Dear Terry,

Tony Golsby-Smith (1996) — it is Golsby-Smith, not Goldsby as in Goldfinger — did not write this as a theory-driven paper. The title makes clear that this is a practical perspective by someone who does well with major projects.

While I do not completely agree with his opening definition of the essence of design, it’s fair for everyone to define his or her terms as the terms are applied in the article. I would say it quite differently, but from what I know of the Second Road design practice he is in part appealing to a diagrammatic approach. This makes sense to me — this is also the approach in use at MindLab in Denmark for solving problems in major governmental systems. 

You can learn more about Second Road and see examples of their tools on their web site. The section on diagrammatic tools illustrates and explains their tools   in concise form. Go to URL:

http://www.secondroad.com.au

You can learn more about MindLab at their web site. URL:

http://mind-lab.dk/en/

Donella Meadows (2015) and others like her use diagramming and visual modelling to better understand the dynamics and interaction of complex systems. You may not believe that visual tools can help us to understand complex systems, but people who work with such systems often use them to great effect. Meadows and her colleagues used such tools in writing the original Club of Rome report to model a global system. They also used computer modelling and other tools. (See: Meadows, Meadows, Randers, and Behrens 1972; Meadows 1973; Meadows et al. 1974). In the work behind these books, visual models also provided heuristic guides in developing deeper and more comprehensive models of other kinds. You are overlooking the power of visual tools.

It remains the case that you do not "cross-compare the detail of design theories,” — the DETAIL of design theories, and your taxonomy tool (Love 2000) does not offer a satisfactory formal process for analysing theories of comparing the details. The tool locates theories within kinds and levels of analysis. Since this tool is published, people can read it for themselves to see which description in more accurate, yours or mine.

You made the claims about the “past mess of design theory.” You made the claim that you have ALREADY DONE a comprehensive review of 40 years of design theory, and you made the claim that you “personally know the theories of the design research literature are a mess [because you] have tested most of them over the last 40 years.” I’m saying, “show us.” 

You’ve been making the claims. I say, “show us.” 

Until you show us, I’d argue that Jeff Bardzell’s analysis of the situation is reasonable. Jeff argues that most fields make slow progress. They make progress through careful, sympathetic reading, slow debate, and they make mistakes along the way. This is definitely not as good as an absolute system than offers full epistemological security. In his second post, he even proposed a systematic way to work on some of these questions. That seems good to me.

Whitehead and Russell (1923) almost managed to develop a secure foundational system for mathematics until Kurt Gödel (1931, 1962) demonstrated that it is impossible to derive all mathematics from statements within a single system. An anecdote states that Russell wrote a short note to Gödel complaining about the proof. Russell supposedly said that Gödel could have saved Whitehead and Russell a lot of work if he had only published his theorem a few years earlier.

Analysing and understanding design theory take time. It’s a domain in which some areas are better understood than others, some territories better mapped, we understand a great deal about some processes and very little about others. For those who do not like the idea of theory, the same can be said with respect to most kinds of propositions or descriptions of how things work. Careful reading and genuine analysis make for better progress than massive claims with no evidence to support them.

I concur with Jeff’s closing paragraph: “… even though I disagree with you here (and, if I am honest, most of the time), I find many of your statements challenging in a constructive way; they push me, and I like and need that. My point rather is to advocate for a theory building and vetting process that is systematic, slow-moving, and deliberative.”  
 
As everyone must know, we have been good friends for many years and we’ve been debating these issues on the list and off for a long time. Your ideas and propositions force me to express my ideas more clearly. This is valuable. To be more clear, I must also think more clearly and address issues that I have not developed with a full, careful explanation. This is also valuable. But you are asking for more: you are asking me to change my view. For this, I need to read for myself evidence for the claims you posit.

Any serious challenge of the kind you propose requires well defined criteria for judgment and an impartial panel of judges. In this sense, Jeff is explaining how to move forward with the challenge in a way that will improve the field.  

Before stepping out of this thread, I want to say again what I wrote before: if you cannot yourself demonstrate that the entire literature until now consists of a “past mess of design theory,” you can’t expect doctoral students to demonstrate this in the limited time of a doctoral program. We expect PhD students to make an original contribution to the knowledge of the field as a condition of earning the PhD. Some of these contributions will be innovative contributions to theory in a carefully delimited domain. It is impossible for a student to start with the PREMISE that the entire field until now is a mess. Unless the field — or a major portion of the field — concurs with the premise of a thesis, a PhD student must demonstrate through a literature review that the premise is reasonable. That is what a PhD student must do to claim that the entire literature of the field until now is a mess. You can simply make the claim. For a thesis to be accepted, a PhD student must show that the claim is reasonable. No PhD student has the time to make such a demonstration through a careful review of the full literature.

It is inappropriate to expect a PhD student to do in 3 years or 5 years what you have not been able to do in 40 years.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/

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

—

Golsby-Smith, Tony. 1996. “Fourth Order Design: A Practical Perspective.” Design Issues, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 5-25.

Gödel, Kurt. 1931. “Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I.” ("On Undecidable Propositions of Formal Mathematical Systems.” Monatshefte für Mathematik Physik, 38: 173–198.

Gödel, Kurt. 1962. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Translated from German bv B. Meltzer. New York: Basic Books.

Love, Terence. 2000. “Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical Structure for Design Theory.” Design Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 293-313.

Meadows, Dennis L., William W. Behrens III, Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Roger F. Neill, Jørgen Randers, and Erich K. O. Zahn. 1974. Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World. Cambridge Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press.

Meadows, Donella H. 1973. Toward Global Equilibrium. Cambridge Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press. 

Meadows, Donella H. 2015. Thinking in Systems: a Primer. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Co. 

Meadows, Donella H, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. 1972. Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.

Whitehead, Alfred North, and Bertrand Russell. 1923. Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—


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