Print

---

Dear Colleagues,

Jose Aravena's brief post raises five more issues for consideration.
The nature of the questions he asks requires us to consider these
issues:

Problem 11: What is science?

Problem 12: What is philosophy?

Problem 13: Is design research beset by positivist fundamentalism?

Problem 14: What is positivism, anyway?

Problem 15: Why are definitions useful?

As with Andrew King's post, I will not answer here.

As with Andrew's post, I will point out two problems. These are, once
again, linked to the problem of reading.

The term "positivism" is used loosely in many fields. In design
research, the term is used so loosely that it loses all meaning. It
can mean anything from "empirical quantitative research methods as
used in physics and chemistry" to "stuff that I don't like," "stuff
that I don't agree with," or "stuff that I simply don't understand."

Jose referred to Per Galle's excellent special issue of Design
Studies as an example of positivism. Jose writes,

"I think the Design Society (and PhD) is very envolved with
positivist fundamentals. . . .  Just take a look on what is called
design philosophy in the last number of Design Studies Journal and
maybe you could agree with me."

This is not so. Do not take my word for it, though. Read the issue
for yourself to see whether the authors of the ten articles are
positivist fundamentalists. To make it easy, you will find the
abstracts to all articles in the issue in the next post.

It seems to me that these articles represent a wide spectrum of
views. Some of them are clearly empirical in leaning, but none seem
positivist to me. Of course, my view on this is influenced by Bunge's
(1999: 216) view that there are no positivists left in the community
of serious philosophers - and only a few left in what he playfully
refers to as the backward regions of natural and social science where
unreflected data gathering is the main sport.

Jose seems to believe that definitions have no value. I disagree. The
fact that Jose mislabels as positivist the contents of the entire May
issue of Design Studies suggests there is, indeed, value to
definitions. I will attempt to demonstrate that this is so when I
post my answer to problem 15: "Why are definitions useful?"

Jose writes, "We need philosophers!"

Philosophers are more than polemicists. Philosophy requires
understanding what it is we are discussing. This is one reason that
we require definitions, particularly if we are not making progress in
design research, as Andrew and Jose assert.

It also means relevant reading and close argument from the source
material. One reason I like Norris's (1997) book on epistemological
relativism is that he summarizes the major varieties of
epistemological relativism so well that his book constitutes a good
introduction to the different schools of thought against which he
argues.

To be honest, though, I am not entirely sure what Jose calls for. At
the same time he argues AGAINST definitions, he says, "we need
descriptions and words." At the same time he argues against theories,
he says, "we need philosophers." One of the central activities of
philosophy is theorizing, at least in the basic meaning of the word.

Philosophy begins with relevant reading. Andrew noted that not all of
us have access to everything we ought to read. True enough. That is
precisely why I argue for careful citation of source material. That
is why source arguments must be summarized in the citing document,
rather than merely pointing to an external argument, as many tend to
do. That is also why many of us have been concerned with the problem
of scholarly communication and using he power of the Internet to make
resources available in full text. As these threads go by, they add up
to a systematic view of what it is to be engaged in the research
enterprise. On more than one occasion, you will find that arguments
posted in one thread have been substantively addressed under another
rubric.

Now Andrew also suggests that the "problem of reading" involves time
and stamina. That is true. One need not do a comprehensive literature
review every time one discusses an issue. One MUST read the relevant
literature. If one has done enough relevant reading over the years,
the cumulative knowledge also enables a certain level of engagement.

The topics in this thread are rich enough and important enough that
the reding we do will be rewarded. It DOES take time to address
problems in the philsophy of design.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman





References

Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books.

Norris, Christopher. 1997. Against Relativism. Philosophy of Science,
Deconstruction, and Critical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.


--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University