Dear All,
Chuck Burnette’s post got me to thinking about who it is that studies or works with colour, wondering what they do.
While I responded to the initial query in terms of the visible gaps in theoretical clarity and methodological responsibility, Chuck’s post got me to thinking another way. This was to ask what I would do had I wanted to begin to answer the question. Here, I would have done two things.
The first would be to do a literature review. A quick and dirty search on Google Scholar turned up around 3,00o,000 hits. A search limited to peer-reviewed articles in scholarly and scientific journals yields just under 300,000 articles.
The second thing I would do would be to ask who actually works with colour from a professional, scientific, or industrial perspective. I found more than twenty such organisations before I stopped. I started with the US because of the long history of these kinds of associations, but I found a few international and European associations. I’m sure that a half a day’s work would turn up several dozen more in the UK, Europe, Asia, and Australia-New Zealand. Here they are:
http://www.iscc.org
http://www.ad-chroma.com/
http://www.aatcc.org
http://www.astm.org
http://www.asprs.org
http://www.colorassociation.com
http://www.colormarketing.org
http://www.pigments.org/cms/
http://www.cormusa.org
http://www.detroitcc.org
http://gia.org
http://www.ies.org
http://www.color.org/index.xalter
http://www.napim.org
http://www.osa.org
http://www.scadent.org
http://www.sid.org
http://specad.org
http://www.detroitcc.org
http://www.cepe.org
http://www.eupia.org
Once we step up to a meta-analysis of the thread itself, several issues become visible.
1) The initial question was not phrased in a meaningful way. That is, the question in the post that started this thread had no meaning in analytical terms. It did offer opportunities to riff on the idea of colour in different contexts, so in that sense, it was suitable for a list where anyone is free to throw out any theme at any time. BUT if the complaint is that the design field is weak on theory construction, then we need a higher standard.
2) When the question was rephrased to indicate what it was about in reasonably clear terms, it became clear that the only way to make theoretical and practical use of the question required information from the real world.
In 1905, Albert Einstein (1998 [1905]: 71-98) published an article on Brownian motion with only three references to the real world. He could avoid referring to the earlier work for a simple reason. Everything in Einstein’s article involved well known facts that every working physicist in the world knew and understood. As a result of this article, Einstein convinced great many physicists of the physical reality of atoms, an issue that had hitherto been a matter of controversy. What made the article so interesting is that Einstein based his revolutionary article on physical and chemical facts that had been observed and described since the 1820s. While Einstein received his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, the issues in this paper gave rise to another Nobel Prize. In 1908, Jean Perrin published an experimental verification of Einstein’s 1905 article. He won the Nobel Prize in 1926 for this work.
If we are to develop serious theory, a significant part of our work must meet Herbert Blumer’s criteria. These are worth repeating:
Blumer (1969: 21) writes, "an empirical science presupposes the existence of an empirical world. Such an empirical world exists as something available for observation, study, and analysis. It stands over against the scientific observer, with a character that has to be dug out and established through observation, study, and analysis. This empirical world must forever be the central point of concern. It is the point of departure and the point of return in the case of empirical science. It is the testing ground for any assertions made about the empirical world. Reality for empirical science exists only in the empirical world, can be sought only there, and can be verified only there.”
IF we complain that the design field is weak on responsible theory that has valid application in the real world, we need a higher standard.
Someone wrote me an off-list note to say that he had no idea what some of the contributors to the thread were talking about. Some posts did make sense by shedding light on unclear concepts or ideas. I’m not going to dip into controversy by giving my thoughts on who made sense or why — but the posts that made sense were useful because they resolved the fuzzy kinds of problems we’d sort through in a graduate seminar. My post did the same. I did not make a theoretical contribution. I offered a clarification of issues that we would need to understand as the preliminary basis of the serious kind of theoretical contribution that has been absent from this thread.
There is a difference between graduate seminar and the kind of meeting or seminar where people build theory.
If we are going to contribute to design theory, this requires better and deeper contributions that unsupported conjecture based on untested assumptions. Again, I can’t say whether the statements in the initial post — “assume a fixed number of colours” — is right or wrong. I do say that one could do a bit of work before asking for thoughts and comments.
My guess — and I emphasise guess — is that it would take about two years to develop an answer to the question. The start is about six months of literature review and inquiry among people who do work with colour. It is not impossible that someone has already answered this — it would be interesting to know if someone has, or if anyone has at least made an effort.
If there are no answers, it would take another year or so to design some experiments and gather responsible data.
At that point, it would take a few more months to write up the results, get them reviewed, and get them published.
If there are already answers to this question, the appropriate step would be a literature review article. If there are no answers, the appropriate next step would be empirical research. The thoughts and comments would begin with referee comments and then the article.
From time to time, Terry has asked that we should credit his contributions to this list should we use them in published research. One of the off-list queries I received got me to thinking about what sort of article would actually answer the question. Then I wondered whether one would have to credit Terry for throwing out the initial query. The answer to that is the subject of another thread on what you do with unformed questions in a graduate seminar, and how you are to acknowledge problematic statements that may or may not lead to a result.
The list of organisations where serious scientists, scholars, professionals, and industry groups work with colour appears above. A few days with Google Scholar and a serious digital collection of peer-reviewed articles might lead someone to wrestle with this question in a serious way.
That article would be a contribution to design theory.
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
—
References
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., pp. 1-60.
Einstein, Albert. 1998 [1905]. Einstein’s Miraculous Year. Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics. Edited and introduced by John Stachel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
--
Chuck Burnette wrote:
—snip—
In my view, interpretations are valid formulations due to their backgound, context, and intention. A Theory of Design Thinking suggests that an expression of any focal subject depends on the context in which it was formulated, the interpretation arising from the thinker's background, and the needs and desires that focus the expression. The theory also suggests that the choice of identifier for a color, or anything else, gives a functional boundary to the neural network in the brain sufficient to establish the expression as an object of thought that can be memorialized, recalled, adapted, and applied in subsequent thought, either subconsciously with a malleable boundary, or consciously through linguistic devices with less potential ambiguity. The potential ambiguity is thought to reside in the salience of different neuron groups in the context of the neural net. This would give subconscious imagination a greater range and linguistic definition greater precision. Just as the Color Council seeks to identify a trending color and paint manufacturer's seek a better understanding of the colors of their paint any identifier of utility in subsequent thought needs to be considered in terms of its circumstances of use, background influences and the thinkers intent.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
