theory, a voice from the (evolutionary)
swamp
Dear all,
here is a line of thought regarding theory of designing. It is a
summary of my Barcelona text (EAD 2003). Just to show that there are
people thinking about this issue. Please do not expect answers to
every unclarity. Thank you.
Jonas
Mind the gap! -
on knowing and not - knowing in design
Or: there is nothing
more theoretical than a good practice
Basic questions:
(1) Is there an essence of design / designing?
(2) What is the overall function of design?
(3) What is the specific nature of knowing in design?
(4) What about the relation design / science?
(5) How to improve the process of "problem-solving" through
research?
Summary of argument + answers to questions:
1 Why Still Considering Design
Foundations?
The discourse on design foundations is isolated and erratic. The
industrious and breathless "scientific" research activities
have to be backed up by a more coherent + flexible and less rigid
theoretical framework (= "foundation"), in order to promote
the autonomy and specific character of genuine design (research).
2 Foundations by Definition and
Deduction?
We tend to stick to the inappropriate expectation of being able to
tackle polymorphous phenomena (design, progress, foundations) by means
of sharpened definitions and formal conclusions. Fuzzy concepts may
better be grasped through illustrating the core of the term by means
of analogies. This means a shift from a definitory towards a
transitory logic.
3 Foundations Through
"Generative Principles"?
"Generative principles" are first of all generated
principles. In order to come closer to foundations we have to look at
the underlying evolutionary mechanisms, which are able to
"generate principles".
4 A Foundation: Evolutionary Epistemology
Evolutionary epistemology provides the most basic generative
mechanism to explain learning in the living world, thus explaining the
ongoing production and re-production of both artefacts and knowledge,
finally of design and science as dynamic forms.
This is the "essence" (ý question 1).
There is no need for any specific nature of knowing in design
(ý question 3).
5 Another
Foundation: Theory of Social Systems
Luhmann's theory of social systems provides the requisite
complexity to split the nice but simplistic concept of the
"whole" human being into autonomous subsystems.
Design(ing) is the discipline of creating contingent fits / interfaces
between bodies, consciousnesses and communications by means of
artefacts (ý question 2).
The shift from identity to difference allows to handle the transitory
nature of apparently fixed concepts.
6 A Third
Foundation: Theory of Socio-Cultural Evolution
The theory of socio-cultural evolution seems to be a useful
framework to describe the unpredictability of design developments and
project outcomes, thus the limits of causal explanations, in
a scientific manner.
7 Mind the gaps!
Control and Prediction limited
There are two basic problems related to systemic knowledge
gaps:
(1) The gaps between autopoietic systems involved in designing.
This is fundamental systemic "obstinacy", which is labelled
or covered with the nice and common but fuzzy terms
"creativity", "subjectivity", "values",
"trends", Š
(2) The gaps between the evolutionary mechanisms involved in
designing. Or: the future orientation of design activities. The
artefact, once released, remains as it is. The environments of the
artefact change in manners, which are in principle unpredictable.
8 Changes in Society
and Knowledge Production
Science, just because of its success, faces a shift towards more
project-oriented forms of scientific practice. The inability to deal
with consequences due to the knowledge gaps leads to a "crisis of
knowledge": there is no longer pure "theoretical"
knowledge, but rather practical knowledge in dealing with theory.
A "socialization of science" is occurring: science becomes
more visible, is observed, and under growing public control.
9 Design as a Non-Modern Discipline - Science
Approaches Design
Design, in a smaller
scale, has always been the expert discipline of dealing with
not-knowing. Both design and science are based on circular processes
of inquiry. They (still) differ in their purposes and outputs and in
the criteria of evaluating these outputs. Nevertheless science becomes
more "design-like".
Therefore design is requested to sharpen its, in main parts,
non-modern profile instead of striving at adaptation to a traditional
and weakening concept of science (ý questions 2, 4).
10 Don't believe in foundations -
Design as an Ironic Discipline
The more
"true" and thus normative design foundations claim to be,
the more counter-productive they are. Systemic irony is the optimal
strategy against soporific truths and fixed standards. The temporal
circularity (= "spirality") of making, observing,
theorizing, planning, making, ... with its indicated consequences as
to consequences seems to be the ultimate foundation.
In design research we cannot but follow Feyerabend
(ý question 5).
Feierabend!
(That's it for today!)
--
