JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  September 2011

PHD-DESIGN September 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Distinctions between different types of design research

From:

Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 2 Sep 2011 23:51:18 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (195 lines)

Hi Chuck, 
Thanks for your comments. You might be reading more into these lists than my
reasons for making them! 

The reason for the list of definitions was simple. I was reviewing around a
thousand design research related documents in the mid-90s and found that the
authors used those terms( the ones I defined) in many different ways with
different meanings- some of which didn't make much sense, some that were
consistent with  some terms sometimes and then not others, and  often the
terms   were used erratically with multiple different meanings in the same
text. It made reviewing impossible - like trying to pin down a
thousand-legged octopus. I needed somewhere to stand.  The definitions I
posted were based on thinking through what definitions of those terms needed
to do in terms of separating the different epistemological constructs whilst
aligning with the common meanings of the terms. The only overlap is
'engineering (noun)' and 'engineering-practice' which is a particular subset
of it. I can see that  others would likely  prefer  different definitions.
The advantage of these ones is only that they form a coherent and
epistemologically distinct body of terms that made good sense for analysing
theory and making new theory. A similar process led me to the three
definitions of 'design' that I've been putting forward because they are
'useful' and theoretically sound  ('design' (noun) - a specification for
making or doing something; 'designer' - someone who creates 'designs'; and,
'design/ing' (verb) - to create 'designs'). They might not be the meanings
that other  researchers would prefer. Their advantage, however, is they
provide a simple, solid and coherent theoretical basis for analysing the
research literature in ways that make sense, and they are an ontologically
and epistemologically  simple, coherent and reliable foundation for making
new theory. Both lists of definitions 'ain't fancy',  their value is
primarily that they work well, give good answers, and are simple to use.

The nine 'levels' categories were created for a way different purpose than
how I think you are thinking of them. Reading your comments, I think you're
taking them into the area of improving how we design. Great! When I made the
tool, however, it was for a far simpler job. I simply wanted to: a) map the
hundreds of different design 'theories' I found in the design research
literature; b) identify what each theory depended on for its validity and
what depended on them; and c) check how well justified they were.  Like in
all disciplines, design theories depend on each other in an hierarchical
way: theories depend for their validity on other theories being valid and,
in turn, they provide the basis for the formation and validity of other
theories. A lone theory doesn't really work - it is effortless  to challenge
it and impossible  to prove.  There is a confusion of  strands and  clusters
of mutually-supporting theories in design research and two  big problems in
reviewing  the validity of individual theories:  much of the design research
field  is a theoretically-careless mess; and  it comprises mainly  of
speculative unjustified 'theories' and claims in which the dependence on
other theories are typically not well explained nor are theories adequately
justified. Analysing the relationships and validities of theories required
coming up with a set of  analytical 'tools' that do the job. The key ones
were easily available 'off the shelf' from the field of 'Theory of
Knowledge'. The problem was the design theory field is in such a mess that
it's not easy to directly use formal analytical tools on it or the
individual theories. The most obvious step was to create an intermediary
tool that provided a way to apply  the analytical tools from the field of
Theory of Knowledge to  the mess of theory in the design literature. The
'nine 'levels' categories' was this tool. The approach I used was to
identify a comprehensive and epistemologically unique sequence  of theory
categories that were  'generic' (in terms of design theories) and had a
hierarchical dependence on each other's validity. This meant that a) all
design theories could be placed 'somewhere' in these nine categories; b) the
theoretical dependencies of each theory can be identified upstream and
downstream; c)  any theory can be identified in terms of whether it is part
of   a whole theory path from one end to the other of the hierarchy; d) it
allows identification of 'gaps' or failures of justification of individual
theories; and, e) it provides a really effective and obvious tool of
identifying where new design theories are needed, i.e. opportunities for new
funded design research.
These categories  might not be the exact ones that other researchers  would
have identified. They seem to provide, however, the only (to date) solid and
coherent theoretical basis for fully  and coherently analysing the
relationships and validity of individual design theories, and an
ontologically and epistemologically  coherent and reliable foundation for
identifying and making new theory. Again the approach ain't fancy, and may
not be the best. The categories just do their job .

In the current discussion, the nine level categories also form a basis for
identifying, classifying and checking the validity and justification of
research methods.

If you or anyone on the list  knows of  better tools for the same tasks,
please let me know. I'd love to use them.
 
Sorry to take so many words. I look forward to your thoughts  and comments.

Warm regards,

Terry

-----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 Charles
Burnette
Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 5:17 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Distinctions between different types of design research

On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Terence Love wrote:

> From: Love, T. (1998). Social, Environmental and Ethical Factors in  
> Engineering Design Theory: a Post-positivist Approach. Perth,  
> Western Australia: Praxis Education.
>
> Definitions:
> Engineering-as a verb denotes the activity of producing technology,  
> or an activity related to the production of technology.
This sounds to me like procedural thinking.
> Engineering research-research into engineering issues that results  
> in engineering theory.
This sounds to me like intentional thinking.
> Engineering theory-one of many theories that engineering designers,  
> that is, those practising engineering design, use to gain further  
> information about the likely behaviour of designed artefacts, for  
> example, theories about machine dynamics, behaviour of materials and  
> kinematics.
This sounds to me like the action plans I associate with formative  
thinking.
> Engineering-practice-the activity of producing technology, including  
> its basis in technical knowledge, its organisation and its cultural  
> aspects.
Except for the activity of producing technology which I attribute to  
procedural thinking above this seems to me a statement of reflective  
thought which deals with all issues related to cultural knowledge.
> Engineering science-the scientific study of engineering and the  
> scientific practices by which technology is produced. Engineering  
> science is used in engineering practice.
This statement is really weird to me. Taken seriously it means how  
engineering is evaluated as a discipline.
> Engineering design-the activity of designing technological artefacts.
This rings my bell as the engineering expression of formative  
artifacts. (American spelling.)
> Engineering design research-research that investigates the activity  
> of designing technological artefacts.
This one really needs better definition. I identify it with the issues  
of modeling and analysis that I associate with reflective thought.
So far I love your model as it manifests the one I like. What you say  
next blows it out of the water.
>
> Level - Classification -Description
> 1	Ontology of design	The ontological basis for design theory and
the  
> activity of designing. It is at this level that the human values and  
> fundamental assumptions of researchers, designers and others  
> implicated in designing are included in critiques of theory. I find  
> this obscure.
There is no sense of how the views of those implicated in design are  
ontologically related to theories.
> 2	Epistemology of design theory	The critical study of the nature,  
> grounds, limits and criteria for validity of design knowledge.
This sounds OK as critical thought about evaluative thinking and its  
consequences for design knowledge but where is the meat?
> 3	General design theories	Theories which seek to describe the whole  
> activity of designing and its relationship to both the designed  
> objects and the environment..
No problem. I live there.
> 4	Theories about the internal processes of designers and  
> collaboration	Theories about the reasoning and cognising of  
> individual designers, of negotiated design in collaborative design  
> teams, and of socio-cultural effects on designers' output.
This too I love. It relates directly to my stuff on the Role Oriented  
Approach to Problem Solving
> 5	Theories about the structure of design process	Theories about the  
> underlying structure of design process based on domain, culture,  
> artefact type and other similar attributes and circumstances.
I dislike this whole approach. I think it should be focused on aspects  
first and cultural understanding of them second.
> 6	Design methods	Theories about and proposals for design methods and

> techniques.
Fishing expeditions unless grounded in how the brain works.
> 7	Theories about mechanisms of choice	Theories about the ways that

> choices are made between different elements, designed objects,  
> processes, systems or other types of possibility.
Mechanisms of choice exist through intentions about what is to be  
achieved.
> 8	Theories about the behaviour of elements	Theories about the  
> behaviour of elements which may be incorporated into designed  
> objects, processes and systems, e.g. 'the camshaft rotates at 600  
> rads/sec'.
This works!
> 9	Initial conception and labelling of reality	This is the level at

> which humans descriptions of objects, processes and systems are  
> coined, e.g. 'a vacuum cleaner', 'a car body', 'a groyne', 'a  
> database', 'sitting' at a 'desk', 'hearing' 'noise', 'smelling'  
> 'fumes' from an 'exhaust' and 'watching' 'sunsets'.
This  isn't  adequate! What is needed is a semantic process by which  
definitional objects are related to the situation they define.

Terry, You are absolutely great because you risk what you believe.  
Keep it up -with an open mind.
Warm thoughts,
Chuck

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager