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  March 2013

PHD-DESIGN March 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: What kind of discussion list is this? ...

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:

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:56:05 +0530

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Dear Tim,

In case you are still reading. Of course there is a spectrum of quality in
the design and design research literature.

That was not what I was referring to. You seem to be suggesting I was being
insulting. Not so,and I apologise if this seemed like what I was saying. My
intention was to be  specific about particular general aspects of the
literature in terms of being a body of well=developed and justified causal
theory.

I'd thought the general state of the theory literature of Design  was
self-evident but obviously not.  Previously I have documented some of the
problems with the design literature in detailr on the basis of a review of
around 1000 publications and also included references to others who have
done similar analyses and come to similar conclusions (see below*).

It seemed to me  that, however,  is not needed, and simple inspection was
enough.

Currently, by observation, the literature has little  agreement on the
details of the essential  concepts and processes such as 'design',
'thinking', 'creativity', 'design decision making', 'design communication',
'function', 'artefact',  'design research' , 'use',  'design as a
discipline', 'intuition', 'design outcomes', 'design automation', 'agency',
'role of design' ,  'designer'  to think of the first concepts that come to
mind. In general, again by observation, descriptions of  these concepts in
the design literature are not specific definitions.  

There also seems to be only very limited theory agreement (and very little
theory)   on the detail of causal  explanation of how processes central to
design occur - such as 'how knowledge of contextual factors causes
particular ideas for design solutions to occur to a designer'. By
observation, the limited number of theories that attempt to provide
explanations of the detailed causal relationships in core activities of
design  seem to typically describe the relationships in associative terms
and without significant detailed justification. There appear to be, however,
a large number of texts in which the causal relationships are speculated. 

This seems to imply that, in general, the state of play of theoretical
development in  the literature of the field of design is much as I described
it, and as I found in earlier reviews of the literature. It may be I'm
wildly mistaken.  As must be obvious, I'm making these judgements only on
reading a sample of the texts, but it's a reasonably sized sample of a few
thousand publications.

There are many examples of  excellent analyses and theory proposals in the
design literature. 

In spite of them, it still appears to me the general state of the literature
of the Design field in terms of a solid comprehensive universally-agreed
body of  good quality causal theory explanations about the processes
underpinning how design occurs is significantly incomplete 

An example of a text that sets a benchmark for theory development of basic
concepts in Design  is   Houkes and Vermaas  (2010) Technical Functions. On
the Use and Design of Artefacts, Springer. 

If you, or anyone else, feels I am mistaken in my judgements, I would be
grateful if you would  post citation details of texts that are of the same
kind of quality of conceptual and analytical precision in respect of theory
as Houkes and Vermaas' text.    

I would be delighted to read them.

Best wishes,
Terry

* References
Previously, I'd  documented problems with the  literature of design  with
explanations and references to other who had come to the same conclusions
in:
Love, Terence (2005) A unified basis for design research and theory, in
International Design Congress - IASDR 2005: New Design Paradigms, Douliou,
Taiwan, 2005. International Association of Societies of Design Research,
Taiwan.
Love, T. (2000). Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical Structure for
Design Theory. Design Studies, 21(3), 293-313
Love, T. (1998). Social, Environmental and Ethical Factors in Engineering
Design Theory: a Post-positivist Approach. Perth, Western Australia: Praxis
Education
Ken Friedman has also several times commented similarly on this list and it
is implicit in  e.g. Friedman, K. (2005) Reference and Citation in Design
Research, Research Writing Workshop, Third International Conference on
Design Research, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October. 
Agreement is also  in  comments such as
http://www.fastcompany.com/1327667/plea-more-critical-thinking-design-please


<Tim> 'It's recently been asserted here that ... "We have a big, pretty
messy literature about design  activities that is pretty much broad brush
and guesswork"' ....


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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