Dear Doris,
At the risk of immodesty, you may find this article useful:
Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research: criteria:
approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–522.
A slightly lengthier version appears as:
Friedman, Ken. 2002. “Theory Construction in Design Research. Criteria,
Approaches, and Methods.” In Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design
Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September
5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton, Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK:
Staffordshire University Press, 388-414.
In developing a theory corpus, we have in great part neglected the question
of theory construction and the issue of what it means to theorize. I have
tried to fill some of the gap. While I might put some things differently,
most of what appears in these articles remains valid.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:43:56 +0000, Doris Kosminsky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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?
|