 |
 |
Hi David, I can write something more but enlightenment is something else! Here goes. Theory is a layered phenomenon and design research and practice has multiple layers of theory. For any single theory to make sense it has to link with theories on all layers. (Hence my 90s research into meta-theoretical perspectives on design theories (which will soon be back on the Love Design and Research website at www.love.com.au).) Epistemology is the 'study' (ology) of knowledge. In this case, the suggested focus is "the study of knowledge about 'Design Knowledge and Design Theories'". A concrete example. There are many types of theory about how people interpret and act on the instructions on a medicine bottle and, thanks to your research, much empirical information. At the moment, the theories don't fit together well with each other, with the empirical evidence and with theories more broadly (neuro-cognition, affective-cognition, cultural factors social issues...) and they don't define design guidelines. To bring this together into a coherent whole requires overarching meta-theoretical study of the knowledge and theories involved. The specific area of design research could be titled the: "Epistemology of 'Design Knowledge and Design Theories about how people interpret and act on the instructions on medicine bottles'" A bit long winded as a title but certainly a worthwhile study, and from what you have written you are doing in the background to your empirical work. All the best, Terry -----Original Message----- From: David Sless [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 3:38 PM To: [log in to unmask] Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: A new field of design research Hi Terry, Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this. We have had a sudden influx of new projects and they take a while to set up, taking much of my time. Returning to this thread. I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying, and it may be that others on this list are having similar difficulties, so I have a few questions. When you use the term 'epistemology' are you using the term in its common and classical philosophical usage to mean 'theories of knowledge', covering such divergent theories as idealism, realism, empiricism, or constructionism? Or are you using the term in some special sense that I'm missing? If you are using the term in its common usage then your phrase > the 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory'. spells out to be: ' the theory of knowledge of Design Knowledge and Theory'. This is the point at which I find myself getting lost. Can you enlighten me? David -- blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog web: http://www.communication.org.au Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA CEO . Communication Research Institute . . helping people communicate with people . Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795 Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640 Skype: davidsless 60 Park Street . Fitzroy North . Melbourne . Australia . 3068 On 26/04/2010, at 12:34 PM, Terence Love wrote: > Dear David, > > Thank you for great questions. > > When I started to answer them, I realised I've been explaining things from > the perspective of a new field of design research, the 'Epistemology of > Design Knowledge and Theory'. This field of Design Research is not actually > that new. It is more that it has been hidden or ignored. It is found only > in a very small number of sub-fields of Design. > > This 'new' field of Design research focuses on the 'Epistemology of Design > Knowledge and Theory' and its application in design practice, design > theory-making and design research. My previous posts since the 90s have > pointed to this approach but I hadn't realised till now it is a missing > field generally in Design Research, Design Practice and Design Education. > > The focus of 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory' is to look at > the epistemological characteristics of knowledge and theory relating to > design and by making theory using these epistemological characteristics, > improve design practice, theory and research. > > A practical example is to look at the epistemological characteristics of > (say) a group of design problems. The approach contrasts with the > traditional design research and design practice approaches in which the > focus is primarily on the concrete aspects of content and contexts of design > situations . > > Say for example, the focus was 'Design problems associated with people's > interpretation of medicine bottle labels'. A typical design / design > research approach would be to look at the characteristics of the labels > (fonts, layout, colour, etc) and to look at the context (how they are used, > the users, user behaviour, success in interpreting the labels, etc). More > advanced approaches might include (say) theories about cognition, social > construction of knowledge, affordances etc. > > An approach from the field of 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory' > , however, would be to stand back one or more levels of abstraction and > look at the characteristics of the theories we use and make about this > situation. The focus would be on the epistemological characteristics of > theory and practice of interaction in this situation and creating coherent > models about the structural relationships of these theories into a situation > 'type'. This would be an epistemologically-based model of the theory > structure of the situation. > > The approach is important because it is epistemological similarity that > allows us to justifiably transfer knowledge from domain to domain, design > situation to design situation, and to avoid design research and design > practice being blinkered by being context and content specific. > > What?! Why?! I can almost hear people ask. > > Looking at the epistemology of the knowledge and theory of design > situations is useful on at least six counts: > > 1. Because the behaviours of any design situation are more transparent (if > you have the ways of looking) in ways that are much more powerful than the > more blinkered approach of focusing only on the concrete issues of design > content and context. > 2. Understanding the behaviours of design situations in this way is much > more powerful than traditional approaches based on design principles, > elements , context and user characteristics. > 3. It is easy to draw on knowledge and findings about epistemologically > similar design situations in completely different fields in which the design > situations and contexts are not similar in the concrete. > 4. It can become almost trivially easy to identify types of design solutions > likely to be successful to many complicated design problems that would > commonly be called 'wicked problems'. > 5. It points to approaches that will improve on existing research approaches > and design practice. > 6. It provides a sound basis for optimising design solutions and design > research approaches. > > Best wishes, > Terry > ____________________ > > Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM > School of Design and Art > Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group > Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute > Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre > Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845 > Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask] > Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council > UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal > Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development > Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK > ____________________ > > > > > -----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 David > Sless > Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 1:25 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Limits of prediction (was Re: Are visual approaches to design > outdated?) > > Hi Terry, > > You say: >> You are right that there is a shift in this case, Most of the analyses I > do >> are of theory qua theory and hence a lot of it requires a high level > view. >> Looking at evidence of the limits to competence of us as individual > humans >> is different. > > Are we not human beings when we do theory qua theory? > As theorists, are we not subject to the same limitations of competence? > Or, is there a special dispensation for theorists? > > It strikes me that theory, anyway, is at its best when it is based on a > collection of individual cases. > > When it comes to predicting outcome, there are a few things that are worth > teasing out. On the one hand there are things which are difficult to predict > simply because we don't know all the factors that contribute to the outcome. > In this case understanding multiple feedback loops may be important. > > More interesting are those phenomena which are non-predictable because it's > impossible to determine the outcomes from the starting conditions, and no > amount of feedback loops will help us. There are lots of physical and social > phenomena of that kind. A lot of design fits into this type of phenomenon. > The best we can hope for is that we try out a prototype on a small scale, > and discover the unintended consequences, before we inflict them on an > unsuspecting world. > > As to the limited forms of prediction open to us in areas like my own, the > most we can really say with any confidence about the way people will > interact with our designs is based on the testing we do on prototypes before > implementation. There is no massive body of theory behind such prediction > but rather a simple assumption that if people can use a design in a > particular way during testing, they are likely to be able to use the design > in this way in the world. Or, put simply, if people can do something today, > they are likely to be able to do it again tomorrow. Equally, if they cannot > do it today, they are unlikely to be able to do it tomorrow: it's called > suck-it-and-see. Not much of a theory I admit, indeed not really a theory at > all, but about the best we have. > > If there is any theory it is the processes we use and the way we describe > them based on multiple individual cases. But even there, all we are really > saying is that using this process worked in the past, so lets use it again. > > David > -- > > blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog > web: http://www.communication.org.au > >