Dear Alejandra,
Thank you for your response. I had forgotten about Gavin’s work and I will read Cross again.
There has been, as you know, a nice exchange on the list regarding abductive thinking. I remain disappointed in the response regarding correlation, especially, its relationship to abductive thought, analogical thought, and heuristics. I also feel that intentions and interpretation may outweigh explanation for design thinking as compared to scientific thought. As you may imagine, I am most interested in the cognitive modeling that might bring situated intention, interpretation, conceptual modeling, heuristics, valuing, and beliefs together when formulating and communicating a designed outcome. While useful, the process of abduction, in my view, has not yet found an interpretation appropriate to design thinking.
I look forward to your dissertation. Perhaps answers will be there.
Best wishes,
Chuck
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Alejandra Poblete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear professor Burnette, my ongoing doctoral Thesis is about *abduction* (in
> the way that Ch. S. Peirce defines it) and its scope within the projectual
> process.
>
> As you certainly know, several authors, within design field, have mentioned
> abductive reasoning in order to explain what happens in the creative
> process; for instance:
>
> - Nigel Cross (*Designerly ways of knowing*, 2007) do mention abduction as
> a kind of reasoning designers do (p. 28, 37, 53) and also relates abduction
> with the "creative leap" (chapter: 4. CREATIVE COGNITION IN DESIGN I: THE
> CREATIVE LEAP, p. 76)
> - John Kolko, *Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design
> Synthesis* - Design Issues: Volume 26, Number 1, Winter 2010 - MIT
>
>
> But, other scholars from education field, and philosophy of science have
> detected the relation between abduction and design research, like:
>
> - Pentti Määttänen, links pragmatic semiotics to the context of design
> research (*Pragmatist Semiotics as a Framework for Design Research*, Milano
> 2000)
> - Gavin Melles, has addressed the relationship between pragmatism and
> design, both in education and in research, in several publications from
> 2008 to date. (*An enlarged pragmatist inquiry paradigm for Methodological
> pluralism in **academic design research*, Journal Artifact, vol 2, 2008 and
> his lecture: *Pragmatism Matters for Design*, Delft University,
> Netherlands, 2009)
>
>
> Anyway, *abduction* (abductive reasoning, appositional reasoning or
> retroductive reasoning), is not only a kind of reasoning, is the very
> essence of a knowledge theory: Pragmatism. (*Pragmaticism*, as Peirce named
> his philosophy)
>
> I have download your paper to read it with calm. Thank you.
>
> best regards
> ...........................................
> Alejandra Poblete P.
> COMUNICACIÓN VISUAL
> of: 223251239
> móvil - whatsapp: +56996896490
>
> 2015-02-09 14:02 GMT-03:00 Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I have come to believe that an emphasis on correlation and abductive
>> thought are characteristic of design thinking, while causal reasoning is
>> used primarily to validate and implement what is expressed. Designers are
>> very good at identifying and adapting similarities often through analogies
>> and metaphors, editing out information that doesn’t suit their objectives.
>>
>> I don’t know if either correlation or abductive reasoning have been used
>> as systematic design or research methods.
>> Does anyone know of a well documented example of a systematic use of
>> correlation or abduction in design practice or research?
>>
>> I have recently published a paper "Re-cognizing* Components in A Theory of
>> Design Thinking” (www.independent.academia.edu/charlesburnette <
>> http://www.independent.academia.edu/charlesburnette>) that describes how
>> correlation was used heuristically to determine the seven modes of thought
>> in the theory. Once identified, the modes were correlated with profiles of
>> different subjects to demonstrate critical thinking, content analysis,
>> generation of new content, and instrumental application.
>>
>> I believe correlation can be an important tool in design research and
>> practice. But, I don’t believe it has yet been recognized as such.
>> I hope I’m wrong.
>>
>> Thanks for your help or critique.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burnette
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|