Hi Luke,
I broadly agree with you on most aspects of what you wrote.
I'm impressed by Vermaas' (and his colleague Houkes') work after being one of the early reviewers of 'Technical Artifacts...'
One of the things Houkes and Vermaas brought to the definition process was the combination of establishing a desiderata (what the definition was desired to do) and then testing the definition structures that would fulfil that desiderata in different ways. Following the same path that I described earlier, the idea of allocating meaning occurs after this.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Houkes, Vermaas and colleagues wrote a text on a formal definition of design. Their skills are well up to it. It would be helpful across all design fields. If Houkes and Vermaas are on this list then please consider that a serious request!
Composing a desiderata for Simon's statement about design in hindsight suggests (as you wrote) that he was trying to provide a statement about design that would apply in the common language of multiple disciplines. Another part of the desiderata would be that the statement would open up the idea that there were other activities in which designing would be revealed in terms of that statement. It is informal and opens up the idea (of Simon's argument for a broader view of design), however, rather than formally and comprehensively specifying the term. Simply there are many aspects of the essence of design activity that Simon's statement doesn't address it is an open unbounded statement.
The statement about design by Simon had the aim of establishing an interpretation of meaning of the word design in the common language of different fields. In one sense, it is a declaration of a meaning of a word for the sake of a particular very specific discussion (the 'science of the artificial', which itself is not necessarily the same as 'design').
As such, I would regard Simon's statement about design as being a stipulative informal definition that is lexical and for the purposes of raising discussion. rather than being a formal definition of use in theory making.
Best wishes,
Terence
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
[log in to unmask]
www.loveservices.com.au
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Luke Feast
Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2016 2:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Definitions: testing structure rather than meaning
Dear Terry and all,
Pieter Vermaas recently published a chapter in which he briefly addresses the philosophical status of Herbert Simon’s definition of design (Vermaas, 2014). In the chapter, Vermaas takes the position that definitions should be analyzed with regard to their aims. Accordingly, he identifies three types of definitions of design: essentialist definitions, lexical definitions, and stipulative definitions. I think that considering the stipulative type of definition may add something useful to the current discussion of definitions and to Terry’s project.
According to Vermaas (2014, pp. 59-60), if it is assumed that a definition singles out those practices that are essentially design practices, then it aims to say something metaphysical about reality, and then it is called an essentialist definition. If it is assumed that a definition singles out how design practices are identified in common or expert language, then it aimed at saying something about how people give meaning to the term design, and then it is called a lexical definition. If it is assumed that a definition demarcates design practices as part of a larger effort at analysing, say, engineering curricula or national economies, then its aim is usefulness to that analysis, and then it is called a stipulative definition.
One of Simon’s larger aims in the Science of the Artificial was to address the fragmentation of society into scientists and humanists. Consequently, I think that Simon’s characterization of design is usefully understood using something like Peter Galison’s metaphor of a “trading zone”, that is, as a means to make exchanges that cross disciplinary boundaries. Simon states that his characterization of design as a science of the artificial is meant to point out topics in the common core of knowledge in the training of any professional whose task is to solve problems not only those professionals called “designers”. Accordingly, following Vermaas’s typology of definitions, it makes sense to me to call Simon’s definition of design a stipulative definition. Furthermore, it follows then that demonstrating that Simon’s definition is not a valid definition in terms of its formal logical truth, probably misses the larger point that Simon was trying make. Rather, the more relevant critical question is to ask is whether defining design as “devis[ing] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones” is useful or not within Simon’s larger effort to establish a research programme to facilitate exchanges that cross the disciplinary boundary between science and art.
Best wishes,
Luke
Luke Feast, PhD | Postdoctoral Researcher in Design | Department of Design | School of Arts, Design and Architecture | Aalto University | Finland
Vermaas, P. E. (2014). Design Theories, Models and Their Testing: On the Scientific Status of Design Research. In A. Chakrabarti & L. T. M. Blessing (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design (pp. 47-66): Springer London.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|