 |
 |
Dear Klaus, The first paper, in answer to your question, is at the simpler end of predictive support for designers. The focus is better design of what I have coined as 'motivational information systems'. The paper describes the use of causal loop diagramming (the initial stage in system dynamics predictive modelling) to identify and review the effects of multiple feedback loops in a university motivational information system. The aim is improving the design of such systems. The use of causal loop diagramming revealed several effects and consequences overlooked by those using and managing the system. The predictive power of the tool is reasonable enough for design purposes in that it provided insights into hidden causes, consequences and biases. It also provided information about structural design changes to improve the system. Relative to more powerful dynamic predictive modelling the weakness of causal loop diagramming is it is time independent. In addition, the approach provided the basis for identifying an additional (6th) extension to Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety for use by those designing complex socio-technical systems. That is a contribution to a different body of design-focused complex socio-technical system research I'm engaged in. I feel the paper might perhaps benefit by a censorship caution something along the lines of 'coarse language' or, 'not for academics of sensitive disposition'. The paper is <http://www.love.com.au/docs/2008/motivational-information-systems.pdf> Love, T. , & Cooper, T. (2008). Motivational Information Systems: Case study of a University Research Productivity Index and 6th Extension to Ashby's Law. ANZSYS'08: 14th International Conference, Perth, WA. Available at http://www.love.com.au/docs/2008/motivational-information-systems.pdf Best wishes, Terry --- Dr Terence Love PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030 Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848 Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629 [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> -- From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, 8 December 2014 10:34 AM To: <[log in to unmask]> Cc: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subject: Re: design theory terry I already mentioned that I have not written about design theory,, am not interested in design theory, at least not as a subspecies of what in the philosophy of science is called theory. it is you who talks of predictive design theory, giving the impression you know what you are talking of. instead of explaining your design theory to us for us to see whether it enlightens us or makes us understand design in novel ways, you ask me to give you the answer I was asking you to give. I think you are playing rhetorical games to hide your inability to substantiate your claims. best wishes klaus Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: Dear Klaus, Thanks for your reply. What I was trying to ask, perhaps not clearly enough, was exactly what YOU mean by and how you specifically bound the concept of a 'design theory'. For example, do you define a design theory as: * A theory about design process bounded by formal descriptions of individual activities and their relationships? * A theory about the internal human subjective processes by which an individual's affective cognition processes generate and internally test the viability of designs bounded by it being an internal process and not including for example memory supplementations such as drawings and sketches? * A theory about design activity seen as specific communications between individuals that draws a boundary between communicaitons specific to the design and other communicaitons that occur at the same time and between the same individuals yet are outside the scope of the design theory? * A theory about design seen as socially constructed new knowledge and which the boundaries are specific rules tightly defining which activities, individuals, communications and elements of knowledge are included within the design theory and which are not? * Etc Your preferred definition of 'design theory' may be some combination of any of the above or somethings else. The important thing I want to know is exactly how you specify testable boundaries that define very tightly those elements that are within your concept of design theory, and those that are excluded. That is I'm trying to avoid being involved in useless discussion based on broad brush meaningless definitions like 'a design theory is a theory about innovation' or 'a design theory is a theory about communicaiotn in design activity'. Best wishes, Terry -- Dr Terence Love PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030 Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848 Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] -- From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, 8 December 2014 1:24 AM To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design' Subject: RE: design theory terry, i know what a theory is. in a nutshell: * it needs to explain a set of specific observable phenomena * it is concerned with phenomena that can be observed repeatedly * it needs to be general, i.e., one should be able to extrapolate it to phenomena not yet observed -- able to predict, to explain phenomena in advance of observing them * it is stated from the position of an outside observer, etymologically a spectator * it needs to be inter-subjectively falsifiable, i.e., by agreement among multiple observers on available evidence, which also means that a theory must be understandable by observers i am sure there are more conditions. to me design means introducing innovations which, by definition, may rely on existing phenomena (technology, materials, and practices) but proposes something fundamentally new, something that could not grow on trees, so to speak. there are all kinds of teachable practices that can lead to innovations. but they are actionable strategies, not theories constructed to explain observations. you claim to know mathematical models of complex system (i know some as well) that could explain design activities (the emergence of novel technologies and practices, including revolutions). please give us a hint of how they look like and what they entail beyond merely claiming that you are in possession of them. klaus -----Original Message----- From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 2:52 AM To: Klaus Krippendorff; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design' Subject: RE: design theory Hi Klaus, Thanks for your message. Not a rhetorical game. I'm cautious and exact about using the term 'design theory' and wanted to know your way of using the term so I could align my answer to your thinking. I'll answer without locating in design theory. Best regards, Terry -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff Sent: Sunday, 7 December 2014 3:08 PM To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design' Subject: RE: design theory terry, i asked you to give me an example of a design theory which you talk of as having to be predictive. instead of stating one (or at least a few propositions of one), or stating what it is to predict, you refer to "predictive modelling methods" in the abstract and talk of "responsibilities and creative design activity that comes with using better predictive methods." This is a far cry from giving me at least a hint of an answer to what i had hoped you learn of how a design theory looks like. i just don't know what it should predict: responsibility? creative actions? how to solve problems? change the world? then you ask me to "detailed for (you) what (i) regard as a design theory, and what are the characteristics of the boundaries of the concept of 'design theory' (in general) that differentiate design theories from other forms of theories" i happen not to talk of design theory, i do not have any. i have insights in what it means to design, what is important and what is less so, but i would not frame these experiences in terms of design theory and would not have asked you if i knew how you conceptualize design theory. in effect, you now asked me to answer the question i posed to you. i was not playing rhetorical games. klaus ----Original Message----- From: Terence Love [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 12:57 AM To: Klaus Krippendorff; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design' Subject: RE: design theory Hi Klaus, You asked me to ' give us an example of a predictive "design theory"' I've described my response to this in detail at other times. In essence, I refer to predictive modelling methods for complex socio-technical design situations and their use in design process, and the changes in roles, responsibilities and creative design activity that comes with using better predictive methods. You seem to be somehow collating this into a 'predictive design theory', but that's not how I see it. Rather, implicit in it is the idea that the current way of thinking about design theories is limiting, and part of the problem. For the remainder of today, I need to travel and work. I'll reply more fully tomorrow. In the meantime, it would help if you detailed for me what you regard as a design theory, and what are the characteristics of the boundaries of the concept of 'design theory' (in general) that differentiate design theories from other forms of theories. Best wishes, Terry --- Dr Terence Love PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030 Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848 Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] -- -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff Sent: Sunday, 7 December 2014 12:07 PM To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subject: design theory terry, i've read your response to my question to you to give us an example of a predictive "design theory" which you and ken are advocating. i've read it on my cell phone and wanted to answer on my computer but can't find it on either device. part of your message complains of feeling attacked. this is far from my intention. i was aware that i posed a challenging question whose answer would clarify what you had in mind regarding design. i had asked you because i have the feeling you are subscribing to a notion of theory taken literally from the natural sciences in which predictions is the currency of publishable success. when you refer to theories you have a tendency to talk about generalities, including what constituted evidence, etc. i was more interested in design as a communication scholar i am dealing with theories of human communication all the time, with conceptions of dialogue, with the relationship between speech acts and what they accomplish, with models of influence, with issues of power, submission, and liberation. such theories then to be propositional, occasionally based on mathematical formulations, for example, limits on communication in information theoretical terms. although i have proposed some theoretical propositions on design, but they do not reach the requirement of the kind of predictive specificity you seem to impose. so, i just want to read an example of a valid design theory - not assertions of requirements for one, such as that they should be evidence based, predictive, general, useful for designers, etc. i think this simple question deserves an answer from a vocal proponent of design theory. klaus ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design> 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------