Hi Klaus,

You are describing one of my first concerns when I started with system
dynamics. I came to systems design and modelling from the maths of linear
and non-linear control systems - which  require consistency of units.

System dynamics, however, allows one to put say a water tap, movement of a
hand, observation of eye and flow of water into a bucket on the same diagram
- terribly dimensionally inconsistent and potentially theoretically
problematic. I felt really uncomfortable with it.

It works, however, as you know  by ensuring the intervening mathematical
relationships behind the model are such that they not only ensure the
correct values of outputs, they also resolve the units. In fact, this is an
essential test  - whether there is functional consistency.

Another approach is to move everything to non-dimensional or dimensionless
entropy/variety. As you know there is a long tradition in engineering design
modelling to use non-dimensional analysis, especially in thermodynamics, and
that also applies to entropy. In many ways, in terms of variety-based
control modelling, using relative variety offers a lot of potential. It's
not been formally part of what I've done to date but I can see it has
benefits in terms of defining says the ration between amount of regulatory
variety used by an agent compared to the regulatory variety available to
them to be used.  As an example, it would be an indicator of skill in a
teacher where competent experienced teachers use a larger range of  variety
of interventions than do newly qualified teachers.

Mathematical function for 'professors reflections on research and
workloads'?

A simple model  for brevity (and I'd expect something more complex than this
in most circumstances) might be:

	Research is most important task - 0.7

	Teaching and research are equivalent value - 0.6

	I do so much administration I don't have sufficient time for
research  - 0.9

	Students are paying too much for the amount of time I am allocated
to teach them - 0.3

	Junior academic staff should be primarily allocated to teaching
rather than research - 0.8

	Privileges, status and pay of professors should be linked to
research undertaken - 0.8

You can include this mathematically either via conditional probability, or
some other form of  weighting schema. Alternatively, you could map each case
to a table of values vs frequency  (e.g. 3% of professors indicate a 10%
strength of opinion that there is too much administration; 12% of professors
report a 30% strength of opinion ...etc.)

Mathematics doesn't have to use continuous functions, or particular units,
or have the phenomena in question as the focus to be useful in predicting
outcomes.

Best regards ,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI

Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566

Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask] 
--



 



-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff
Sent: Friday, 12 December 2014 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory

terry,

you confuse too many things.

you quote ashby's LoRV as    H(E) - H(D) - H(R|D) - H(R) >=  K and say that
you prefer K to be a function
since the H-terms are entropies, i.e., quantities of variety, in this
inequality, K can only be an entropy. true, you could explain that quantity
as a function of another variable, for example of the structure of the
mechanism that possesses this limit, but it must be a particular entropy for
the inequality to hold.

You can call quantification what you want - discretization or
distinguishing, i prefer digitalization - but to argue in terms of LoRV,
that process needs to end up in measures of variety, numbers that you can
add, subtract, and compare, i.e., you need to be able to say whether they
are same, different and by how much.    i don't see how you can do any of
that with what you are writing of.

you say that defining the arrow you label 'professors reflections on
research and workloads' as a mathematical function 'is straightforward,'
please give me a mathematical function for what professors do when they
reflect.

you refer to ashby's LoRV. it is a law stated in quantitative terms, calling
for measures of variety, entropies for example. but its mathematics is even
further removed from your writing.

don't you see what you are doing?

klaus


From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:40 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff
Cc: 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory

Klaus,

My complements on being considered a successor to Ashby. An honour!

The difference between our positions seems to hinge on whether one accepts
quantization (or as I'd prefer to call it, 'discreteization) of qualitative
issues.

I regard discretization/quantizatrion  of continuous qualitative phenomena
as not only straightforward, but also as normal AND perhaps more importantly
as a *necessary*  essence of  ordinary personal and technical discourse and
communication.

For example, simply distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative is a
discretization or quantification (albeit only into a set of 2)  of a
continuum.

From experience, many things that are assumed to be infinite continua are in
fact easily  and usefully crudely quantified and often into a small subset
of options. The reality is that the fact that we can do discourse and
language depends on it. The widespread nature of regular
discretization/quantification of continua such as emotions and thoughts is
demonstrated by Kelly's construct theory, findings of Ference Marton's
phenomenography research, and more obviously by the fact we conceive of
individual emotions, colours, person types, job roles, theoretical positions
and the like.

In fact, many legitimate forms of design research (kaizen, usability,
ergonomics, advertising preferences, customer types etc,)  focus on
undertaking this discretization or quantification of continuous phenomena.

You ask about discretising/quantifying 'professors reflections on research
and workloads'.  In fact, from experience, issues such as this are very
straightforward as there are typically only handful of different positions.
In variety terms,  this is a relatively small set.

One of the central implications of Ashby's Law is that if requisite variety
is not available then full control is not possible.

The standard entropy expression can be similarly derived for a two entity
system with one entity controlling the other.  This can be mapped in terms
of both entities having H(R), H(D) and H(R|D) in themselves  with simple
summation across the system and system behaviour dominated by the  H(R)  of
the controlling entity. In which case if the controlling entity does not
have sufficient regulatory variety, then the role of the H(R) of the
controlled entity becomes more significant.

It is from this and similar reasoning that I've derived the extensions to
Ashby's LoRV.

You correctly point to the issue of Ashby's original LoRV  applying to a
uniformly quantified domain. That is in essence only a need if one insists
on restricting the calculation to simple log comparisons - in effect a
linear programming solution. There is, however, no intrinsic reason that
this is essential.  The same reasoning applies across multiple forms of
domains and fields.

Operationally, the  situation can be represented in matrix form across
multiple entities, each with multiple types of variety/entropy if necessary
with each matrix cell being a dependent or independent function rather than
a fixed amount and the overall state dynamics can be modified by a matrix of
operators. A practical calculation issue is feedback loops - that is more
easily solved by using a time step arrangement with a combination of time
step calculation,  partial derivatives, feedback loops  and function look up
tables to gain usable approximations of output behaviours.  This latter
approach is system dynamics.

Finally, in the past, I've found it useful to regard K as a function rather
than a constant. In fact as a general principle extending a theory I've
found it useful  to convert constants to functions containing the additional
relations. I'm aware others regard K as fixed, I prefer it at least
notionally to be regarded as a function.

Best wishes ,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI

Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566

Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--





From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 12 December 2014 1:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Cc: 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory

terry,

i am familiar with ashby's law of requisite variety. in fact, for one whole
year i was one of his students at the university of illinois, urbana. when
he retired, he suggested that i be considered as his successor.
unfortunately that university shut down heinz von foerster's biological
computer lab, and ashby's seminar on cybernetics, going for (large a
misguided) artificial intelligence projects instead.

in response to ken's and my call to be specific, you quote ashby information
theoretical statement of this law. the entropy equation is correct except
for calling K a function. it is an entropy. the equation presupposes that
all variables you mentioned, D, E, and R, define a uniformly quantified
domain. H(D,E,R) being a measure of the total entropy which the law
decomposes into individual entropies.

In your paper you do not define comparable varieties whose logarithms you
could add or subtract. you have neither quantities that you could partition
nor are you making predictions. the arrows in your diagram can hardly be
stated as mathematical functions. try stating "professors reflections on
research and workloads" as a mathematical function! you are using ashby's
law metaphorically. ashby's law states a limit to predictability.

i have nothing against drawing insights from mathematical theories. i too
use qualitative arguments. but you seem to be unaware of the difference
between mathematical statements and verbal descriptions. you claim to have a
predictive model when you can't even specify, the arrows in your graphical
diagram in mathematical terms.

what bothers me is your frequent claim that you have access to superior
mathematical models of complex systems (implying that other forks don't,
trying to put them down as not being up to date) and when called to back up
your claim you are unable to deliver and divert the readers to something
unrelated, like the model in your paper, which has nothing to do with design
much less design theory.

to me these are rhetorical games. they do not contribute to clarifications
of good topics worthy of discussion. they marginalize a thread. encouraging
us to respond to what you say and as i have demonstrated here, talking of
something other than the thread of design theory.

let me make just one brief comment about design and ashby. for me, design
creates variety which did not exist previously. innovation, by definition,
deviates from the expected or predicted, it introduces uncertainties in the
causalities of our world, our environment, our technology, our society and
our culture. as designers, we cannot extract ourselves from the consequences
of our actions as theorists do. mathematics is especially suited to model
causalities, determinisms, not the generation of alternatives. ashby's law
is concerned with available variety. designers create new variety,
uncertainty in entropy terms, unpredictability.

as i mentioned, i have not made "design theory" an issue in my own work. but
if i were, i would have to start with its atheoretical, undisciplined,
unpredictable, yet necessarily ethical consequences of design activity for
communities.

klaus

From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 4:26 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff
Cc: 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory

Hi Klaus,

Thank you for your message.

Well, I have Ken asking me to describe the ideas without using mathematical
symbols,  and you asking me to express them using mathematics. I started by
providing you with a paper that I thought was accessible, ( in fact I write
most of my papers to be accessible) and introduced some ideas.

Before we go further, I'd like to acknowledge I'm aware that  you seem to be
saying, as Ken and others do, that I don't see design theory,  mathematical
theory, and other sorts of  theory  as others do.

In some cases, you are correct: I'm intentionally doing new research and
creating new theory, particularly in Design and Systems fields.  I'm aware
some of this appears pretty odd from a conventional design cultural
perspective particularly from the Art and Design fields. Mostly what I've
been writing about on this list, however, is about well-established theories
and research findings of other fields and explaining their potential
benefits if applied into design, or drawing attention to contradictions or
implied errors in  the design research literature.

Some of the theory I build related to design  is mathematically abstract but
can be easily explained in words although sometimes it is mentally unusual
or unconventional to think.  The work on modelling the design of control
(think design intervention) by influencing  the  dynamic distribution and
flows of variety ( or entropy)  over time is mentally a bit out there. A
different example from 2002 (below) focuses on reflexive relations inverting
the modelling of design theory  and design management and practice in much
the same style as the flexibility and stiffness approaches  in predicting
the behaviour of redundant structures. In other words, the approach inverts
and extends the understanding you seem to have have about using maths theory
to model design activity, and instead it produces a model of design outcome
behaviours by dynamically modelling the interactions between theory
representations about behaviours, rather than modelling the behaviours and
design-related causes. See,

Love, T. (2002). Complexity in Design Management: Layered System Dynamics
Graphs. ANZSYS'02 'Management Approaches to Complex Systems', Mooloolaba,
Qld. Available
http://www.love.com.au/docs/2002/ANZSYS02_TL-Layered-SD-Graphs.pdf

Now, if you require a little formal maths representation of Ashby's
Requisite Variety as it applies to design...

Imagine a dynamic situation with multiple possibilities of change and an
attempt to apply management interventions or design decisions  to shape its
behaviour.

You might think of this as changes to the context into which a new design
intervention is placed  and effecting abilities of the design intervention,
or you might think of it as the field of potential outcomes in the real
world consequent on decisions made by a design team.

The dynamics of change in the real world  might be considered as a set D of
perceived disturbances.

The decisions made by the design team might be considered as belonging to
the set R of potential regulatory actions acting on the real world and
influencing the disturbances D.

In the case of extreme environmental determinism of the sort criticised in
the early post by Jerry, then the relationship between D and R can be seen
as a function, f by which D and R have a one to one mapping, i.e.

f  has the property of D->R such that the decisions made by designers  in
the set R , through the action of the design, actualised and distributed as
an intervention, exactly define  the disturbances (behaviours), D,  in the
real world.

As yourself and others have pointed out, the determinism of the environment
is not specific. It may not be specific, but it is, however, complete. That
is, decisions by designers influence things although they do not provide a
necessary and sufficient one-to-one mapping on changes. Yet at the same time
things change in the real world and those changes have causes such that the
changes happen. This latter can be seen as the assumption that the outcomes
of even apparent statistical randomness, at a micro-level, occur as a result
of causes in the real world.

One way of analysing this is in terms of entropy, which applies to both
physical and theoretical situations. Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety can be
explained in this way.

A typical representation of Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety is:

H(E) - H(D) - H(R|D) - H(R) >=  K

Where:

H(E) is the entropy represented by the essential variables of the situation

H(D) is the entropy  in the disturbances to these variables (the entropy
associated with changes in behaviour of the situation)

H(R|D)  is the entropy associated with the knowledge of which regulatory
actions address which disturbances  in terms of the conditional probability
of R to D ( perhaps can be seen as an entropic cost equivalent to
transaction cost in informatic terms). ( H(R|D) = 0 for complete knowledge
and 100% correlation between management action and intended behavioural
change, or H(R|D) =H(R) as random intervention without understanding.)

H(R) is the entropy of regulatory or management actions to manage
disturbances, D.

K is a  function unrelated to E, D and R and usually seen as a constant or
buffering variable comprising the other stuff that happens but is not
included in the specific discussion above.

In the limit, the above implies the variability available to regulation or
management  must  be at least that  of the variability of the disturbances
or outcome behaviours.

The same kind of behavioural mappings apply as much to physical as
theoretical situations such as information flows.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics provides the basis for Ashby's Law of
Requisite Variety above, as it does for the Shannon-Hartley law but
otherwise the two laws are unconnected.

Best wishes ,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI

Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566

Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--






From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2014 3:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Cc: 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory

terry,

thanks for sharing a paper of yours. it claims to elaborate on ashby's law
of requisite variety. ashby's law generalized shannon's information
theoretical limits to the limits of a system's ability to adapt to
environmental disturbances. his law can be stated mathematically. you used
it metaphorically to explain something in the domain of human-technical
systems in which mathematics is less if at all applicable.  this is borne
out by your paper, which contains a block diagram whose arrows are not
quantifiable and, as i would have expected, you did not supply a single
mathematical expression that would make what you are writing about a
mathematical model.

in reference to your frequent push on this list for a mathematical approach
to design, i start thinking that you pursue a conception of mathematics that
does not correlate with how mathematicians conceptualize their domain.

in reference to the thread on design theory, your paper gives us not a hint
of such a theory, not even a theoretical proposition about design. the paper
casually mentions once that something was "designed" and once that someone
was "designing" something. that is all. just as with your strange notion of
mathematics, your conception of design does not seem to correlate with my
understanding of design activity. i do not claim to have a monopoly on its
definition, but i must wonder whether other designers on this list see
themselves addressed in this paper. my guess is they don't.

terry, i am afraid to conclude that you seem unable to stay on the topic of
this thread, cannot answer the simple question of what you mean when you use
the word "design theory", "marthematical", and "predictive".

klaus

From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 3:36 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff
Cc: 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory

Dear Klaus,

The first paper, in answer to your question, is  at the simpler end of
predictive support for designers. The focus is better design of what I have
coined as 'motivational information systems'.

The paper describes the use of causal loop diagramming (the initial stage in
system dynamics predictive modelling) to identify and review the effects of
multiple feedback loops  in a university motivational information system.
The aim is improving the design of such systems.

The use of causal loop diagramming revealed several effects and consequences
overlooked by those using and managing the system.

The predictive power of the tool is reasonable enough for design purposes in
that it provided insights into hidden causes, consequences and biases. It
also provided  information about structural design changes to improve the
system.

Relative to more powerful dynamic predictive modelling the weakness of
causal loop diagramming  is it is time independent.

In addition, the approach provided the basis for identifying an additional
(6th) extension to  Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety for use by those
designing complex socio-technical systems. That is a contribution to a
different body of design-focused complex socio-technical system research I'm
engaged in.

I feel the paper might perhaps benefit by a censorship caution something
along the lines of 'coarse language' or, 'not for academics of sensitive
disposition'.

The paper is
Love, T. , & Cooper, T. (2008). Motivational Information Systems: Case study
of a University Research Productivity Index and 6th Extension to Ashby's
Law. ANZSYS'08: 14th International Conference, Perth,
WA.<http://www.love.com.au/docs/2008/motivational-information-systems.pdf>

Available at
http://www.love.com.au/docs/2008/motivational-information-systems.pdf

Best wishes,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love
Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--


From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, 8 December 2014 10:34 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Cc: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: design theory

terry

I already mentioned that I have not written about design theory,, am not
interested in design theory, at least not as a subspecies of what in the
philosophy of science is called theory.

it is you who talks of predictive design theory, giving the impression you
know what you are talking of.
instead of explaining your design theory to us for us to see whether it
enlightens us or makes us understand design in novel ways, you ask me to
give you the answer I was asking you to give.

I think you are playing rhetorical games to hide your inability to
substantiate your claims.

best wishes
klaus


Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 7, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Terence Love
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Klaus,

Thanks for your reply.

What I was trying to ask, perhaps not clearly enough, was exactly what YOU
mean by and how you specifically bound the concept of a 'design theory'.

For example, do you define a design theory as:


*         A theory about design process bounded by formal descriptions of
individual activities and their relationships?

*         A theory  about the internal human subjective processes by which
an individual's affective cognition processes generate and internally test
the viability of designs bounded by it being an internal process and not
including for example memory supplementations such as drawings and sketches?

*         A theory about design activity seen as specific communications
between individuals that draws a boundary between communicaitons specific to
the design  and other communicaitons that occur at the same time and between
the same individuals yet are outside the scope of the design theory?

*         A theory about design seen as socially constructed new knowledge
and which the boundaries are specific rules tightly defining which
activities, individuals, communications and elements of knowledge are
included within the design theory  and which are not?

*         Etc

Your preferred definition of 'design theory'  may be some combination of any
of the above or somethings else.

The important thing I want to know is exactly how you specify testable
boundaries that define very tightly those elements that are within your
concept of design theory, and those that are excluded.

That is I'm trying to avoid being involved in useless discussion based on
broad brush meaningless definitions like  'a design theory is a theory about
innovation' or 'a design theory is a theory about communicaiotn in design
activity'.

Best wishes,
Terry

--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love
Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.au
--





From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, 8 December 2014 1:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>; 'PhD-Design - This list
is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory


terry,



i know what a theory is. in a nutshell:

*         it needs to explain a set of specific observable phenomena

*         it is concerned with phenomena that can be observed repeatedly

*         it needs to be general, i.e., one should be able to extrapolate it
to phenomena not yet observed -- able to predict, to explain phenomena in
advance of observing them

*         it is stated from the position of an outside observer,
etymologically a spectator

*         it needs to be inter-subjectively falsifiable, i.e., by agreement
among multiple observers on available evidence, which also means that a
theory must be understandable by observers

i am sure there are more conditions.



to me design means introducing innovations which, by definition, may rely on
existing phenomena (technology, materials, and practices) but  proposes
something fundamentally new, something that could not grow on trees, so to
speak. there are all kinds of teachable practices that can lead to
innovations. but they are actionable strategies, not theories constructed to
explain  observations.



you claim to know mathematical models of complex system (i know some as
well) that could explain design activities (the emergence of novel
technologies and practices, including revolutions).

please give us a hint of how they look like and what they entail beyond
merely claiming that you are in possession of them.



klaus



-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 2:52 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design'
Subject: RE: design theory



Hi Klaus,

Thanks for your message. Not a rhetorical game. I'm cautious and exact about
using the term 'design theory' and wanted to know your way of using the term
so I could align my answer to your thinking.

I'll answer without locating in design theory.

Best regards,

Terry



-----Original Message-----

From:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff

Sent: Sunday, 7 December 2014 3:08 PM

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>; 'PhD-Design - This list
is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design'

Subject: RE: design theory



terry,

i asked you to give me an example of a design theory which you talk of as
having to be predictive.



instead of stating one (or at least a few propositions of one), or stating
what it is to predict, you refer to "predictive modelling methods" in the
abstract and talk of "responsibilities and creative design activity that
comes with using better predictive methods."



This is a far cry from giving me at least a hint of an answer to what i had
hoped you learn of how a design theory looks like. i just don't know what it
should predict: responsibility? creative actions? how to solve problems?

change the world?



then you ask me to "detailed for (you) what (i) regard as a design theory,
and what are the characteristics of the boundaries of the concept of 'design
theory' (in general)  that  differentiate design theories from other forms
of theories"



i happen not to talk of design theory, i do not have any. i have insights in
what it means to design, what is important and what is less so, but i would
not frame these experiences in terms of design theory and would not have
asked you if i knew how you conceptualize design theory.



in effect, you now asked me to answer the question i posed to you. i was not
playing rhetorical games.



klaus









----Original Message-----

From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 12:57 AM

To: Klaus Krippendorff; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design'

Subject: RE: design theory



Hi Klaus,



You asked me to  ' give us an example of a predictive "design theory"'



I've described my response to this in detail at other times.  In essence, I
refer to predictive modelling methods for complex socio-technical design
situations and their use in design process, and the changes in roles,
responsibilities and creative design activity that comes with using better
predictive methods.



You seem to be somehow collating this into a 'predictive design theory', but
that's not how I see it.



Rather, implicit in it is the idea that the current way of thinking about
design theories is limiting, and part of the problem.



For the remainder of today, I need to travel and work. I'll reply more fully
tomorrow.



In the meantime, it would help if you detailed for me what you regard as a
design theory, and what are the characteristics of the boundaries of the
concept of 'design theory' (in general)  that  differentiate design theories
from other forms of theories.



Best wishes,

Terry



---

Dr Terence Love

PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love
Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030

Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848

Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

--









-----Original Message-----

From:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff

Sent: Sunday, 7 December 2014 12:07 PM

To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design

Subject: design theory



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.



part of your message complains of feeling attacked. this is far from my
intention. i was aware that i posed a challenging question whose answer
would clarify what you had in mind regarding design. i had asked you because
i have the feeling you are subscribing to a notion of theory taken literally
from the natural sciences in which predictions is the currency of
publishable success. when you refer to theories you have a tendency to talk
about generalities, including what constituted evidence, etc. i was more
interested in design



as a communication scholar i am dealing with theories of human communication
all the time, with conceptions of dialogue, with the relationship between
speech acts and what they accomplish, with models of influence, with issues
of power, submission, and liberation. such theories then to be
propositional, occasionally based on mathematical formulations, for example,
limits on communication in information theoretical terms. although i have
proposed some theoretical propositions on design, but they do not reach the
requirement of the kind of predictive specificity you seem to impose.



so, i just want to read an example of a valid design theory - not assertions
of requirements for one, such as that they should be evidence based,
predictive, general, useful for designers, etc. i think this simple question
deserves an answer from a vocal proponent of design theory.



klaus





-----------------------------------------------------------------

PhD-Design mailing list
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------