 |
 |
The debate over a 'Theory of Design' is interesting, not for the relevance (or otherwise) of a 'theory' but for the assumptions regarding the term THEORY! First, let me say that reference to Simon is for me a turn-off. The last, absolutely last, person I'd cite as a reference for either theory or design would be Simon; primarily because of the structuralist and positivist premise. Before conceptualising what a theory ought be able to do, it may be wise to comprehend what a theory IS. Ken Friedman's description reveals much: In its most basic form, a theory is a model. It is an illustration describing how something works by showing its elements in their dynamic relationship to one another. This view is both dominant and pervasive, but merely reflects our positivist heritage. That is, a theory is an abstract representation of an empirical analysis of a set of discrete material (or concrete) events (or actions). In this sense, a theory describes actions in the physical world. A 組ood' theory is one that best describes the events defined by the operational variables. In the positivist realm, a proposition is a tentative theory. Where several theories co-exist about an event, while each may adequately reflect the utilised operational variables, all that can be said is that in the bigger picture the 奏heory' is merely a proposition. In Kuhn's argument for theoretical revolution, theories take on a different perception. Rather than contested theory being representative of inadequate knowledge, each represents the ideological preferences of the theoriser/s. Thus, is theory a true portrayal of the physical world, or the extension of some (abstract) belief system? A question that has always been used to address the narrow positivistic perception of theory is: while mental reflection is a set of actions, how can one theorise about good mental reflection"? Two points emerge in this question. (1) Is it possible to be able to theorise about mental reflection. That is, can something that cannot be empirically analysed be the subject of theory? (2) Is the term 組ood' an objective reference point for evaluation? That is, even if all people agreed to the definition of some evaluational criteria (eg. incest), can 組ood' be applied in some consistent manner such that a universal theory can be developed? This issue relates to what constitutes theory. Is it a tool bound only to descriptions of actions undertaken in the material world? Or does it also embrace descriptions of actions undertaken in the social world? And, if the latter are included, what constitutional boundaries ought be erected. For example, can I make a theory about my last trip to the snowfields? That is, are theories about social actions limited to generalisations about human action, or can individual experience/s be theorised? In a different venue (land-use planning), Martin Krieger (<[log in to unmask]>) wrote of theory: We teach theory because it is the best way to make our students' minds more supple. (At one time, perhaps 700 years ago classical rhetoric was supposed to do this.) I want my students to be able to take an argument offered by their opponents and throw it back in their faces. I want my students to be able to write anywhere from 2-10 pages that make the best case they can for a project, or against it. In effect, Martin was not arguing that theory has paradigmatic proportions, but that there are competing theories. Martin is also alluding to the post-positivist approach to theory. That is, that there cannot be an all-embracing totally fulfilling theory about some form of social action. Rather, that social theory reflects beliefs about how the world SHOULD be. Design is a social action, but it is also an individual experience. There is no doubt that the process of moving from a mental concept about how to solve a problem to some physical outcome may be described. But, analysing how a person who has demonstrated a 組ood' design brings into play aspects of the process that rest on experience. For example, the designer of 組ood' outcomes takes into account the preferences of the judging audience. But all designers judge audience, so why is one allocated the tag 組ood' while another is not? Clearly, we are ranking the designers on their ability to 喪ead' the audience that has most influence when giving accolades. Reflecting on Martin's comment, the idea of 組ood' merely reflects a belief system. How can this issue of belief be factored into a theory about design? If, and when, this is solved, please advise everyone in the academic community. It is an issue that is being confronted beyond this forum. ps. Maybe the reflections on a 'Theory of Design' in this forum constitute the theory of design!!! Regards Bruce Moon School of Planning, Landscape Architecture & Surveying Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Q 4001 Australia tel: +61 [0]7 3864 1731 fax: +61 [0]7 3864 1809 eml: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%