 |
 |
Dear Lubomir, You, Harold and Erik have developed an elegant range of distinctions in the current thread. In comparing inquiry into general design process with inquiry into professional design practice, you articulated an important distinction. Your wrote, "The two avenues have different implications and applications . . . . although they might be competing in a purposeful activity framework, in a global theory of design they are complimentary." One of the challenges of design research is the fact that we require high-level global theories covering the full domain, mid-range theories that bridge and operationalize high-level concepts, and situated theories that serve within fields and subfields. Some situated theories also render general process and activities concrete. Your note captures the values and virtues of the two approaches. You wrote, "The philosophical reasoning that [Harold and Erik] follow is the way to go for understanding the nature of activity as a social phenomenon. However, when we go into a more specific domain like professional development, it is more economical to use a framework that banks on specific issues. I used several times the term 'benchmarking' to imply a particular area of application. I still believe that this is the way to advanced professionalism. "Basically, both ways can lead to these goals, but there are might be some differences in efficiency, level of necessary invention and discovery, and the associated risks with innovation, versus the relatively holistic and proven results of benchmarking. Again, I am talking only regarding a particular situation -- professionalization, professional development, and domain sustainment. I do not talk about a general theory of design." This last note is a useful reminder. A field grows when scholars work on the different issues for which they entertain personal passion. As Birgit noted, we all grow as we read and learn from each other. While I tend to focus on the broad-gauge issues that interest Erik and Harold, I also follow the important contributions of professional research. To develop rich high-level theory in the design domain, we must attend to the issues that are embedded in specific process and practice. At the same time, rich high-level theory serves to inform and develop excellent professional practice and good research in the field. The two approaches are complementary. They are linked in a dialectical relationship that fuels the development of good research. They are also linked in the development of good professional practice. W. Edwards Deming, one of the world's great professional practitioners in manufacturing, industrial engineering, and management, insisted on the dynamic interaction of good practice and good theory. Best regards, Ken -- 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