 |
 |
Hello everyone, I love theorizing and thinking at theoretical level, but we need to set things straight. I don't think it matters that much to go into details. The problem is that the very concept of theory is positivist. The discussion up to now follows such a track. Positivist theories cannot work in most of the design research domains, and certainly not in design. Forgive me, but that is the world. You can not use positivism in art theory. (Here I use the word in two different ways, actually these are two different terms.) The concept of theory is developed for the natural sciences. The social sciences can manage it. When we go more towards the humanitarian sciences, the concept changes drastically, although the word is retained. This creates the confusion. In the arts, we follow a humanistic train of thought and rely more on paradigms developed for understanding the human condition. The concept of discourse comes from a completely different tradition. We don't need to reconcile these two. It is better to make a decision which way we want to go and then, let's go that way without hesitation. I would not discuss the difference or similarity between theory and discourse simply because they work in different intellectual systems. Here I agree with Gavin, if I interpret his post correctly. So, whether we theorize or make discourse depends where we stand and what intellectual wave we ride. It will be difficult to reconcile these two. I also think it would not be necessary, at least at that point. Best, Lubomir Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Family and Consumer Sciences 309 Johnston Hall Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059 phone: (419) 372-7935 -----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 Gavin Melles Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:49 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: design as discourse Perhaps at the heart of all this talk is also whether there is a sense of theory (and closer to the ground 'model') other than that which science and related empirical fields wants to use (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and which, since Popper, includes notions such as falsification, induction (and ultimately objective knowledge) etc. If there is another more rhetorical ways of talking about theory (i.e. as discourse) then this will do different kinds of work for us in the intellectual inquiry we are pursuing. If, on the other hand, the Popperian mainstream model helps us do other things then stick with it. The assumption in this conversation that we may reach some sort of argued decision assumes that we share a certain set of assumption about what is important and useful (pragmatism again) - this is not necessarily and not ordinarily the case. Also for an entertaining read about alternative 'theories' or at least weltanschauung - form of life from a former colleague at Melbourne read Science and the African Logic (<http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14593.ctl>http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14593.ctl) by Helen Verran, who we hop to have with us next year 2009, Melbourne for the Cumulus Conference