on 6/10/2000 12:15 AM, Klaus Krippendorff at [log in to unmask]
wrote:
>david,
> i agree that our discussion about design know/ledge/ing doesn't add knowledge
to design practice but it directs attention to the kind of knowing that
enables or disables design.
I agree, but we need to also bear in mind that there are multiple agendas at
work within the 'design' community. Part of our consideration of any
'knowledge' must always be the question of what interest is served or is
being persued. This is not to make a cynical point, but simply to say that
we all speak from particular positions and with particular interests in
mind. This is necessarily the case. There may be people amongst us who
believe in 'knowledge for knowledge's sake'. There may also people who
believe that 'knowledge can be 'objective'. It's fairly clear that I do not.
And I know from your own work that you do not take that position, so I
always ask what interest is being served by a particular position.
I cut my intellectual teeth at a time when one of the dominant intellectual
traditions was critical Marxism. Whatever might be said today in hindsight
about the marxist social experiment of communism, many of the critical
skills that intellectual marxism developed still have relevance and value.
Chief amongst these is to look at any intellectual or practical project and
to ask what economic, political, or institutional interest is served by that
project?
The central thrust of my last contribution was to suggest that the points of
view advanced in the debate about 'design knowledge' can be viewed as a
manifestation of particular interests. I think the young researchers in our
midst, embarking on a phd, may not have met critical marxism at its best and
most useful, and may not ask such questions
> there is a difference between doing research on design practice (i presume
this is what you are attempting -- maybe you should enlighten us a bit about
your focus).
Delighted. You will find quite a bit about my focus at our Institute's web
site. Probably the two papers most relevant to this debate can be found at:
http://www.communication.org.au/html/paper_26.html
and
http://www.communication.org.au/html/paper_20.html
http://www.communication.org.au/html/paper_21.html
The last two will be of particular interest to those who come to
communication and design from a Rhetorical tradition. Klause, you will be
familiar with much of the research and arguments in these, I know. But they
may be new to others who put great faith in 'communication'.
There are many other papers that people will find relevant.
Anyway, enjoy!
David
--
Professor David Sless
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **
PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia
Mobile: 0412 356 795
phone: +61 (0)262 598 671
fax: +61 (0)262 598 672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|