[quoting a personal message from Bruce Jones] Good design will naturally follow the path that integrates the best possible theory. But if there are NO clear guidelines or too many, then the design can not be fully realized. At this point the personal attitudes of the designer come into play and the best possible theory becomes a mute point.
What is the purpose of the critical comparisons?
In my opinion, it is a means of examining the innards of each theory, in the light of all similar theories, so as not to reject a theory but to know the workings and utilization of the various parts. When I took comparative anatomy we critically compared shark innards with those of a mud puppy, pig, and cat. Not to disallow the workings of any one animal, but to know how each was the same yet different. A critical comparison will not destroy or weaken a theory, especially if it is a good one. What it should do is give the ID professional a road map showing the best way to get where he/she wants to go using this grouping of theories. However, as on any road map, there are other routes available.
Bruce puts the issue very well. My initial reaction to the set of theories assembled in Reigeluth's book is that there are SO many, and little guidance as to selection (despite Charles excellent introductions), that indeed the practicing designer is left floating in a sea of personal attitudes and particular background. The situation is unhealthy in that it will continue disputations based on these vague attitudes and beliefs (just look at the constructivist debates of years past), rather than seeking choice resolution based on situational analysis.
The notion of a grand integrated theory lacks appeal for many because they feel it might lead to simplification and homogenization, or even worse to a school of thought (look at the tremendous harm behaviorism did to American psychology in this respect for a great number of years). But as Bruce's analogy with comparative anatomy points up nicely, that need not be the case. What is needed here is some kind of comparative theoretical ID involving an analytic process of seeing the same yet different elements in the sea of theories.
We need a proper name for such a process. The notion of unified, integrated theory is too scary. The proposal for an EPSS put forth by Charles is right on track but too operational. What would be a good term?