Hi, Terry,
A while back, you sent me a list of 8 criteria for epistemologically valid theoretical discourse as contrasted to writings you criticize as atheoretical or lacking in epistemological validity. While I did not agree with them, they were clear, concise, and they fit together in a coherent framework. On Wednesday, I found your 8 criteria and sent them back to you off-list. I was hoping for something like that – clear, concise, and coherent.
Your latest reply on this topic was, instead, conversational and ambiguous. Your reply was an example of opinion and rhetoric rather than the kind of coherent framework typified by your 8 criteria. When you sent me the list of 8 criteria, you stated that this is the standard by which you judge and criticize contributions on the issue of theory. This latest statement is vague, and this new version of epistemological validity gives you room to decide that theories are valid when you agree with them and unfounded when you don’t. I’d be happy to post your 8 criteria to the list if you are willing to let people see the difference between the standards against which you judge others and the standards you put forward when your views are judged.
Your responses to me, to Victor Margolin, and to Jerry Diethelm rest on epistemological foundations that are no more solid than what you describe as Victor’s “fallacies” or “Jerry’s opinion.” The difference is that you demand that others produce more evidence for their opinions than you produce for your opinions.
Your recent reply to me is an invitation to the disputatious wrangling that Victor chose to avoid. This seems to me like a wise moment to withdraw from this thread on design theory.
I’m ready to engage in a civilized and respectful conversation on design theory. I’ve published my views in an article (Friedman 2003) and a slightly longer conference paper (Friedman 2002). Both are available on my page at Academia.edu. They are the first two papers on the page:
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
The decision to withdraw from the thread isn’t a decision to avoid conversation or debate, and it's not a decision to avoid questions or a challenge from someone with different views. It’s a decision to avoid wrangling with someone who moves the goalposts depending on who has possession of the ball.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
--
References
Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–522. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
Friedman, Ken. 2002. “Theory Construction in Design Research. Criteria, Approaches, and Methods.” In Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton, Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 388-414. Available at URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|