The conversation on theories of design is most interesting. I
appreciated David Sless's post on criteria of a good theory and Klaus
Krippendorff's clarifications on the varieties of constructionism and
constructivism.
I'd like to suggest that there are three distinct ranges of issues
here that deserve attention. I'm going to ask three KINDS of
questions on the topic of design theories.
(1) Theory
First, there arise questions on the nature and characteristics of theory.
Some of these questions are:
What is a theory?
How is theory constituted?
What is the act of theorizing?
What is the relationship between theory and that which theory addresses?
What kinds of theory are there?
What purposes should theory serve?
(2) Criteria for evaluating theories
Second, there arise questions of criteria.
Some of these questions are:
What makes a good theory?
What qualities distinguish an adequate theory?
What qualities distinguish an inadequate theory?
What is the difference between robust theory and deficient theory?
Should different kinds of theory be judged on different criteria?
Do any criteria hold for all theories regardless of kind and level?
(3) Theories of design
Third, there arise questions of theories of design.
Some of these questions are:
What kinds of theories of design exist now?
What kinds design theories might exist in the future?
What purposes do these theories serve?
Do design theories occur at many levels in the way that other
theories do? Are there general theories, mid-range theories, and
operational theories?
Should there be general, mid-range, and operational theories?
How do different levels of theory apply to the different kinds of research?
What theories suite basic, applied, or clinical research?
How are design theories to be constructed?
How are design theories to be understood?
How are design theories to be used?
In following the thread, these questions come to mind, and I feel we
won't make much progress until we sort them out and consider the
kinds of answers these kinds of questions might provoke.
I will differ from David in one regard. It seems to me problematic to
characterize theory as "parasitical" in its relation to practice.
Quite the contrary, theory summarizes and organizes knowledge, it
helps us to measure and understand the outcomes of practice.
One of the great industrial practitioners of the past century, W.
Edwards Deming, was strong in his view on the value and uses of
theory. He offered convincing arguments for his view on the use of
general principles - theories -- in predicting and measuring the
outcome of decisions. These general principles are what Deming (1993:
94-118) terms profound knowledge, comprised of "four parts, all
related to each other: appreciation for a system; knowledge about
variation; theory of knowledge; psychology" (Deming 1993: 96).
To reach from knowing to doing requires practice. To reach from doing
to knowing, one requires the articulation and critical inquiry that
allows a practitioner to gain reflective insight. "Experience alone,
without theory, teaches management nothing about what to do to
improve quality and competitive position, nor how to do it" writes
Deming (1986: 19). "If experience alone would be a teacher, then one
may well ask why are we in this predicament? Experience will answer a
question, and a question comes from theory." It is not experience,
but our interpretation and understanding of experience that leads to
knowledge. Knowledge, therefore, emerges from critical inquiry and
the knowledge that arises from theorizing allows us to question and
learn from the world around us.
If theories serve a valid and useful purpose, it is a mistake to view
them as some form of parasite on practice. The full practice of any
profession involves both thought and action. The components of
thought are what distinguish professional practice and professional
education from unreflective physical action and vocational training.
After some reflection, I hope to return with more thoughts on the
questions and kinds of questions I ask above.
In the meanwhile, I'll welcome any reflection others may offer on these issues.
-- Ken Friedman
References:
Deming, W. Edwards. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Quality, Productivity
and Competitive Position. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government,
Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
+47 22.98.50.00 Telephone
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
Home office:
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|