Dear Ken,

you are right in saying that not "all these three-part models map onto each
other. Not all of these models are process models. They are models of
different kinds."

Frayling´s three kinds of design research is a 
singular model, as far as I see. There are 
followers and people who develop the model 
further.
Another singular model is the basic, applied, 
clinical distinction. One might call these 
taxonomies.
By the way: I saw one concept, where the latter 
two models were 1:1 mapped onto each other, which 
I find hard to justify.

Then we have the models that describe the subject matters, such as
Plato´s beautiful, true, good or Cross´ products, 
process, people or Findeli´s aesthetics, logic, 
ethics. One might call this domain models or 
models of subject matters.

Then we have a different type of domain models, 
which do not differentiate by subject matters but 
by the way of inquiry, such as Nelson / 
Stolterman´s true, ideal, real, or Fallman´s 
design studies, design exploration, design 
practice.

And what I suggest is that this second type of 
domain models might match with the well-known 
process-models, such as Jones´ divergence, 
transformation, convergence or Archer´s science, 
design, arts or Simon/Weick´s intelligence, 
design, choice or Jonas´ Analysis, Projection, 
Synthesis.

The outcome might be an epistemological and 
methodological sound description of design 
processes...

---

As to the meta-issue:
I cannot object to what you say in this mail.
Full stop.


Best,

Jonas

---



At 22:33 Uhr +1000 09.07.2011, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Jonas,
>
>It's not clear to me that all these three-part models map onto each
>other. Not all of these models are process models. They are models of
>different kinds.
>
>The last time we disagreed about three-part models, the model we
>discussed was Frayling's proposal for three kinds of design research:
>research into design, research by design, and research for design. This
>is not a process model, but rather a series of rubrics for three kinds
>of research. In Frayling's proposal, each of these three rubrics
>describes a different approach to research. This is a taxonomic model.
>
>Your three-part model is a process model. In your model, analysis,
>projection, and synthesis are sequential steps in the same process.
>
>Peirce describes a process model into which he integrates his view of
>the scientific method. He starts with abduction (forming hypotheses),
>moving to induction, and finally to deduction.
>
>But the Nelson-Stolterman model describing the true, the ideal, and the
>real is not a process model. It is a domain model.
>
>Kolb's experiential learning model is a four-part iterative cycle
>involving experiencing, observing, conceptualizing, and experimenting.
>For Kolb, these process steps can follow each other in several ways.
>
>The process models in Boland's article also work.
>
>Without agreeing that the actual process models you describe do indeed
>map over onto one another, your description of the process models seems
>reasonable. My argument with mapping all three-part models onto one
>another is that domain models and taxonomic models don't work the same
>way that process models do.
>
>It's difficult to see what's notorious about a pattern of posing
>thoughts, requesting clarification, challenging debatable issues. In my
>view, the well-known end to this kind of debate is to clarify and sort
>through ideas, and sometimes to scrub off ideas that don't really
>work. Isn't that what research has always been about?
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>
>Jonas wrote:
>
>-snip-
>
>a notorious communication pattern is showing up  again. I would like to
>contribute to avoiding the well-known end of this kind of debate.
>
>If I remember right, then this thread started with a discussion about
>3-phase models of the design process.
>
>Anyway, I come back to this issue and invite you  to give this debate a
>cybernetic turn. To look at it in a cybernetic spirit. Circularity,
>feedback, self-reference, etc. are the keywords. Also groundlessness and
>these infamous concepts.
>
>Many design and many learning process models have a 4- or 3-step
>structure.
>
>Most 4-step models go back to Kolb's theory of experiential learning.
>In my terminology I call the steps research - analysis - synthesis -
>realization.
>
>And most 3-step models can be mapped to Peirce's 3-step logic of
>Induction - Abduction - Deduction. In my terminology: Analysis -
>Projection - Synthesis. In Nelson (since Harold's name appeared) and
>Stolterman's terminology: the  true - the ideal - the real.
>
>4- and 3-step models can be closely related to each other, an advantage
>of the 3-step models is that the abductive step is made explicit.
>
>-snip-