Hi Ben
You may not care but I am offended by part of your posting and I also find the
offensive part problematic for a growing discipline. Having said that, I sense that you
must care enough, otherwise you would not have spent time in responding and I
thank you for that. I also learn from your insights.
To me, the recent
> definitional thread is to some extent rehashing some ground already covered,
> and my sense is that some of the previous contributors are probably exhausted
> after hundreds of pages in March-June and lots of discussion at the La Clusaz
> conference. (I wish I could have been there, but I was too poor and too busy
> to go.)
Your above comment sounds like a dismissal and that the ones who contributed on
the discussion have not added much. The tone of the comment also hints that we
'know' much about Ph.D. in design.
I have taken a loan to go La Clusaz and after that I am less confident as how much we
actually 'know'. I am not saying the conference was useless, to the contrary, the
conference was successful because it questioned things that we had taken for granted
and it stimulated us to re-think things that we think we know.
As Norm said, Ph.D. is to re-think and re-evaluate existing knowlege, the moment
we think that we know, that is the end of it. For a young growing discipline like
design, I think it is extremely detrimental. As a matter of fact, if we think we know
enough, there is no need for Ph.D.
I find the 'practice-led' or (whatever people like to term it) very interesting but I
think that we still need more empirical data (dissertations) to support it. I also think
that the 'practice-led' can challenge existing idea of what knowledge is, and that we
must NOT stop debating about the nature of it.
I am stimulated instead of exhausted from the discussion and I think to keep the
ground fertile we must plow it again and again.
Best regards
Rosan
Rosan Chow
Graduate Student
College of Design
North Carolina State University
–
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|