 |
 |
Hi Ken, One of the positions in making theory is to base it on empirical evidence. That is, regardless of how much it may not be how we think things should be, we make heory based on what is empirically there and then focus on conceptualising it and represented frugally (Occam) in a 'necessary and sufficient' manner. Some of the recent discussion relating to humans and knowing/knowledge seems to be along the path of assuming the theory outcome and then fitting the argument and justification to suit. To those who do not think the same way, this justification often appears to be in a circulatory manner in the style of logical tautologies. That is, of logical argument phrased in ways to make negation 'unsatisfiable'. One of this style of recent underlying arguments seems to be something like: 1. It appears Design might be best defined as a human activity because it involves human agents' knowledge and their knowing. 2. ' Using the verb "knowing" is helpful when we want to keep an 'active being' in the picture, a being that knows' 3. Design therefore must be defined as a wholly human activity because it depends on the knowing of a human active being. Instead, as a thought experiment at least, how about dropping the idea that it is humans that design and that knowledge/knowing is any part of the theory? Could you still make a comprehensive theory of design that would fully represent all aspects of what happens? An alternative theory development path that avoids presuming humanistic, knowledge-based assumptions about design-related activities might go something like: 1. Design could be theorised about in many ways involving humans, machines, information, other animals and anything else that there is evidence that design-related activity depends on. 2. 'Knowledge' and 'knowing' have been proposed as elements of defining design. Are they appropriate, essential (necessary and sufficient), usefully explanatory and predictive or are they unduly restrictive, unhelpful or misleading to finding a sound theory base? 3. Would other concepts provide a theoretically more representative and predictive basis for activities involved in creating designs? 4. How can we best decide between the different possibilities of conceptual foundations for making theories about design-related activities? 5. etc. . . Like Tim, during the 1990s I built on the Newell Knowledge level path. It makes lots of sense but/and also fits sweetly, perhaps too sweetly and inter-dependently, with ICT en-cultured models of computer architecture, information management, network information flows, robotics and AI. Moving on from Newell, the new evidence from cognitive neuro-science offers different kinds of insights into design and humanness and a better conceptual starting point for creating Design theory. Cognitive neuro-science offers other ways of seeing what it is to be human and the physiology of how humans emote, feel and come to creative ideas. It points in a different direction to the folk- psychology of academic theories of knowledge and knowing (Plato, Socrates and Nonaka - personally I feel Ibn Sina and Ibn Khaldun go better down this track anyway). Using recent insights from neuro-science points away from having 'knowledge' as 'entities' with a 'knower' that become a kind of emoting bounded- rational processor of 'knowledge' (which to me seems way too robotlike and inhuman). The evidence from neuro-science is increasingly pointing to a path that goes towards being much more detailed about those activities that are rather currently lumped under 'knowing' and 'being a knower' and 'having knowledge'. To get there in a coherent theory of design seems to require letting go of the concepts of 'knowledge' and 'knower' as being too general and unspecific. I realise this latter claim is not as well justified in this email as it could be, but the email is long enough as it is. Best wishes, Terry === SPT Contractors and Consultants Corgi gas plumbing work and hot/cold water systems 1/2 John St Galgate, Lancaster [log in to unmask] == -----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 Ken Friedman Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012 8:39 PM To: Dr Terence Love Subject: Re: Meta-Language and Terminology Dear Kari, Thanks for reminding me about Blackler. The sources on which he drew were also useful. Using the verb "knowing" is helpful when we want to keep an active being in the picture, a being that knows. At the same time, the noun "knowledge" is also useful The noun "knowledge" represents what a knowing being knows when knowledge is embodied within the being. The contrast to this use of the word "knowledge" with the word "information," a word that describes disembodied representations of knowledge. This is a key point in Plato's Phaedrus. Socrates sees knowledge as an active mental process - knowing, in Blackler's terms. Socrates opposes writing as a dangerous illusion because it represents knowledge in an inactive form. Writing is inactive knowledge, mere information that "pretends to establish outside the mind what in reality can only be in the mind . . . writing reifies, it turns mental processes into manufactured things" (Rose 1992: 62). Perhaps that's too decisive a perspective, but it captures a Socratic understanding: the knowing being is the only one who can truly know. Information has valuable uses, but the debate in Phaedrus offers a powerful comment on the intersection ofknowing, doing, and being. Yours, Ken Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design -- Reference Rose, Steven. 1992. The Making of Memory: From Molecules to Mind. New York: Anchor Doubleday. -- Kari Kuutti wrote: -snip- knowledge is indeed an overloaded and easily misused word, and information would have been a more accurate term. We computer people are especially prone towards reification of knowledge - that has been plaguing the knowledge management field since its inception. The issue is treated very well in Frank Blackler's classic paper on knowledge management, where he ends up in suggesting that we should drop the term "knowledge" and use "knowing" instead - to not to lose the knowing actor from our sight. Blackler, Frank (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies vol 16 no 6, pp. 1021-1046 http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/825/Bilag_6_-_Knowledge__knowledg e_work_and_organizations.pdf -snip- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------