The debate over a 'Theory of Design' is  interesting, not for the relevance
(or otherwise) of a 'theory' but for the assumptions regarding the term
THEORY!

First, let me say that reference to Simon is for me a turn-off.  The last,
absolutely last, person I'd cite as a reference for either theory or design
would be Simon; primarily because of the structuralist and positivist premise.

Before conceptualising what a theory ought be able to do, it may be wise to
comprehend what a theory IS.  Ken Friedman's description reveals much:

	In its most basic form, a theory is a model. It is an illustration
	describing how something works by showing its elements in their dynamic
	relationship to one another.

This view is both dominant and pervasive, but merely reflects our
positivist heritage.  That is, a theory is an abstract representation of an
empirical analysis of a set of discrete material (or concrete) events (or
actions).  In this sense, a theory describes actions in the physical world.
 A ‘good' theory is one that best describes the events defined by the
operational variables.

In the positivist realm, a proposition is a tentative theory.  Where
several theories co-exist about an event, while each may adequately reflect
the utilised operational variables, all that can be said is that in the
bigger picture the ‘theory' is merely a proposition.  

In Kuhn's argument for theoretical revolution, theories take on a different
perception.  Rather than contested theory being representative of
inadequate knowledge, each represents the ideological preferences of the
theoriser/s.  Thus, is theory a true portrayal of the physical world, or
the extension of some (abstract) belief system? 

A question that has always been used to address the narrow positivistic
perception of theory is:

	while mental reflection is a set of actions, how can one theorise about 
	good mental reflection"? 

Two points emerge in this question.  (1) Is it possible to be able to
theorise about mental reflection.  That is, can something that cannot be
empirically analysed be the subject of theory?  (2) Is the term ‘good' an
objective reference point for evaluation?  That is, even if all people
agreed to the definition of some evaluational criteria (eg. incest), can
‘good' be applied in some consistent manner such that a universal theory
can be developed?

This issue relates to what constitutes theory.  Is it a tool bound only to
descriptions of actions undertaken in the material world?  Or does it also
embrace descriptions of actions undertaken in the social world?  And, if
the latter are included, what constitutional boundaries ought be erected.
For example, can I make a theory about my last trip to the snowfields?
That is, are theories about social actions limited to generalisations about
human action, or can individual experience/s be theorised? 

In a different venue (land-use planning), Martin Krieger
(<[log in to unmask]>) wrote of theory:

	We teach theory because it is the best way to make our students'
	minds more supple.  (At one time, perhaps 700 years ago classical
rhetoric was supposed to do this.)  I want my students to be able to 
	take an argument offered by their opponents and throw it back in 
	their faces.  I want my students to be able to write anywhere from
	2-10 pages that make the best case they can for a project, or against it.  

In effect, Martin was not arguing that theory has paradigmatic proportions,
but that there are competing theories.  Martin is also alluding to the
post-positivist approach to theory.  That is, that there cannot be an
all-embracing totally fulfilling theory about some form of social action.
Rather, that social theory reflects beliefs about how the world SHOULD be.

Design is a social action, but it is also an individual experience.  There
is no doubt that the process of moving from a mental concept about how to
solve a problem to some physical outcome may be described.  But, analysing
how a person who has demonstrated a ‘good' design brings into play aspects
of the process that rest on experience.  For example, the designer of
‘good' outcomes takes into account the preferences of the judging audience.
 But all designers judge audience, so why is one allocated the tag ‘good'
while another is not?  Clearly, we are ranking the designers on their
ability to ‘read' the audience that has most influence when giving
accolades.  Reflecting on Martin's comment, the idea of ‘good' merely
reflects a belief system.

How can this issue of belief be factored into a theory about design?  If,
and when, this is solved, please advise everyone in the academic community.
 It is an issue that is being confronted beyond this forum.

ps.	Maybe the reflections on a 'Theory of Design' in this forum constitute 
	the theory of design!!!

Regards


Bruce Moon

School of Planning, Landscape Architecture & Surveying
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane  Q  4001

Australia

tel: +61 [0]7 3864 1731
fax: +61 [0]7 3864 1809
eml: [log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%