Dear Robert,

Thank you for your comments.

I'm probably not the best person to ask about these issues if they are
central to your PhD. As GK has pointed out, design research operates at
different speeds in different parts of it. Please take advice from your
supervisors on how to best present your PhD. 

You asked: " Do you accept or reject the ideas of Archer, (or Cross), that
Design  
has its own culture that is different from Science and the Humanities  
(these are two of the more influential design researchers I am  
interested in). Or, at a more basic level, do you accept or reject CP  
Snow's arguments about two sub-cultures of Science and Humanities (I  
don't think he was a designer)."

I have a lot of respect for Bruce Archer and Nigel Cross and the
foundational contributions to design theory  that both have made in  the
current wave of design research that started in the second half of the 20th
century. For me, the main interest in their work is their specific ideas for
improving design practice, theory and  research. I'm less concerned about
their broad -brush pictures because they are difficult to research and
justify.

It's obvious any  attempts to make clear distinctions between cultures of
'Design', 'Science', and 'Humanities' are based on dodgy foundations. 

Design does not have a single culture. There are a very large number of
design fields, something like 800 at last count of which 40 are within the
classic 'Art and Design' tradition. The design research literature across
all fields shows strong evidence of parochialism. The way design is
theorised in each field is tightly linked with the knowledge content
relating to what is designed. For example, in chemical process design,
theories about design are clearly modelled on chemical process systems.
Ditto ' Art and Design' fields. Parochialism is also evident in the ways
that the literature of several  design fields indicates designers and
researchers in each  design field believe they are the only,  true, real,
and historically-justified design field - all of them! Each of these
individual sub-fields of design  is comprised of multiple pockets of
practitioners and researchers at different levels of knowledge and
theorisation and grounded  on different theory foundations that vary across
spectrums of qualitative/quantitative, individual/social,
post-positivist/positivist etc

Design is not so separate from science and the humanities. Around 45% of the
total number of design fields are in areas that most would regard as
'scientific'. A further 45% or so of design fields are in Business,
Humanities, and Social Sciences *excluding* Art-related subjects. Only
around 7% are in 'Art'-related design areas. 

In addition, over  the last 30 years or so, there has been increasing
involvement of science in the Humanities, Business and Social Sciences., and
in parallel, there has been increasing humanisation of the practical
sciences.  

These realities make it a little difficult to put forward any simple
argument that Design, Science and Humanities have single non-overlapping
cultures.

You  asked: "If you do accept these views, by my crude maths, Design is at
least a  
third of everything. "

For me, the claim doesn't make much sense. It is notoriously difficult to
calculate the amount and value of design in a society/situation/ industry...
Any such claim needs to be backed up by much more. Divvying up proportions
on the basis one has decided to describe things in terms of  three words
doesn't seem to be very justifiable.

You asked: "Would you consider these as 'weak' or 'careless'  
theories?"

I wouldn't consider them theories. Times have changed. Many analyses were
looser in the past and none of these 'culture' ideas  are not central to
Bruce's or Nigel's contributions to improving design practices. As time has
passed, generally sophistication of analysis has increased (although not
much in the Art-based areas of Design - which is one reason I raised the
problem of Art). In addition, across the academic spectrum most disciplines
and processional practices have changed  and become more theoretically
sophisticated (again with Art-based Design fields lagging behind). This has
limited what over arching ideas are possible. Also, it seems  important to
distinguish between 'theories',  'information', 'heuristics', 'sound-bites'
and "simple models of use in communicating a 'way of thinking' or
'perspective'" .  Many things are regarded in Art and Design as theories
that are something else. Examples include Schön's reflection ideas, Kolb's
learning loops, colour relationships, typographic 'rules'... Culture
'theories' are more like ideas, speculations or hypotheses. 
It is pragmatically useful to put forward a complex  idea as a simple
sound-bite. 'Two -cultures' is such an example. It doesn't mean that the
sound -bite is a theory or accurate.

You ask: 'Can Art be a sub-field of Engineering? Is there anything wrong
with  
that.'

 My comment was to illustrate your use of your  list as a means of proof was
not easily justifiable.

You wrote: " If I read the Sunday papers, I consider  
this to be Design. And I can appreciate the role art plays in  
achieving the Design."

I'm suggesting it is design practice that creates designs and that design
practice is different from art-practice (even when doing similar things such
as creating an aesthetically attractive appearance). I'm suggesting that
designers and design educators have been inappropriately influenced into
seeing design practices in terms of art-practices and it's time to move on
and see design as a different practice even when undertaking similar tasks
such as drawing. There are many precedents. For example it is only
relatively recently that Science has managed to separate itself from Alchemy
although the two overlapped for many years. 

You wrote: "It seems to me that Art is being explicit about its 'features'
and  
'qualities'. You can accept or reject them. But I think you have been  
arguing for Design to do the same. Surely, Design should consider the  
identity of other subject interests so as to encourage working in a  
cross-disciplinary way. I know that when I speak to Cultural  
Geographers, they have some similar interests to Graphic Design. For  
example, both  are interested in the London Underground Map, but for  
different reasons. I might be wrong, but I consider Geography to be a  
mature discipline by comparison to research in Art or Design. But I  
don't see this as problematic."

The literature of Design research, particularly in Art and Design fields, is
theoretically problematic across the board. I'm suggesting it's time for the
first steps to be taken in Design in creating theory that is justifiable.
This is a matter of simple direct thinking rather than imposing mathematical
models of design activity. It’s a matter of writing theory about design and
of use to designers and design researchers that doesn't fall apart under
light critical scrutiny.  It has happened in other areas of design. The
problem remains in design fields associated with Art.

It seems a useful practical starting point on achieving this  clarity of
thinking and writing to be able to make sound design theory  is to
differentiate design activity from art activity. For this, and other
practical reasons, there appear to be significant benefits in Design
breaking away from the influence and control of Art.

Thank you again for your questions. 

All the best wishes for your research and your PhD.

Terry