 |
 |
Dear Ken, Klaus and All Ken and Klaus had a very interesting discourse on questions on theory last week. I will pick up on one aspect, that of consent/shared theories in small and larger groups versus individual theories. Klaus asks, "does a theory have the consent of those theorized?" I would add: Does the theory have concent by anybody? Who and who not? Ken comments: Is this always necessary? How can one ask the consent of a computer or a mathematical artifact or a series of artifacts? Both assume that a theory may exist in the mind of one individual only, and I concur. The theory will influence that individual's behavior and how signals from the environment are interpreted. In more daily speech we would say that theory constitutes a part of the (subjective) REALITY of that individual. Thus a theory does not have to have concent to be a theory as long as it meets other requirements of what constitutes a theory. Otherwise it would be an incomplete or false theory, which would still constitute part of the reality of that individual, who would experience surprising and unexplainable signals from the environment given his/her reality. If the theory is shared in a group (concent achieved), faulty or not, it becomes a paradigm for that group. In daily language we would call it FACTS. All members of that group would have similar inclinations for interpreting signals from the environment, and similarities in behavior, to the extent the individual interpretations and beliefs are contained in that shared theory. Since individuals are capable of having many theories, the shared theories may have any degree of overlapping in the group. That's why we often have discussions trying to establish shared facts even in rather homogenous groups. An example of this is the theory of the universe: "Earth is the center of the universe" was for several centuries the paradigm of the west european world, and it guided our behavior. Then somebody caught up on the older Egyptian and Chinese (and at that same point in time the arabic) theories that the sun is the center, and earth a sphere. Behavior changed, and America was rediscovered by the west. The indians and the Vikings of course knew about America's existence, but they called it by another name. Trust the vikings to call it "Wine-land" (Vinland). Later the theory of the center of the universe has changed several times: The center is the center of the galaxy, the center of the center of the big bang, and there is no center of the universe. Einstein theorized that if you travel along a straight line in infinity, you will come back to your point of origin - so where's the center and the boundaries in that theory? And the discussion around theories of the universe goes on and on, and we accumulate observations. The fact that we have individual theories as well as individuals with many theories at any one point in time establishes the belief that in any individual and in any social group competing theories exist. Of course different groups may have different paradigms (established facts) as well. This is important for understanding and interpreting social and individual dynamics (learning and behavioral theory fields). It makes life interesting and uncertain, because phenomena and outcomes become unpredictable, changes occur, and we can never be certain that what an indicidual thinks (s)he has communicated is what the other(s) have received. Even the degree of concent can be rather hard to establish both scientifically as well as in daily life. Since the world consists of more individuals and groups than one individual can possibly have insight into, Ken is also right on another point: Theories take on a life on its own to the extent that they are part of the realities of some individuals and facts for some groups. At least this reasoning should hold from the point of view of an individual who may not share that theory or its life. It may in fact impact on that individual without the individual being aware of it. I strongly believe that once a theory is constructed it is a reality, but not a fact. It does not have to be embodied in the material as long as it is embodied in somebody's neural system. Often a theory is also embodied in the physical, like ink on paper, codes on a hard-disc, etc. If it can be retrieved, it may be used and impact the present and the future just as much as anything in the physical world. Since theories are constructed and used by humans, it does not matter whether it stems from observations of nature and the physical, or from the purely mental and even the fantasy world. In his latest e-mail Klaus also makes an interesting value judgement: We owe to the other party to establish whether our theory about them has the concent of the other party. In essence he is argueing for openness, honesty, and a concertet effort for mutual understanding. It just happens to be the main ethical underpinning of theories of constituent market orientation (see my article in the La Cluzac proceedings - no. 57), and is considered to be of great value for organizational learning as well. So in prescriptive theories of good management, marketing, design(ing) and related fields Klaus would receive plenty of support. However, we do not have shared ethics in this world. Actually, there are plenty of people with ethical theories of maximizing one's own good, or the common good of my partners and myself, and to hell (the christian variety of the most unpleasant) with third parties. One way of getting more for oneself is to have superior knowledge of the other party (assymetry of information and understanding). There are a great number of formalized normative theories that assumes the opposite of what Klaus consideres to be morally best. I'll mention a few: Entrepreneurship, Strategies for competitive advantage, theories of making others dependent on you (many fields/applications), theories of governance, etc. One of the most extreme theoreticians of the latter is found in the book "The Prince" by Machiavelli, written in the 1500s. I am just wondering if the design profession's quest for unique theories in design and designing (only to be shared by the members of the profession?), is profoundly machiavellian in nature........based on "power to the designers". So both Ken and Klaus are making some very important discussion points here. If you have been an ardious and steady reader of the mails on this list during the last few months, you will have seen a steady stream of mails from me arguing ethics that are far removed from Machiavelli and based on creating win-win outcomes: Talk with and work with people in other knowledge fields, share our own knowledge with the others, don't isolate yourself, expose your valuable knowledge to those who need your designs and designing knowledge. Only then will you find out what your unique contributions are, and others will enrich you and your own field. Even if Ken correctly describes the world with its great variety, I go with Klaus: Build a better world through sharing and seeking concensus, even if you will not always reach your honorable goal. Morally yours, Brynjulf Brynjulf Tellefsen Associate Professor Department of Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management P. O. Box 4676 Sofienberg N-0506 Oslo, NORWAY Phone direct: +47-22985142 Via exchange: +47-22985000 Faximile: +47-22985111 Private phone/fax: +47-22149697 e-mail: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%