 |
 |
Hi Klaus, Sorry about the delay in responding. I'm now back on-line for a while thanks to Carlos, Eduardo and Victor and all the wonderful people at IADE/UNIDCOM in Lisboa. I think we go different ways on the theory issue. For me the central issue in 'what is a theory' is about theory being a representation in a formal language that is chosen/defined/designed so that tightly defined operations on theory objects as codified in that language are changed in ways that represent real world changes in the real world object being represented. This depends on three mappings: 1. Real world situation A -> theory representation A' in formal language 2. Real world change X -> formally defined operation X' in formal language on theory representation A' resulting in theory represntation B' 3. Theory representation B' -> Real world situation B The evidence issue is secondary. For me, the above is the central issue regarding 'whgat is a theory'. The matter of evidence simply gives an idea of the quality of the process, i.e. whether the formal representations and the definition of the operation X' adequately represent the real world change. In short form, how closely B' is to B. It is not necessary for the operation X' to be particularly deterministic or singular, although traditional simplistic uses of theory assume application of theory operations will provide a single unique answer - a bit like what is expected in the answers to early school maths questions. In relaity most useful theory representatins are much less specific: e.g., theories about body behaviour of use in optimising sports outcomes; theories used in improiving the behaviour of complex systems; and theories aimed at prediucting what happens in changing marketing promotions. Seeing theory in this way means it is straightforward making theory representations about human activities like designing where the outcome is not known or not specifically predictable. Theorymaking is much easier if it centres round the biological processes that are the human basis of the operationalisation of design-focused cognition, affects and behaviours. My experience and analyses show theorymaking to be very difficult and perhaps impossible if attempts to make theory about designing focus specifically on properties of the designed objects, or properties of the design problem, or the design process, or the content of the thoughts or feelings of the designer, or the expression of their emotions. I suspect the above factors underpin in a roundabout way why you come to the conclusion that design activity cannot be theorised about. I suggest that moving to a representational viewpoint based on the biological basis for human design activity and moving away from a purely social constructivist position addresses most of the problems and in a helpful fashion. This gives a primary basis of design theorymaking. It seems to me that it is after this that social constructivist perspectives are necessary to provide the explanation of how many learnt cognitively and emotionally-based phenomena come to be. All the best from here in noisy late night Lisboa, waiting for the weekend. Terry === Dr. Terence Love Dept of Design Curtin University Perth, Western Australia Visiting researcher IADE/UNIDCOM Lisboa, Portugal === -----Original Message----- From: klaus krippendorff Sent: 22/05/2004 5:48 AM To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask] Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception, sensory-motor etc ok, terry, one by one it is surely theories can arise from personal experiences, intuition, gedanken experiments, wild thoughts, but they are not theories unless there is some evidence to support its claims. just as i said in response to chuck. you can use the word theory in a different sense, but this would disconnect you from the literature on the subject. when i do something and generalize in my own terms what i am doing (without telling others or test what i believe to be true) i'd say this is knowledge, not theory. on your second point, i prefer to distinguish between theories about all kinds of things related to the artifacts that a designer is to develop, and you are right that designers, because they must know what they are talking about may use established theories to do just this (with the weight of evidence that their proponents may have amassed). but this is different from theories of the design process. i would not want to be quoted as saying that design is magic, but that design is not so determinate and generalizable as to be governed by theory. if you had a perfect theory of design, you could program a computer to design for you. i remember someone, whose name escapes me right now, who was serious in proposing and asked for funding to develop a design machine. a theory can address only the features of a process that are determinate, predictable, common, have continuity, etc. without human intervention. design is not determinate or predictable i do not think that "everything of information provision and human history must be included in each design process." if you design a motorcycle, the knowledge needed to design a political campaign is not likely to help you. for the latter, political theories are essential, but these are theories of the process you are intervening with, not of the design process. i hope that clarifies (at least what i wanted to say) klaus klaus krippendorff gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture the annenberg school for communication university of pennsylvania 3620 walnut street philadelphia, pa 19104.6220 phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H) fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H) usa -----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 Terence Love Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:48 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Theories of design cognition, perception, sensory-motor etc Hi Klaus, Can we tackle this a bit at a time as my Internet access isn't too good. I'm with you on most of the third paragraph. I've difficulty with two parts of the second para . First, I think one can make theories on the basis of subjective experience that are testable against that experience by that individual. I'm aware this this doesn't validate them for use by others. Second, I'm pretty sure its false that 'the knowledge that designers need must come from and be applied to insiders of the design process' . Perhaps I'm not understanding where you are coming from? Most of the time when I design, I use knowledge from all sorts of sources particularly from people who are expert at gathering and processing it into unambigous, validated generalisable and useable theory forms that give specified predictability. You seem to be implying that all and everything of information provision and human history must be included in each design process. Please could you expand a bit? Best wishes, Terry -----Original Message----- From: klaus krippendorff Sent: 19/05/2004 10:32 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Theories of design cognition, perception, sensory-motor etc dear terry, to answer your question, first what is a theory? a theory is constructed by a detached observer, as the greek origin suggests, by a spectator who is outside the events described. designers by contrast do things. the knowledge that designers need must come from and be applied to insiders of the design process, a theory is always a generalization. the validity of a theory depends on whether it accounts for the events it claims to generalize, that is to events that are not yet observed. prediction is one criteria. a theory that does not generalize to anything else is sometimes referred to as an explanation. explanations may make sense but if they do not do more than that, one cannot say anything about their validity. to be generalizable, there has to be an underlying continuity, a mechanism that is determinate, a recurrent pattern, an at least stochastic invariance. without that theories have nothing to say. i maintain that design is an inherently unpredictable activity. it is an undisciplined discipline, as i once said. if designers would do what is predictable, they would not be designers but unimaginative replicators of what their job requires. if design is inherently geared to the novel design theory is either invalid or predictive of features that are not essential to design. this is why i think it is futile or does a disservice to design to theorize it. the inability to theorize design is far from rendering design magical. one can teach it, one can reproduce it in various situations, one can earn a living with it suggesting it is useful to someone, but what it takes is an embodied knowledge, one that must be practiced to be demonstrably valid (not validated by further observations). klaus krippendorff gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture the annenberg school for communication university of pennsylvania 3620 walnut street philadelphia, pa 19104.6220 phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H) fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H) usa