Dear Doris,
David Wang's article "Prediction in theoria: towards an interdisciplinary range of theories related to architecture" also provides a holistic perspective on theories in architecture.
Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 2006, vol.10, pp. 263-173.
Best,
Isil OYGUR
Industrial Designer l DDes student at WSU
--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Design theories
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 7:28 PM
Dear Terry
I agree with your account of the wickedness of the wicked when it comes
to design theory. Yes, we urgently need a minimal account of the wicked
- too often we see a maximal account which serves the notions of
designers as creatives if not geniuses.
It is the witch that wishes us to see her as wicked - after all, she'd
just melt if we understood that reason as knowledge is the source and
solution to evil.
There is nothing wicked in design but our thinking makes it so. That
is, if it's a problem then there is a solution - if there is no
solution, then it is not a problem (Wittgenstein).
cheers
keith russell
oz - newcastle
>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 02/23/10 1:48 PM >>>
Dear Doris,
I agree design theory is a problem area in design education. Which
design theory is relevant depends on which areas of design you are
teaching.
The foundations of the difficulty appear to go much deeper.
Standing back and revie3ing the situation across design fields shows a
core problem is that the design education community in all design areas
typically have identified, developed and used design theory in ways
that have been parochial, narrow-minded, over-simplistic and
superficial. For example, the technical design disciplines have tended
to ignore human issues or dealt with them superficially and design
disciplines that pride themselves on their connection with people have
tended to ignore the significant benefits available from using powerful
mathematical theory.
This self-imposed blindness of designers and design researchers in
design sub-fields has led to three losses: the ability to identify and
use good quality design theory that is already in the literature but in
different fields; the ability to arbitrage design theory and
design-related knowledge between fields in a non-naïve manner; and the
ability to create a body of design theory that moves beyond the
superficial. Most design researchers on this list will recognise that
most design theories are sized in scope and complexity to give a
'soundbite' sized idea that is not too difficult to understand..
Two simple and linked criteria of the significance and relevance of any
design theory to design education are its performance in:
* Improving the prediction of BEHAVIOUR of designed outcomes
* Reducing the number of design solutions and problems that are
regarded as 'wicked'
A primary purpose of any design theory is to help predict the behaviour
of a designed outcome, and this is reflected in the designerly call of
'wicked problem' as a claim that it is not possible to predict the
behaviour of the designed outcome.
Some of the above points can be easily illustrated by looking at
relatively hidden areas of design research. For example, a classic text
representing one of the earliest areas of design (goes back to around
800AD) is Design Theory (1999) by Beth, Jungnickel and Lenz. This two
volume set addresses abelian groups, graph groups, automorphism and
isomorphism groups, computational construction, Hadamard sets and
matrices and many other interesting things that would be incredibly
useful to product designers to reduce the amount of design contexts that
designers call 'wicked'. Yet these well-established and carefully
constructed bodies of design theory are rarely taught in 'design'
schools.
Another illustration is the application of dimensional analysis and
non-dimensionalisation as a design theory. This is a powerful yet simple
to understand body of design theory mainly developed in the technical
design disciplines. The underlying approach (understanding a design
situation through structuring of the epistemological characteristics of
the factors influencing the situation) offer great potential in tackling
complex design solutions involving (say) aesthetics, stakeholder
interests, technical issues and urban planning and many other design
situations commonly seen as 'wicked'. More simply the design theory
provides an insightful way of scaling design solutions for reuse. It
also offers the basis for arbitrage of solutions and design theory
insights between design fields. All of these result in improving the
prediction of the behaviour of designed outcomes and reducing the
number of calls that things are 'wicked problems'. Again, such design
theory is rarely taught in 'design' schools.
Another illustration, I've detailed in earlier posts, is the need for
modelling theory for complex design situations with more than 2 feedback
loops. The theory is available, yet is rarely taught in 'design'
schools.
The problem of identifying useful and powerful design theory for use in
design education is easy to resolve.
First however, it requires designing a way out of the problem that
design areas typically identify, develop and use design theory in ways
that are parochial, narrow-minded, over-simplistic and superficial. The
implication is that it may be unhelpful to ask the communities that most
obviously align with the question!
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research
Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----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 Doris Kosminsky
Sent: Monday, 22 February 2010 5:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design theories
Dear all,
I'm writing a text and preparing a course in Design Theory and would be
glad
to hear opinions, comments and ideas of the members of this list.
I think that design never had a theoretical corpus of its own, although
it
made use of some theories borrowed from other fields, like the gestalt
from
psychology. I also recognize a great value over the Product Language
Theory.
Besides this, in the last decades, with the advent of the post-modern
and
the concept of the end of the great narratives, even those theories
were
questioned. My question is, which theories would you think are still
valid
in design teaching nowadays?
Thank you and best wishes,
Doris Kosminsky
Professor - Escola de Belas Artes
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ
|
