lubomir,
your distinction of the origin or place of theory in the natural sciences
and of discourse coming i would say from the linguistic turn is very
helpful. i also agree that reconciling the two is difficult, witness my
conversation with terry. being aware of the interactive use of language,
including when talking about theory, is difficult to reconcile with taking
theory as representative of facts (and language as subservient of these
facts)
klaus
-----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 Lubomir
S. Popov
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse
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.pres
s.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
|