounts for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way.
I am NOT advocating for "predictive design theory" of the kind that Terry described earlier. Please do not confuse my position with his. You asked Terry a question -- please ask Terry to answer without involving me.
Please don't confuse me with Terry on this issue, and please don't ask me to answer for Terry's beliefs.
Warm wishes,
Ken
Reference
Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–522. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 04:07:05 +0000, Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
--snip--
>terry,
>
>i've read your response to my question to you to give us an example of a predictive "design theory" which you and ken are advocating. i've read it on my cell phone and wanted to answer on my computer but can't find it on either device.
--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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|