Terry and colleagues,
> On Jan 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I suggest what we are needing in design research and for the creation of design theory is something different - prescriptive technical definitions - based on epistemological grounds rather than usage.
I certainly agree with Terry on the limitations of dictionaries. I often find a more inclusive definition in Wikipedia because it incorporates recent usage. I’m not that into etymologies for the same reason -as far as I know, they do not look ahead to potential future uses or pay as much attention to usage as the best dictionaries do or Wikipedia does.
But prescriptive technical definitions are definitely a turn off! They presume accuracy at the expense of imagination; durability instead of adaptability;
authority instead of open-mindedness. It isn’t usually hard to find fault with prescriptive futures. Also the arguments that they serve as useful tools for comparative differentiation or education don’t fly with me because prescriptive statements deflect the mind from looking at anomalies, actual circumstances, and experienced situations. It has assured that disciplinary silos remain the norm without building ways to access or adaptively apply useful knowledge.
Besides, I have never recognized anything in design built on "epistemological grounds.” Are you talking about interpretive principles or practical ones? Can you give us an example of what you mean, and how we might develop "prescriptive technical definitions", especially in the face of ever changing technology? How does it actually change design theory, research, or practice for the better?
With warm regards
As always,
Chuck
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|