Dear Terry,

Thanks for your response. A very quick reply.

First, I’m not excluding engineering. There are debates on the degree to which engineering is a science supported by evidence-based theories, as contrasted with a serious professional practice supported by evidence. This is a long conversation, and it gets into issues on which we have so often disagreed that I’m not going to debate it here. If you wish to argue that engineering design is a more theory-based field than I believe it to be, feel free. 

Second, I did not write that it IS impossible develop appropriate theories for many areas of design, and many kinds of design practice. I dod not claim that this is impossible. I wrote that it MAY BE impossible. Much of what we are trying to do in design research is to find out what is possible and what is not. If you feel like demonstrating workable theories, feel free. This will demonstrate the possibility in specific, limited circumstances. You’d need to show more for broader coverage.

This is a matter for another thread. 

In the past, list members have asked that you demonstrate the theories you claim to be possible, but you don’t show the theories. You simply say that they exist and that this approach will transform design and design research. 

Instead, you talk ABOUT these theories. You claim that we are wrong. You argue for a quantised theoretical version of design without showing how it will work and without a single workable example. My claim is that this MAY BE impossible — I don’t say that “IS impossible.” If you claim this IS possible, then it is up to you to show how.

There is a difference between 

[1] imagining or conceiving the possibility of a design field fully supported by evidence-based theory, and 

[2] showing that this is in fact possible. 

I can imagine flying or travelling faster than light. I can imagine going backwards in time. I can conceive of perpetual motion. I can conceive or negative entropy machines that generate more energy than they consume. Science fiction and fantasy allow this. No one can show that any of these imagined ideas is possible. 

If you can demonstrate in some robust manner that a design field fully supported by evidence-based theory IS possible, please do. 

Right now, there is a decidability problem. It is unclear whether these things are possible or impossible. I settle for “may be impossible.” If you claim that this is possible, show the basis for such a claim, even in theory. Gödel demonstrated the impossibility of a comprehensive and consistent theory of mathematics in which math is built from a few axioms to a complete system. Turing demonstrated that we cannot actually know in advance whether some problems are computable. There is no absolute rule governing such a determination in all cases of computation. If you can do better for design theory, the stage is yours. 

In the past, list members have asked you to put forward real examples to support your claims. You have not done so. You talk about what these examples will do — but you never post an actual example. Given that the list is a talking shop, I’m not expecting you to post here. I’d be perfectly willing to study these theories in a journal article or two. As I wrote in another context, that’s what peer-reviewed publications are for.

Rather than descend into grumpiness , I think it is time for me to withdraw from this thread. As Lubomir suggested in his post, it would be good for others to enter this conversation. I feel that I’ve had my fifteen minutes.

My dog Freddy is trying to perfect a distinguished bourgeois persona to go with his distinguished gray whiskers. I’ve promised to teach him about brandy and cigars. So I will take a tip from David Sless, withdrawing from this thread to the smoking room.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia

Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn 


 



> On 2014Nov10, at 16:23, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

—snip—

> You seem to be excluding the engineering design fields and the realm of design research that started around 1960 around Buckminster Fuller, Herbert Simon and others that later became called Design Science with its large bodies of literature of theory referenced to evidence. There are also the design fields and design research in the various kinds of information systems that  have their own similar literatures with much of them accessible through ACM (founded in 1947). All of these have incorporated evidence as the basis for design research and design theory many years ago. All of them are huge fields and together include most of the design activity in the world. This doesn't really support  the claim that 'most areas of design today do not have theories supported by evidence'
> 
> Second, there is no obvious reason  why it is ' impossible to develop appropriate theories for many areas of design, and many kinds of design practice' as you claim.  That is a big claim. Let's test it. List some areas of design where you (or anyone)  feels it is not possible to develop appropriate theories and let's see if we can develop them. I'm happy to give it a try. Epistemologically, I see no problem in creating theories in any part of  any of the areas of design, and I don't see any obvious proof that such a region of non-theory  might be found. Do you have one?
> 
> Third, and I apologise as I can't put my hand to the research instantly, a couple of years ago I came across the surprising research finding that best outcomes in many areas of medicine came from doctors only a couple of years out of training. From memory, the longer doctors had been practicing, the  poorer the average of outcomes. It's an interesting question as to whether this is true of designers and academics. Its certainly regarded as true within engineering professions, which is why practicing engineers have to do so much yearly continuing re-education to continually update their skills. In many fields,  skills and knowledge go out of date very quickly. One medical doctor I know commented that two years is the equivalent of needing 50%  change in knowledge. Some ICT design fields are even more extreme with almost 100% knowledge turnover each year.  The idea of practice benefiting  by wisdom and  experience of years is sometimes not supported by the evidence. It may in fact be that we have over-reified 'wisdom and experience' and it may be better to simply focus on having the skills, use of theories and information to produce better outcomes. 

—snip—

Ken Friedman wrote:

—snip—

> In a slightly different context, that’s what I said in paraphrasing Don Norman: 
> 
> 1. Design theory is probably the best way to proceed: theory supported by evidence. Unfortunately, the disciplines that support the design field are extremely young. As a result, we do not have evidence-based theories to support our decisions in most of the problems and cases we address. In this respect, design practice resembles 19th-century medical practice.  
> 
> 2. The case that most areas of design today do not have theories supported by evidence is one problem. A second, related problem, is that it may be impossible to develop appropriate theories for many areas of design, and many kinds of design practice. In cases where we cannot develop appropriate theories, evidence-based design offers a good way to proceed. The nature of evidence-based design is the issue of an evolving conversation, and skilled professional practitioners have a key role in that conversation.
> 
> 3. To add to these first two challenges, few areas of design even have a base in evidence. It may further be impossible to develop appropriate evidence in many areas of design. Where this is the case, we must rely on the skills and insights of skilled professional practitioners as the best way forward.   

—snip—


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------