Dear Ken
First of all, sorry for the late reply. It was my turn to do house chores and it took the life
out of me. Secondly, I must express my appreciation for allowing me to discuss your work
directly with you. I find it a privilege.
As I said before, I am quite sure it is my problem that I am unable to derive meaning to
enrich my own understanding through reading of your work in theory. I have never
reflected on the reasons why it is so. But with your encouragement, I have reflected on it
by using your article "Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches and methods".*
There are various reasons why reading your assay doesn’t clarify my own thoughts. I believe
there are some assumptions that I find problematic but they are not addressed in your essay.
And on which you do spend your energy, I regret to say that I don’t find it very enriching.
Finally, it maybe just personal interest that influences on what I pay attention to.
Here are some examples to illustrate what I mean:
"Design involves creating something new or transforming a less desirable situation to a
preferred situation. To do this, designers must know how things work and why". (Abstract).
In my post dated March 21, 2003, I have indicated the hole between description & explanation
and prescription. Knowing how things work and why may build theories, but to suggest that
theories can help designers design, I need more articulation than what is provided in your
essay. From the first sentence to the second sentence, I find that a big gap needs to be filled
first before I can be convinced of the value of theories for the practice of design.
"Design is of NECESSITY in transition from art and craft practice to a form of technical and
social science focused on how to do things to accomplish goals" (emphasis added p.10)
Why is it a necessity? The change (or progress if you will) in the profession of design, the
discipline of design and the field of design are not governed by any nature laws. The change is initiated by people. Why design has to become a technical and social science for me requires yet more articulation. Why do we have to model other fields? Why can’t we critically examine what we have been doing that others fields have not and then go from there?
"Because this paper does not describe a philosophy of science…. I merely point to the fact that
explicit and articulate statements are the basis of all theoretical activities, all theorizing, and all
theory construction". (p.18)
Although I understand why you have gone to such a great length to make that point in your
essay, and I also find it quite useful for some discussion; I regret to say that for me, it is hardly
enriching.
"Many avenues deserve exploration in the future. These include linking theory building to
the perspectives of design (science)…" (p.19)
This is, I think, precisely is what is not explored in your essay, but it is a point that "I" find
most interesting and critical for building theories in the name of design. You probably have
done much work since ‘common ground’ and I look forward to reading it.
I have responded to your request, however incomplete. May I ask you again to provide the
basis for the following statements that you have made:
"This is linked to one of your provocative notes to someone else in which
you argued that one need not review the literature to design. If what you
wish to do is design, you do not need to read the literature. If you wish
to discuss research issues, you DO need to read the literature.
It is my observation that you are a strong personality who loves to provoke
by asking questions. I also observe that you do not seem to pay attention
to or learn from the answers that people offer. Thus the rather provocative
note someone wrote that so irritated you last month".
If it were a misunderstanding, then I would appreciate a public retrieval of these statements.
Best Regards
Rosan
* Friedman, Ken. 2002. "Theroy Construction in Design Research. Criteria, Approaches and
Methods." Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design Research Society International
Conference at Brunel University, September 5-7, 2002. (Brunel University, David Durling
and John Shackleton. Stoke on Trent: Stafford University Press.
Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> schrieb am 21.03.03 17:26:16:
>
> Would you please quote the passages in my writings on theory that
> seem unclear to you? Please point to what you question or challenge.
> I will be happy to give a fair answer. I will appreciate a precise
> reference so that I can find and review the unclear passage in
> context.
>
______________________________________________________________________________
Belgien, Italien, Portugal,... Mit WEB.DE FreeMail koennen Sie in all
diese Laender SMS senden. http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021173
