To add to Luke's great analysis that I enjoyed reading.
Isn't all the 'design argument' subsumed subsumed and addressed in the literature of the sub-field of Design Rationale? This topic has been a part of the earliest design process discussions from the Middle Ages and before. In the 20th century it was a substantial element of military process design work and its civilian extension that became known as Operations Research. It is also a central aspect of the historical field of Design Theory (the long established field of mathematics to do with shapes and their interactions - combinatorial design), that in effect all design theory from any discipline (art and Design, Engineering, Service design etc) is a subset of.
The idea of Design Rationale (and its simplified derivative of 'design argument') derives from these earlier bodies of theory. Historically, Design Rationale has been an essential aspect engineering design. It was later taken up in the field of Planning where Rittel and Kunz simplified and popularised it via IBIS in the 1960s. Various extended Design Rationale methods have since been developed. One that I have found useful in design, particularly for design optimisation, is Design Solution Space Analysis.
It could be seen that in design education in Art and Design the ideas of 'exegesis' and 'design argument' are simplified versions of the earlier Design Rationale methods and theories. This implies it might be a useful educational advance for Art and Design design education and research to work with the richer IBIS and similar approaches?
PS Reading Luke's reference list was a great reminder of how much wonderful design research literature has been published in the journal Environment and Planning B. This journal and to some extent its sister journals (A, C, D and E) should definitely be on the list of anyone reviewing design literature.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Luke Feast
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2019 7:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The changing nature of design arguments
Dear Erik,
Thanks for bringing up the topic of design arguments. I did some work on this topic during my doctoral research (Feast, 2015). As I see it there are several points of departure from which to start on the topic of design arguments. As an "argument" meaning particular moves or reasons e.g. analogy or reframing; as "argumentation" meaning the site of an activity e.g. a discussion between a designer and a client; or as a philosophical or theoretical perspective that organizes a research program.
I use design-as-argumentation as a philosophical perspective in chapter three of my dissertation “Collaborative Design as Argumentation” (Feast, 2015, pp. 29-56). I have copied the introductory paragraph below. In chapter five I discuss the theoretical implications of design arguments in relation to Ikujiro Nonaka’s (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) theory of organisational knowledge creation, and Jacob Buur’s (Buur, Ankenbrand, & Mitchell, 2013; Buur & Larsen, 2010; Buur & Matthews, 2008; Buur & Mitchell, 2011; Buur & Sitorus, 2007) participatory innovation approach to co-design.
Regards,
Luke
-snip-
Through critical reading and interpretation, this chapter investigates the theory and philosophy of argumentation and its relationship to design. It investigates theories of argumentation as logic, dialectic, and rhetoric within the philosophical research programme of informal logic (Blair, 2012; Govier, 1999; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971; Toulmin, 2003; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Walton, 1989). First, I consider the aspects of logical systems and reveal how formal demonstration underpins the problem solving model of design as exemplified by Herbert Simon’s theory of design as an artificial science (Simon, 1996). I then present Horst Rittel’s (1972; Rittel & Webber, 1973) critique of logical problem solving theory through his theory of wicked problems. Second, I examine the theory of dialectic within the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation and then I indicate that Rittel’s second-generation design methods take a dialectical approach that structures the communication patterns of stakeholders in the form of a critical discussion. Third, I investigate rhetoric in the theory and philosophy argumentation within Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1971) The New Rhetoric, and Toulmin’s (2003) The Uses of Argument. I then examine rhetorical models of design as policy planning (Dunn, 1993; Gasper & George, 1998; Goldstein, 1984; Mason & Mitroff, 1981) and fourth order design thinking (Buchanan, 1985, 1995, 2001; Golsby-Smith, 1996, 2007). This investigation helps to reveal the assumptions that underpin the argumentative model of design and provide the motivation for the research questions that guide the dissertation’s empirical fieldwork.
-end snip-
Blair, J. A. (2012). Groundwork in the theory of argumentation: Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht: Springer.
Buchanan, R. (1985). Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice. Design issues, 2(1), 4-22. doi:10.2307/1511524 Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism, and design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183-206.
Buur, J., Ankenbrand, B., & Mitchell, R. (2013). Participatory business modelling. CoDesign, 9(1), 55-71. doi:10.1080/15710882.2012.760609 Buur, J., & Larsen, H. (2010). The quality of conversations in participatory innovation. CoDesign, 6(3), 121-138. doi:10.1080/15710882.2010.533185 Buur, J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 255-273.
Buur, J., & Mitchell, R. (2011). The business modeling lab. Paper presented at the Participatory Innovation Conference 2011.
Buur, J., & Sitorus, L. (2007). Ethnography as design provocation. Paper presented at the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference October 2007.
Dunn, W. N. (1993). Policy reforms as arguments. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 254-290). London: UCL Press.
Feast, L. (2015). Investigating collaboration in interdisciplinary design teams. (PhD), Swinburne University of Technology, Australia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/403216
Gasper, D. R., & George, R. V. (1998). Analyzing argumentation in planning and public policy: assessing, improving, and transcending the Toulmin model. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(3), 367-390. Retrieved from http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=b250367
Goldstein, H. A. (1984). Planning as argumentation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 11(3), 297-312. Retrieved from http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=b110297
Golsby-Smith, T. (1996). Fourth order design: A practical perspective. Design issues, 12(1), 5-25. doi:10.2307/1511742 Golsby-Smith, T. (2007). The second road of thought: How design offers strategy a new toolkit. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 22-29.
Govier, T. (1999). The philosophy of argument. Newport Views, Va.: Vale Press.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions : Theory, cases, and techniques. New York: Wiley.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14-36.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of "Ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=738856&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. (Reprinted from: 107).
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luke Feast, Ph.D. | Industrial Design | Senior Lecturer | Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies | Auckland University of Technology | New Zealand | Email [log in to unmask] |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
