Dear Terry, Ken, and Don:
I appreciate the arguments you are making for your respective interests but they do not relate directly to my post. First; I was not calling for lit reviews. My comment refers to thorough studies of major thinkers in the field in order to understand how their thinking about design developed. The purpose of such studies is to learn more about how they evolved their understanding of design rather than to see whether or not their ideas contributed to a theory of design. Second; I think the quest for a theory of design that is related to scientific theory is a cul de sac. There are methods of designing but they are different from a theory. A theory should explain what design is. Design is changing all the time so there is no single theory in my opinion that will explain it. I also think that social scientists have stopped looking for universal theories of their disciplines. I don’t believe that there is talk of a science-like theory of anthropology or sociology. These disciplines have become collections of multiple theories and methods about different issues. Much of the so called theorizing about design seeks to explain it as if it were an unmediated phenomenon that appeared like nature and presents itself for explanations. Design is humanly constructed. Therefore we ought to understand the thought processes of those who have contributed most to constructing it. This is different from trying to explain design without connecting it to its intellectual origins. Therefore, I will reiterate that I believe a mature discipline reflects on its origins and premises by examining the thought of those responsible for creating them. That is different from seeking a theory of society , for example, without recognizing that such theories are constructed by sociologists. Therefore, we might do well to call a moratorium on attempts to create a universal design theory that is rigorous and fallacy proof and reflect more on the ways in which design has been constructed and continues to be constructed as a practice. Papanek, for example, wrote a number of books and articles. We should learn more about the totality of his thought rather than continue to concentrate on one book. One purpose of studying the thought of someone such as Papanek, Maldonado, Bonsiepe, Fuller, or Mumford is to better understand how they thought about design for an extended period. Such understanding can help others to think about the field in a reflective way rather than contribute like scientists to a theory that in the end does not adequately explain what design is. Terry, in his quest, to create a scientific theory of design (modeled on engineering rather than the fuzzier practices) relegates anything that does not imitate science to the soft field of design history which is only for those who are unable to join the big leagues of scientific theorists. What Terry does not mention is that in many fields history is an integral part of theorizing about a discipline. Imagine trying to create a legal theory without the history of how laws have been made or of designing buildings without a knowledge of the history of architecture.
Victor
Victor Margolin
Professor Emeritus of Design History
Department of Art History
University of Illinois, Chicago
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|