Hi David,

I can write something more but enlightenment is something else!

Here goes.
Theory is a layered phenomenon and design research and practice  has
multiple layers of theory. For any single theory   to make sense it has to
link with theories on all layers. (Hence my 90s research into
meta-theoretical perspectives on design theories (which will soon be back on
the Love Design and Research website at www.love.com.au).)

Epistemology is the 'study' (ology) of knowledge. In this case,  the
suggested focus is "the study of knowledge about 'Design Knowledge and
Design Theories'".

A concrete example.

There are many types of theory about how people interpret and act on the
instructions on a medicine bottle and, thanks to your research, much
empirical information. At the moment, the theories don't fit together well
with each other, with the empirical evidence and with theories more broadly
(neuro-cognition, affective-cognition, cultural factors social issues...)
and  they don't define design guidelines.

To bring this together into a coherent whole requires overarching
meta-theoretical study of the knowledge and theories involved.

The specific area of design research could be titled  the:
 "Epistemology of 'Design Knowledge and Design Theories about how people
interpret and act on the instructions on medicine bottles'"

A bit long winded as a title but certainly a worthwhile study,  and  from
what you have written you are doing in the background to your empirical
work.

All the best,
Terry



-----Original Message-----
From: David Sless [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2010 3:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A new field of design research

Hi Terry,
Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this. We have had a sudden influx
of new projects and they take a while to set up, taking much of my time.

Returning to this thread. I'm not sure that I understand what you are
saying, and it may be that others on this list are having similar
difficulties, so I have a few questions.

When you use the term 'epistemology' are you using the term in its common
and classical philosophical usage to mean 'theories of knowledge', covering
such divergent theories as idealism, realism, empiricism, or
constructionism? Or are you using the term in some special sense that I'm
missing?

If you are using the term in its common usage then your phrase
> the 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory'.

spells out to be: ' the theory of knowledge of Design Knowledge and Theory'.
This is the point at which I find myself getting lost. Can you enlighten me?
David
--




blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au

Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO . Communication Research Institute .
. helping people communicate with people .

Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless

60 Park Street . Fitzroy North . Melbourne . Australia . 3068

On 26/04/2010, at 12:34 PM, Terence Love wrote:

> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for great questions.
>
> When I started to answer them, I realised I've been explaining things from
> the perspective of a new field of design research,  the 'Epistemology of
> Design Knowledge and Theory'. This field of Design Research is not
actually
> that new. It is more that it has been hidden or ignored. It is  found only
> in a very small number of sub-fields of Design.
>
> This 'new' field of Design research focuses on the 'Epistemology of Design
> Knowledge and Theory' and its application in design practice, design
> theory-making and design research. My previous posts since the 90s have
> pointed to this approach but I hadn't realised till now it is a missing
> field generally in Design Research, Design Practice  and Design Education.

>
> The focus of 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and Theory'  is to look at
> the epistemological characteristics of knowledge and theory relating to
> design and by making theory using these epistemological characteristics,
> improve design practice, theory and research.
>
> A practical example is to look at the  epistemological characteristics of
> (say) a group of design problems. The approach contrasts with the
> traditional design research and design  practice approaches in which the
> focus is primarily on the concrete aspects of content and contexts of
design
> situations .
>
> Say for example, the focus was 'Design problems associated with people's
> interpretation of medicine bottle labels'. A typical design / design
> research approach would be to look at the characteristics of the labels
> (fonts, layout, colour, etc)  and to look at the context (how they are
used,
> the users, user behaviour, success in interpreting the labels, etc). More
> advanced approaches might include  (say) theories about cognition, social
> construction of knowledge, affordances etc.
>
> An approach from the field of 'Epistemology of Design Knowledge and
Theory'
> , however,  would be to stand back  one or more levels of abstraction and
> look at the characteristics of the  theories we use and make about  this
> situation.  The focus would be on the epistemological characteristics of
> theory and practice of  interaction in this situation and creating
coherent
> models about the structural relationships of these theories into a
situation
> 'type'. This  would be  an epistemologically-based model of the  theory
> structure of the situation.
>
> The approach is important because it is epistemological similarity that
> allows us to justifiably transfer knowledge from domain to domain, design
> situation to design situation, and to avoid design research and design
> practice being blinkered by being context and content specific.
>
> What?! Why?! I can almost hear people ask.
>
> Looking at the epistemology of the  knowledge and theory of design
> situations  is useful on at least six counts:
>
> 1. Because the behaviours of any design  situation are more transparent
(if
> you have the ways of looking) in ways that are much more powerful than the
> more blinkered  approach of focusing only on the concrete issues of design
> content and context.
> 2. Understanding the behaviours of design situations in this way is much
> more powerful than traditional approaches based on design principles,
> elements , context and user characteristics.
> 3. It is easy to  draw on knowledge and findings about epistemologically
> similar design situations in completely different fields in which the
design
> situations and contexts are not similar in the concrete.
> 4. It can become almost trivially easy to identify types of design
solutions
> likely to be successful to many complicated design problems that would
> commonly be called 'wicked problems'.
> 5. It points to approaches that will improve on existing research
approaches
> and design practice.
> 6. It provides a sound basis for optimising design solutions and design
> research approaches.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ____________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
> School of Design and Art
> 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 David
> Sless
> Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 1:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Limits of prediction (was Re: Are visual approaches to design
> outdated?)
>
> Hi Terry,
>
> You say:
>> You are right that there is a shift in this case, Most of the analyses I
> do
>> are of  theory qua theory and hence a lot of it requires a high level
> view.
>> Looking at evidence of  the limits to competence of us as individual
> humans
>> is different.
>
> Are we not human beings when we do theory qua theory?
> As theorists, are we not subject to the same limitations of competence?
> Or, is there a special dispensation for theorists?
>
> It strikes me that theory, anyway, is at its best when it is based on a
> collection of individual cases.
>
> When it comes to predicting outcome, there are a few things that are worth
> teasing out. On the one hand there are things which are difficult to
predict
> simply because we don't know all the factors that contribute to the
outcome.
> In this case understanding multiple feedback loops may be important.
>
> More interesting are those phenomena which are non-predictable because
it's
> impossible to determine the outcomes from the starting conditions, and no
> amount of feedback loops will help us. There are lots of physical and
social
> phenomena of that kind. A lot of design fits into this type of phenomenon.
> The best we can hope for is that we try out a prototype on a small scale,
> and discover the unintended consequences, before we inflict them on an
> unsuspecting world.
>
> As to the limited forms of prediction open to us in areas like my own, the
> most we can really say with any confidence about the way people will
> interact with our designs is based on the testing we do on prototypes
before
> implementation. There is no massive body of theory behind such prediction
> but rather a simple assumption that if people can use a design in a
> particular way during testing, they are likely to be able to use the
design
> in this way in the world. Or, put simply, if people can do something
today,
> they are likely to be able to do it again tomorrow. Equally, if they
cannot
> do it today, they are unlikely to be able to do it tomorrow: it's called
> suck-it-and-see. Not much of a theory I admit, indeed not really a theory
at
> all, but about the best we have.
>
> If there is any theory it is the processes we use and the way we describe
> them based on multiple individual cases. But even there, all we are really
> saying is that using this process worked in the past, so lets use it
again.
>
> David
> --
>
> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
>