Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T19:15:00.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining Unmergeables: A Methodological Framework for Axiomatic Fusion of Qualitative Design Theories

Part of: Systems Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Imre Horvath

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The proposed methodological framework concerns axiomatic theory fusion (ATF) of non-additive engineering design theories. ATF includes seven steps: (i) semantic discretization of the composite theories, (ii) deriving epistemological entities by logical/semantic analysis, (iii) establishing and representation of relations among all relevant epistemological entities, (iv) combining the inter- theoretical epistemological entities of the component theories, (v) deriving propositions based on the combined set of epistemological entities, (vi) transcription of the epistemological entities and propositions into a textual/visual theory description, and (vii) validation of the resultant theory in application contexts. The proposed framework makes ATF an effective, content independent methodology for fusing component theories, no matter if they are descriptive, explanatory, predictive or controlling in nature. ATF methodology requires professional comprehension and rigor from the researchers. It is necessary to justify the logical correctness and practical validity of the target theory in the specific application context.

Keywords

Design theoryResearch methodologies and methodsSystems Engineering (SE)Axiomatic theory fusionPostulates and propositions
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3591 - 3600
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Achinstein, P. (1977), The structure of scientific theories (Vol. 634, No. 8). University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, R., Borgs, C., Chayes, J., Feige, U., Flaxman, A., Kalai, A. and Tennenholtz, M. (2008), “Trust-based recommendation systems: an axiomatic approach”, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM, pp. 199–208.Google Scholar
Badino, M. (2010), Three dogmas on scientific theory. Manuscript, pp. 1–27. https://philpapers.org/rec/BADTDO-7.Google Scholar
Badino, M. (2015), In the theoretician's workshop: Notes for a historical and philosophical analysis of theories, The Bumpy Road, Springer, Cham., pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Boxenbaum, E. and Rouleau, L. (2011), “New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 272–296.Google Scholar
Carlson, M.L. and Lamb, J.W. (1981), “Constructing a theory of accounting - An axiomatic approach”, Accounting Review, pp. 554–573.Google Scholar
Dey, I. (1995), “Reducing fragmentation in qualitative research”, Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice, London, Sage.Google Scholar
Dimarogonas, A.D. (1993), On the axiomatic foundation of design, ASME Design Engineering Division Publication, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 53, 253–258.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, F. (2000), “Improving systems by combining axiomatic design, quality control tools and designed experiments”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 204–219.Google Scholar
Ganey, R.F. (1979), “Development of an axiomatic theory of organization/environment interaction: A theoretical and empirical analysis”, Institute of Educational Science, Iowa, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Giere, R.N. (2000), Theories. A companion to the philosophy of science, pp. 515–524.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (2011), “What is the axiomatic method?”, Synthese, Vol. 183 No. 1, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
Marston, M., Bras, B. and Mistree, F. (1997), “The applicability of the axiomatic and decision-based design equations in variant design”, Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, pp. x–x.Google Scholar
Modell, S., Vinnari, E. and Lukka, K. (2017), “On the virtues and vices of combining theories: The case of institutional and actor-network theories in accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 60, pp. 62–78.Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G. and Bonardi, J.P. (2011), “The challenges of building theory by combining lenses”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 6–11.Google Scholar
Schlimm, D. (2006), “Axiomatics and progress in the light of 20th century philosophy of science and mathematics”, Foundations of the formal sciences IV, Studies in Logic Series, pp. 233–253.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1979), “Fit, finite, and universal axiomatization of theories”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 295–301.Google Scholar
Sozo, V., Forcellini, F.A. and Ogliari, A. (2001), “Axiomatic approach application during the product conceptual design phase”, Proceedings of the International Conference Mechanika 2001, pp. 267–272.Google Scholar
Spencer, M.H. (1963), “Axiomatic method and accounting science”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 310–316.Google Scholar