Ken, Terry, and all

I like McNeil's eleven characteristics of any general theory but don't  
think they are very helpful in clarifying how to articulate a theory.  
There are several points that seem simply arbitrary. He does make good  
points about coherent  levels of discourse and their relationships but  
gives no clues about what is required to do this. My own view is that  
the structure of a general theory must be repeated at each level in  
its definition. The content changes of course.

I have found the following rubric very helpful and have based my  
theory building on it.

"An effective theory is one whose purpose is clear and that defines  
and relates its elements in terms of the situations it addresses. It  
clearly communicates this structured knowledge and supports the  
actions necessary to realize goals regarding the circumstances it  
models. It provides evidence of its own effectiveness and produces  
useful knowledge."

Maybe Terry would give this a work through to conceptually specify an  
epistemic approach to design research. Then I'd understand what he is  
proposing.

Best regards,
Chuck


On Apr 30, 2010, at 8:27 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:

> Friends,
>
> The thread on theory and theory construction in design addresses  
> issues
> that we've talked about for several years. While it seems to me that  
> the
> conversation reveals new issues and considerations in each  
> iteration, I
> suspect one or two basics have vanished.
>
> Theory can be described in many ways. Some theories are complex and
> sophisticated. Others are simple. Thomas Mautner (1996: 426) defines
> theory as “a set of propositions which provides principles of analysis
> or explanation of a subject matter. Even a single proposition can be
> called a theory.” I've always seen a good theory as a kind of model.
> Like a model train or a model of the solar system, it bears a
> relationship to that which it describes. When it works, you can see in
> it the properties of the thing modeled or described in the theory to
> understand it better. What makes profound theory exciting is that in
> some cases, the model reveals properties that have hitherto been  
> unclear
> or hidden, or it demonstrates relationships.
>
> The problem of levels of theory that Terry describes involves a range
> of properties that ought to obtain in a theory that describes things
> well. Donald McNeil (1993: 8) proposes eleven characteristics of any
> general theory. 1) A theory has a constitutive core of concepts  
> mutually
> interrelated with one another. 2) A theory has a mutually productive,
> generative connection between central concepts and the peripheral
> concepts where theory verges onto practice. 3) The core concepts of a
> theory are stated in algorithmic compression, parsimonious statements
> from which the phenomena in the theory can be reproduced. 4) A theory
> has an irreducible core of concepts, a set of concepts in which no
> central concept can be removed without altering the scope and
> productivity of the theory or perhaps destroying it entirely. 5) Two  
> or
> more of the core concepts in a theory must be complementary to each
> other. 6) The central concepts of a theory must be well defined and  
> must
> harmonize as much as possible with similar concepts of enlightened
> discourse. 7) The central concepts of a theory must be expressed at a
> uniform level of discourse. Different levels of discourse must be
> distinguished and used consistently. 8) More general theories
> (higher-level theories) must relate to less general theories
> (lower-level theories) and to special cases through a principle of
> correspondence. This principle confirms and guarantees the consistency
> of the more particular theories and their applications. 9)  
> Explicitly or
> implicitly, a theory describes dynamic flows with contours that trace
> relatively closed loops as well as relatively open links. 10) A theory
> states invariant entities in its assumptions or formulas that provide
> standards for measurement. 11) Theories describe phenomena in the
> context of a conceptual space. This implicitly establishes a
> relationship between the observer and the phenomena observed.
>
> That's kind of a long way round, but there is a reason for each of
> these criteria -- there are also theories that do not function as
> general theories that still help us to understand things.
>
> Nearly all design proceeds from some kind of theorizing -- that is,
> some kind of model of how things work. Even though we may not state  
> our
> theories explicitly or even understand them well, we use them. One of
> the aims of design research is to surface and render implicit theories
> explicit as part of the work of understanding better what we do.
>
> As I see it, this is an area where design research has much to offer
> design practice. I'm not proposing that every designer should be a
> theorist -- I am saying that every designer in some sense adopts
> theories of design activity and puts them to work. Because of this,  
> the
> role of design research in understanding better a theory (or theories)
> of design also helps to advance design practice. We require bridges
> between the two realms to serve the design profession by doing so --  
> but
> we don't serve the design profession very well at all if we leave the
> serious work of theory construction undone.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
> Professor
> Dean
>
> Swinburne Design
> Swinburne University of Technology
> Melbourne, Australia
>
>
> References
>
> Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
>
> McNeil, Donald H. 1993. “Reframing systemic paradigms for the art of
> learning.” Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics.