Dear Yoád,
You make an interesting point. Communication. I agree. It is important. We can go this way.
However, is communication the "differentia specifica" of Design? Definitely not. Communication is omnipresent in all human activities and social entities. It is the medium of interaction and developing of relationships that lead to the emergence of activity systems and social entities. In this respect, you are right -- no communication, no design. Schon had focused on communication because he was interested in the social processes and exchanges in design. And, as a sociologist, he is looking at the social nature of one human activity. In this respect, it makes sense to focus on communication. Actually, the study of interaction in the design process is a great project.
The key is the nature of decisions to be made and in this respect, the content of information that is exchanged. (This is also true for all activities and social entities.) From this foundation, we can start searching for the specific content of information that is necessary for design decision making. In this way, we will move towards the specifics of design. At this time, I will abstain from discussing the format because this phenomenon of information support for decision making is quite illusive, in particular when we already have talked about a communication approach.
Although the communication and semantic approaches are very useful for particular purposes, we should not absolutize them. Actually, every approach, when absolutized, might lead to inadequate decisions.
Instead of communication, I would go one level up in terms of abstraction and will take activity as a foundational concept. From there, I will construe the place of communication, content, format, etc. in the universe of design. After all, design is an activity. From this position, I would treat content and format NOT as communication phenomena, but as activity phenomena. The difference is that the activity approach will focus on producing content rather than disseminating content. The emphasis will be on knowledge production for a particular purpose. From here, we have a much better position to methodologize and develop knowledge production procedures. Regarding format, the activity approach will lead us to operationalizing knowledge rather than translating knowledge. (I have a problem with "translational" research. This is not about translation.)
Just a few thoughts.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yoád David Luxembourg
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 11:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Foundation and Instrumental Theories of Design
Hey Charles,
Communication and the structures that enables it between people (both in physical terms and semiotic terms) are the unifying principles of design.
Whatever the decision making theory, take communication out of it and it will no longer work. The exchange, coordination, and circulation of information sits at the core of design. Theories of design only try to moderate and pace that process.
Krippendorff did not name his 2006 book the semantic turn for nothing.
Best,
Yoád David Luxembourg
On 5-7-2016 17:19, Charles Burnette wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> Two interesting papers from 2011 by Per Galle were just posted to academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> . One concerns the roles of Foundation theory and Instrumental theory for design. Per concludes:
> What the readings would suggest is that instrumental theories might well be affected by one’s foundational theories, but in rather obscure ways. Furthermore, foundational theory tends to be stipulated without justification regarding its usefulness in supporting instrumental theory. Thus, when it comes to answering our second focus question, about what a good foundational theory is, we are at a loss for guiding principles.
>
> I suggest that A Theory of Design Thinking overcomes the unifying principle problem and several other ones by basing design theory in a foundational theory of purposeful thought, then allowing instrumental theories of all kinds to be defined by the purpose, background, context and circumstances that gives them focus. This provides a unifying framework for science and design, services and artifacts, as well as personal, cultural, and social interests and concerns. Papers about the range of issues addressed by the theory and the roles that philosophical stances and emotions play in it suggest the versatility and scope of this approach.
>
> Please explore any of the 35 papers about the theory that address your interests or concerns. They are all available on academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> and may be accessed by googling Charles H Burnette, academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> or www.independent.academia.edu/charlesburnette <http://www.independent.academia.edu/charlesburnette>.
>
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|