A meta-theoretical basis for design theory
Terence Love
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
--
This article was originally published as:
Love, Terence. 2000. "A Meta-theoretical basis for Design Theory."
Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future. David
Durling and Ken Friedman, Editors. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Staffordshire
University Press, 45-54.
--
Conceptually and terminologically, design research and design theory
is problematic. A neglect of the foundations of design theory has led
to terms, concepts and theories being used in a variety of different
and inconsistent ways. The ensuing terminological and theoretical
confusion is now well embedded in the last thirty or so years of
literature on design research. This paper describes an
epistemologically well-justified meta-theoretical structure that
provides a means to build coherent design theory, and to clarify
existing theories and concepts. It offers the basis for building a
Philosophy of Design to support high-quality research, theory making,
analysis, education, and practice relating to designing. The paper
concludes by drawing attention to new issues that emerge as a result
of meta-theoretical analysis of the structure and dynamic of the
abstractions that underpin design research.
A Meta-Theoretical Basis for Design Theory
Conceptually and terminologically, the literature and traditions of
design research are problematic in that concepts, terminology,
theories, data, and research conclusions are ill-defined, and are
often confused, conflated and confabulated (Hubka and Eder, 1988;
Pugh, 1990; Roozenburg, 1992; Talukdar, Rehg, and Elfes, 1988;
Ullman, 1992). These problems stem mainly from a lack of attention to
the underlying theoretical assumptions. In Hamlyn's (1990) terms, the
epistemological and ontological foundations of design research need
"thickening" to allow the concepts, terminology and theories of
design research to be "thinned" to the extent that they have singular
meanings. Addressing these problems via existing design terminology
is compromised by its inconsistency, and attempting to redefine the
terminology by reference to design theory is made difficult by a lack
of coherence between design theories themselves. The problem can,
however, be resolved by clarifying both theory and terminology
together through a meta-theoretical analysis (Indurkhya, 1992; Rosen,
1980; Smith, 1990; Stegmüller, 1976). This meta-theoretical approach
is further facilitated by the removal of those issues that are more
properly problems of other domains (Konda, Monarch, Sargent, and
Subrahmanian, 1992; Love, 1999).
The meta-theoretical approach proposed here focuses on building
design theory from coherent epistemological and ontological
foundations. It is a pragmatic pursuit aimed at finding a solution to
a problem, albeit an abstract one, rather than identifying 'truth'.
This approach aligns with that of Argyris (1980) on rigorous
research, Feyerabend (1975) on research methodology, Flood (1990) on
systems research, Giddens (1987) on social research, and Guba (1990)
on paradigmic analysis and post-positivist research. It fits well
with those who see research as a complex of different fields, and
those who regard cognitive constructs in terms of their utility (see,
for example, Coyne, 1990; Daley, 1982; Enc and Adams, 1992; Hoover,
Rinderle, and Finger, 1991; Konda et al., 1992; Robinson, 1986; Rowan
and Reason, 1981; Rowan and Reason, 1981). It conflicts, however,
with the positivist perspective used in much of the literature of
design research, and with researchers who have argued against
positivism but wish to replace it with a single post-positivist
paradigm (see, for example, Coyne and Snodgrass, 1993).
The domination of positivism has lead to human issues being poorly
addressed in design research (Coyne and Snodgrass, 1993; Dilnot,
1982; Love, 1998). These human issues include creativity and,
especially, human values (Heath, 1993; Lawson, 1993; Love, 1998). The
important role of human values in design research is evident in many
ways. For example:
Human values are a necessary aspect of explaining cognition.
Human values underpin explanations of the socio-cultural aspects of designing.
Designing is socially, environmentally, and ethically situated. That
is, designing and designs are meaningless without regard to these
factors, each of which is imbued with human values.
Meta-theoretical analysis of design theory is unlikely to be
satisfactory unless it includes the role of human values in shaping
the ontological and epistemological foundations of design theory.
The foundational approach proposed in this paper echoes recent
changes in the systems disciplines (Flood, 1995). During the last
decade or so, systems researchers have looked to post-positivist and
constructivist approaches as providing more appropriate foundations
for systems theory because the earlier focus on positivism had led to
problems of philosophical justification, lack of theoretical
integrity and poor practical applicability (Ellis, 1995; Flood, 1995;
Flood, 1990; Flood and Carson, 1988; Flood and Jackson, 1991;
Hutchinson, 1997). This suggests that similar changes to the
theoretical and philosophical foundations of design theory are
indicated because of its close relationships with systems theory
(Holt, Radcliffe, and Schoorl, 1985; Love, 1995).
Ontology and epistemology
All terminology, concepts and theories are abstract human cognitive
constructs in the sense that they are particular aspects of reality
abstracted, and symbolically represented in the realm of theory, on
the basis of particular sets of assumptions and human values.
Concepts and theories are abstract elements, philosophically-defined
building blocks, that can be shaped, defined, and arranged together
to form coherent theoretical structures.
Using and structuring abstractions in this way goes back at least to
the earliest Greek philosophers, but the academic world has been
divided in its interest in these abstract foundations of
theory-making. In subjects such as Anthropology and Sociology, whose
theoretical foundations are not amenable to Cartesian validation, the
development and justification of concepts and theories is a
significant issue that is widely addressed (see, for example, the
Grounded Theory of Glaser and Strauss (Glaser and Strauss, 1973), and
the Action Science of Agyris (1980)) (see, also, Berger, 1980; Guba,
1990; Illich, 1978; Mohr, 1988; Shipman, 1981). In contrast,
attention to the ontological and epistemological foundations of
theory-making has remained rare in disciplines such as design that
have been dominated by positivism (Giddens, 1987; Guba, 1990). In
disciplines requiring that the ontological, epistemological and
methodological assumptions that underpin research be made explicit,
researchers are required to identify and justify the theoretical
framework that they have used, and make clear in their theses the
ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions that
have been used. This contrasts with the neglect of ontological and
epistemological considerations common in the natural sciences where
the meanings of concepts, terminology and theories are more clearly
established.
Working from epistemology and ontology towards clarifying design
theory and terminology is straightforward compared to the
alternatives because:
It is relatively independent of the 'correctness' of meanings of
design terminology.
It is not sensitive to faults of description, argument or
theorisation in existing theories because it is a parallel
theoretical structure grounded on coherent foundations.
An ontological and epistemological focus provides, at an early stage,
a structure against which different aspects of the existing
literature can be compared and contrasted. It enables terminology and
theory to be built on elements of knowledge and theory which are
already accepted as well-justified.
Starting with the ontology and epistemology of design theory allows a
shift of focus from 'designed artefact' to 'the activity of
designing', which then is able to include human characteristics and
values.
Meta-theoretical Analysis
A meta-theoretical perspective clarifies design research and
theory-making through investigating the structure, dynamics,
validity, coherence and appropriateness of the interrelated abstract
entities that make up design theory (see, for example, Popper, 1976;
Rosen, 1980; Stegmüller, 1976). The meta-theoretical approach changes
the focus of theory clarification from "What does 'X' mean?" to "What
meaning should be allocated to 'X'?".
Meta-theoretically, theoretical elements (such as concepts, theories
and terms) relate to other theoretical elements both hierarchically
and in parallel at similar levels of abstraction. The hierarchical
relationships define the internal validity and correctness of
theoretical developments. The parallel relationships validate
theories in terms of other issues. This combined hierarchical and
lateral approach to the validation of theory comports well with
arguments that all theory is unprovable in isolation and depends upon
a wider theoretical ecology that it both supports and is supported by
(see, for example, Guba, 1990; Murray, 1986; Phillips, 1987;
Phillips, 1990; Popper, 1976; Reason and Rowan, 1981; Rosen, 1980;
Smith, 1990; Stegmüller, 1976). For mathematically-expressed
theories, the resolution into hierarchical theoretical structures is
a trivial problem. For other theories, such as design theories, the
appropriate relationships are not necessarily self-evident, and some
form of meta-theoretical hierarchical structure is needed to assist
with decomposition. Such a hierarchical structure is described below.
Meta-theoretical hierarchical structure to clarify Design Theory
The meta theoretical structure described below grounded in the
layered model of research methodology of Reich, the taxonomy of
design theory developed by Franz , and Popper's classification of
forms of knowledge (Franz, 1994; Popper, 1976; 1994; Reich, 1994). A
more detailed version of the arguments leading to this model can be
found in Love (Love, 1998).
Reich separated the underlying factors that define research into:
'World views'
Research heuristics
Specific issues
These combined with Franz' taxonomy result in the following basic
hierarchy of design theory:
[The box model below shows a box with four horizontal lines. These
texts appear centred on above the next in four single-boxes.]
-text from figure in box-
Philosophical issues
General theories of design
Theories about design cognition
Theories about object behaviour
-text from figure in box-
The above categories are still too coarse, however, for detailed
critical analysis particularly at the lower levels where most
differentiation is needed - especially as most existing theory lies
there. Popper's model separates:
Theory as individual cognition (subjective world)
Theory written down (objective world)
Theory qua theory (theoretical world)
This implies that an additional level is needed to include the human
ability to objectivise internal subjective realities, so that the
theoretically-primitive aspects of human action relating to
identifying objects and circumstances, and creating initial concepts
can be included. This addition is important because it takes into
account that anything given a name or conceived as an entity can be
theorised about. Together these lead to the more comprehensive
version of the meta-theoretical hierarchy.
[The box model below shows a matrix box with three labels across the
top and nine labels on the left side. To make email reproduction
possible, the text has been extracted so that each note incorporates
the content appearing under the top labels. These labels are,
"level," "classification," and "description." The nine numbers
indicate the nine different levels of the metatheoretical hierarchy.]
-text from figure in box-
--
Level: 1
Classification: Ontology of design
Description: The ontological basis for design theory. It includes
human values and the fundamental assumptions and beliefs of
researchers, designers and others implicated in designing.
--
Level: 2
Classification: Epistemology of design theory
Description: The nature, grounds, limits and criteria for validity of
design theory and knowledge.
--
Level: 3
Classification: General design theories
Description: Theories aiming to describe the act of designing and its
relationship to designed objects and the environment.
--
Level: 4
Classification: Theories about the internal processes of designers
and collaboration
Description: Theories about internal functioning of designers, of
negotiated design in collaborative design teams, and of
socio-cultural effects on designers' output.
--
Level: 5
Classification: Theories about the structure of design process
Description: Theories about the underlying structure of processes
that include designing based on domain, culture, artefact type and
other attributes and circumstances.
--
Level: 6
Classification: Design methods
Description: Theoretical representations of design methods and techniques.
--
Level: 7
Classification: Theories about mechanisms of choice
Description: Theories about how choices are made between different
theoretical elements including; designed objects, processes, and
systems.
--
Level: 8
Classification: Theories about the behaviour of elements
Description: Theoretical descriptions of the behaviour of elements,
designed objects, processes and systems, e.g. 'the camshaft rotates
at 600 rads/sec'.
--
Level: 9
Classification: Initial conception and labeling of reality
Description: The transformation of experiences into
informatic/theoretical representations of objects, processes and
systems. For example the representation processes resulting in; ' a
rose', 'a sketch', 'sitting' at a 'desk', 'hearing' 'noise',
'smelling' an 'exhaust', and 'watching' 'sunsets'.
-text from figure in box-
This meta-theoretical approach does not presume a coherent design
'super-theory' in the manner of, for example, geometry. Theories at
large, small and middle scales do not necessarily follow logically
from each other, but only relate to and depend on other theories,
concepts and assumptions at other levels as described by Giddens
(1987). Design theory is viewed as a chain of abstractions with one
end grounded in the concreteness of reality, and, the other shaped by
the assumptions and beliefs that humans make about existence and
reality. At the lowest level of abstraction is the translation and
reduction of sensual perception of reality into
informatically-defined abstractions by the naming of phenomena - the
first level of abstract cerebral processing. The highest level
relates to human ontological or religious beliefs about existence.
Between these two bounds-the conceptualisation of direct perceptions
of 'reality' and beliefs about 'what is fundamental about
existence'-are the layers of theoretical and everyday abstractions
which are the stock in trade of communication and reflection in
occupations such as journalism, art, technology and design.
The above meta-theoretical hierarchy provides:
A taxonomy for classifying theoretical aspects of design research.
A hierarchy for clarifying the meta-theoretical relationships between
design theories.
The above meta-theoretical approach categorises theories according to
their relationships as theoretical abstractions, rather than focusing
primarily on their content or meaning. The hierarchy separates and
orders different aspects of design theory so, for example, theories
relating to mechanisms of choice in level 7 are concerned with the
selection of particular design elements whose behaviours are
described in the theories and concepts of level 8, and which are, in
turn, based on empirical experience raised as concepts in level 9.
These theories about mechanisms of choice also depend, consciously or
unconsciously, on privileged assumptions and beliefs at higher orders
of abstraction contained in levels 1 to 6. For example, assumptions
about design method and process, about what designing is, or more
abstractly still, about what the world is. Different fields of design
have a different balance at each level in the hierarchy. In all
fields, however, hierarchical relationships exist between theories
and concepts at all levels, whether or not they have yet been
identified.
The advantages of using the above meta-theoretical hierarchy for the
critical analysis of design theories include the following:
Any design theory or concept can be evaluated, as an abstraction, in
terms of its relationships with other well-justified abstractions at
all levels.
When a new concept is proposed at any level, the hierarchy assists
with identifying whether new terminology is needed to distinguish the
new concept from other concepts at the same or different levels of
abstraction.
Where new theories and concepts are proposed at any level, the
necessary associated abstractions can be identified for all other
levels.
The meta-theoretical hierarchy provides a means of testing whether
general theories of design are complete and contain a coherent set of
well justified abstractions at all levels.
Conclusion
A meta-theoretical hierarchy has been described that offers the means
for building coherent design theory and resolving many of the
problems of existing theory and terminology.
Acknowledgement
A fuller justification for the meta-theoretical hierarchy can be
found in Love, T (2000) 'Philosophy of Design', Design Studies,
21(3), pp293-313'.
Argyris, C. (1980). Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. New
York: Academic Press.
Berger, P. L. (1980). Invitation to Sociology. England: Penguin Books.
Coyne, R. D. (1990). Learning without explanations: Design Education
and Models of Cognition (Working paper ). Sydney: Design Computing
Unit, University of Sydney.
Coyne, R. D., and Snodgrass, A. (1993). Rescuing CAD from
Rationalism. Design Studies, 14(2), 100-123.
Daley, J. (1982). Design Creativity and the Understanding of Objects.
Design Studies, 3(3), 133-137.
Dilnot, C. (1982). Design as a socially significant activity: an
introduction. Design Studies, 3(3), 139-146.
Ellis, K. (1995). The Association of Systems Thinking with the
Practice of Management. In W. Hutchinson, S. Metcalf, C. Standing,
and M. Williams (Eds.), Systems for the Future (pp. 17-22). Perth,
WA: Edith Cowan University.
Enc, B., and Adams, F. (1992). Functions and Goal Directedness.
Philosophy of Science, 59, 635-654.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: New Left Books.
Flood, R. (1995). Solving Problem Solving: TSI - A new problem
solving system for Management. In W. Hutchinson, S. Metcalf, C.
Standing, and M. Williams (Eds.), Systems for the Future (pp. 1-16).
Perth, WA: Edith Cowan University.
Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Flood, R. L., and Carson, E. R. (1988). Dealing with Complexity. New
York: Plenum Press.
Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving.
Chichester: Wiley.
Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research
in architecture. Design Studies, 15(4), 443-447.
Giddens, A. (1987). Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge UK:
Polity Press.
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1973). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Guba, E. C. (Ed.). (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. California: Sage
Publications Inc.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The Alternative Paradigm Dialog. In E. G. Guba
(Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17-27). London: Sage Publications.
Hamlyn, D. W. (1990). In and Out of the Black Box: on the philosophy
of cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Heath, T. (1993). Social Aspects of Creativity and their Impacts on
Creative Modelling. In J. S. Gero and M. L. Maher (Eds.), Modeling
creativity and knowledge based creative design (pp. 9-24). Broadway,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holt, J. E., Radcliffe, D. F., and Schoorl, D. (1985). Design or
problem solving-a critical choice for the engineering profession.
Design Studies, 6(2), 107-110.
Hoover, S. P., Rinderle, J. R., and Finger, S. (1991). Models and
abstractions in design. Design Studies, 12(4), 237-245.
Hubka, V., and Eder, W. E. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hutchinson, W. (1997). Systems Thinking and Associated Methodologies.
Perth, WA: Praxis Education.
Illich, I. D. (1978). Deschooling Society. UK: Penguin Books.
Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Konda, S., Monarch, I., Sargent, P., and Subrahmanian, E. (1992).
Shared Memory in Design: A Unifying Theme for Research and Practice.
Research in Engineering Design, 4, 23-42.
Lawson, B. (1993). Parallel Lines of Thought, Languages of design
(Vol. 1, pp. 321-331).
Love, T. (1995). Systems models and engineering design theory. In W.
Hutchinson, S. Metcalf, C. Standing, and M. Williams (Eds.), Systems
for the Future (pp. 238-246). Perth Western Australia: Edith Cowan
University.
Love, T. (1998). Social, environmental and ethical factors in
engineering design theory: a post positivist approach. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Love, T. (1999). Towards an epistemologically more coherent view of
design (long post), [ listserver archive]. DRS at Mailbase.
Available: www.mailbase.ac.uk.
Mohr, L. B. (1988). Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. Chicago:
The Dorsey Press.
Murray, E. L. (1986). Imaginative Thinking and Human Existence.
Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Phillips, D. C. (1987). Philosophy Science and Social Inquiry.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Phillips, D. C. (1990). PostPositivist Science: Myths and Realities.
In E. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog . California: Sage Publications
Inc.
Popper, K. (1976). Unended Quest. Illinois: Open Court.
Pugh, S. (1990). Engineering Design - Unscrambling the Research
Issues. Research in Engineering Design, 1(1), 65-72.
Reason, P., and Rowan, J. (1981). Issues of validity in new paradigm
research. In P. Reason and J. Rowan (Eds.), Human Inquiry (pp.
239-250). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.
Reich, Y. (1994). Annotated bibliography on Research Methodology.
Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 8,
355-366.
Reich, Y. (1994). Layered models of research methodologies.
Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 8,
263-274.
Robinson, J. W. (1986). Design as exploration. Design Studies, 7(2), 67-79.
Roozenburg, N. (1992). On the Logic of Innovative Design. In N.
Cross, K. Dorst, and N. Roozenburg (Eds.), Research into Design
thinking . The Netherlands: Delft University Press.
Rosen, S. (1980). The Limits of Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rowan, J., and Reason, P. (1981). Foreword. In P. Reason and J. Rowan
(Eds.), Human Inquiry (pp. xi-xxiv). Chichester, England: John Wiley
and Sons.
Rowan, J., and Reason, P. (1981). On making sense. In P. Reason and
J. Rowan (Eds.), Human Inquiry (pp. 113-137). Chichester, England:
John Wiley and Sons.
Shipman, M. D. (1981). Limitations of Social Research. (2nd ed.). UK:
Longman Group.
Smith, J. K. (1990). Alternative research paradigms and the problems
of criteria. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 167-187).
London: Sage Publications.
Stegmüller, W. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Talukdar, S., Rehg, J., and Elfes, A. (1988). Descriptive Models for
Design Projects. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in
Engineering Design . Avon, UK: Computational Mechanics Publications.
Ullman, D. G. (1992). A Taxonomy for Mechanical Design. Research in
Engineering Design, 3, 179-189.
|
