JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2000

PHD-DESIGN 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Queries on Klaus Krippendorff's response

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:45:42 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (155 lines)

Klaus Krippendorff responded to my post on
"Three kinds of questions on theories of design"
with some interesting notes.

One of these questions puzzles me.

PUZZLE

In response to the category of questions on theory,
Klaus wrote, "regarding these, let me suggest to
replace the verb 'to be' by 'could we agree to call.' 
it would render theories as human-centered constructions
without a nature of their own."

While I see the purpose of suggesting this, I'm not
certain that this would do what Klaus intends.

A theory is a human construction. So is a house
or a hammer or an automobile. Once these
artifacts are placed in the world, they do have
their own nature. It is the nature we give them,
and it is the nature we give these artifacts with which¨
other human beings interact.

In that sense, I think it reasonable to use the verb
"to be."

To use a longer locution -- "could we agree to call" --
would add words without shifting the meaning. In
some sense, this phrase can also serve to hide
the qualities Klaus intends it to clarify.

I find the other questions intriguing, and worth
adding to my own list of questions. These questions
help to sharpen the issues and clarify them in
an effort to shape and understand theories of
design.

It is important to note that some of these
new questions address theory, while others
address the creation or social context of theory.
These seem to me distinctions worth preserving.

I will query one of Klaus's questions and
challenge or query deeply one statement.

QUERY ON A QUESTION

Klaus's question occurs under the
heading, "(2) Criteria for evaluating theories"

Klaus asks, "does a theory have the consent of
those theorized?"

Is this always necessary? How can one ask the
consent of a computer or a mathematical
artifact or a series of artifacts?

CHALLENGE TO A STATEMENT

The statement occurs under the heading,
"(3) Theories of design."

Klaus states, "we earlier distinguished theories
of design, for (contributing to) design,
within design (or similar distinctions)."

This range of issues points back to Chris
Frayling's reinterpretation of Herbert Read's
distinctions. It's not clear to me that everyone
recognizes these distinctions -- and it's not
clear to me that those who offer these
distinctions are clear about them.

They haven't been made clear in this thread,
nor have they ever been well defined. Rather,
I have seen these distinction offered in the form
of unexplained phrases to which many of us
have apparently agreed.

I am not one of those who has yet accepted
this tripartite disinction.

Every time I have seen these phrases, I have
asked for a clear definition of the distinctions
these phrases are intended to represent.

No one has yet responded, not on this list,
not on the DRS discussion list, not on IDForum,
and never at a conference.

I now invite clarification of these distinctions
once again. I'll welcome and or all of  three
clear explanations:

(1)

I will welcome a clarification of the meaning
of the phrase "theories of design, for
(contributing to) design, within design
(or similar distinctions)."

(2)

I will welcome a clarification IN THE FORM OF
A CLEAR STATEMENT of what Christopher
Frayling meant by his distinctions

(3)

I will welcome a proper elaboration of Read's
original distinctions.

It will be remembered that Read's original
distinctions were issued in a book on art
education and created in relation to teaching
and practicing art.

So far, the phrase has been analogized and
reconstructed for design research and used
WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

I have not yet seen these discintions applied
successfully to design research or design
theory in an articulate way.

I'll welcome all three clarifications if possible.

I'm not saying these issues are impossible to
make clear. I do say they have not yet been
ëxplained in an articulate way.

Rather, they have been used in a metaphorical
or sloganeering sense.

-- 

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]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager