Hello everyone,
I love theorizing and thinking at theoretical level, but we need to
set things straight. I don't think it matters that much to go into
details. The problem is that the very concept of theory is
positivist. The discussion up to now follows such a track. Positivist
theories cannot work in most of the design research domains, and
certainly not in design. Forgive me, but that is the world. You can
not use positivism in art theory. (Here I use the word in two
different ways, actually these are two different terms.)
The concept of theory is developed for the natural sciences. The
social sciences can manage it. When we go more towards the
humanitarian sciences, the concept changes drastically, although the
word is retained. This creates the confusion. In the arts, we follow
a humanistic train of thought and rely more on paradigms developed
for understanding the human condition.
The concept of discourse comes from a completely different tradition.
We don't need to reconcile these two. It is better to make a decision
which way we want to go and then, let's go that way without
hesitation. I would not discuss the difference or similarity between
theory and discourse simply because they work in different
intellectual systems. Here I agree with Gavin, if I interpret his
post correctly. So, whether we theorize or make discourse depends
where we stand and what intellectual wave we ride. It will be
difficult to reconcile these two. I also think it would not be
necessary, at least at that point.
Best,
Lubomir
Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Family and Consumer Sciences
309 Johnston Hall
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059
phone: (419) 372-7935
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Gavin Melles
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse
Perhaps at the heart of all this talk is also whether there is a
sense of theory (and closer to the ground 'model') other than that
which science and related empirical fields wants to use
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
and which, since Popper, includes notions such as falsification,
induction (and ultimately objective knowledge) etc. If there is
another more rhetorical ways of talking about theory (i.e. as
discourse) then this will do different kinds of work for us in the
intellectual inquiry we are pursuing. If, on the other hand, the
Popperian mainstream model helps us do other things then stick with
it. The assumption in this conversation that we may reach some sort
of argued decision assumes that we share a certain set of assumption
about what is important and useful (pragmatism again) - this is not
necessarily and not ordinarily the case. Also for an entertaining
read about alternative 'theories' or at least weltanschauung - form
of life from a former colleague at Melbourne read Science and the
African Logic
(<http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14593.ctl>http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14593.ctl)
by Helen Verran, who we hop to have with us next year 2009, Melbourne
for the Cumulus Conference
|