I must confess to being rather puzzled by Ken's recent response to a post
by Philipe Gauthier (23/7/1 Design research and practice). While you say
you are for the moment concentrating on another threads, perhaps when time
allows Ken, you could consider the following:

You wrote: I did NOT ask the question that Philippe attributes to me,

-well, no, indeed you did not, at least not in so many words. But it seems
to me that Philipe was not so much 'attributing a question to you' as
framing, in the form of a question, a rough and ready, but to my mind at
least, perfectly accurate characterisation of one of the primary concerns
of your many and lengthy posts.

Your position on these issues is as you say, well known. Indeed, one recent
posting (Literature and an Original Contribution to Knowledge) appears to
me to avert in places to precisely the themes alluded to by Philipe's
question. Having read with careful attention the majority of your
statements accessible to me on these issues, It seems to me that Philipe
has characterised one of your major preoccupations perfectly well. As he
does not use quotation marks around the 'question' in question it is fairly
clear that he is not directly attributing the particular form of words to
you. Now if it is really true that you did not consider something not
unlike the question of:

"... if there was any way to do research while practising design, or
>if conducting a design project could meet some kind of criteria in
>such a way that it could be regarded as a research activity producing
>knowledge comparable to what is done in traditional scientific fields
>or at least acceptable as an intellectual universitarian (sic) discipline."

Then I must have misunderstood your arguments very grievously, and will
have to go back and study them carefully in a state of sorry bewilderment
and with my faith in my own command of the English language severely
shaken.

There are some other things that puzzle me.

You went on Ken, to say:

>Since it is not clear whether Philippe is representing my views or
>his own in his second paragraph, I will make two brief comments.

Now there is admittedly room for ambiguity in Philipe's post here, but my
interpretation is this: (perhaps Philipe will be kind enough to confirm or
deny) When he says:

the time has come for designers
to stop borrowing their conceptual tools from other intellectual
traditions. What is rejected seems to me to be the positivist,
objectivist and representational frame from which these borrowed
tools are pulling their validity.

      . . .Phillipe is characterising a position he believes to be held by
significant numbers in the field of design at large. Certainly no one who
has followed discussions on this list would ever accuse this of being your
position Ken! As to whether the 'rejected' position represents your own,
well, that seems unlikely from the general tenor of Phillipe's post. He
seems in fact, to be describing in general terms the situation which formed
the backdrop to last year's discussions of the validity and nature of
'practice-based research' in design and is perhaps in happy ignorance of
the kilobytes of digital text already expended by the group on that debate.
As you quite fairly point out:

>The issues that Philippe addresses have been debated widely on this
>list and on DRS. All these debates are archived. A look through the
>archives will be useful.

True enough, but (in no small part thanks to your own splendid efforts),
that 'look through the archives' would take considerable time. Yes it would
be desirable, but a post to a discussion list is not a Phd, one does not
feel obliged to do a literature search before venturing a comment otherwise
discussion would be like a conference of galapagos tortoises . . .

You also note:

A lengthy and articulate debate on the issue
>of "positivism" and the misuse of the term occurred on DRS in August
>1999.

Now when you take Philipe somewhat severely to task for using the terms
'positivism' 'objectivist' and 'representational' I venture to observe that
you are perhaps being a little coy. Your own reservations about the term
'positivism' are well known to the group, but in the Humanities in general,
and outside of the cut and thrust of particular philosophical debates, the
particular kinds of positions broadly characterised by these terms are I
feel, quite well understood. Now herein lies the 'coyness' I referred to:
You know as well as any of us Ken, that these terms constitute
battlegrounds between different factions in the wide ranging war over the
status of knowledge being fought between those who take what might be
broadly categorised as a 'post-modern' position and those who do not.
Leaving aside for a moment the (probably unanswerable) question of exactly
who constitutes and what defines each of those factions, my point is this:
to demand that someone be precise in the handling of the three terms
mentioned by Philipe is to demand that they take sides in the war. In any
such fundamental disagreement as this, it is exactly the meanings of words
such as these that are being fought over: There is no 'correct' definition
unless one inhabits one camp or the other. Your call for 'clarity'
therefore, reads to me like a call to agree with you. To say that a term
such as 'positivism' is 'widely misunderstood' is simply to throw mud at
the enemy, while making the implicit suggestion that yours is the correct
and only interpretation.

You also say:

>It should be clear that the status of design as a research frame
>means that there are valid reasons for drawing on research techniques
>from many fields.

This again puzzles me, because on my reading, this seems to be precisely
what Philipe is saying. Indeed, while his own sympathies are implied,
rather than taking sides in the debate alluded to just now, he is
generously insisting that the approaches of the, in his terms, 'rejected'
(by the field of design as he characterises it) paradigm still have much to
offer. Are you saying that Philippe should not say this because you have
already said it? Or are you arguing against him because you construe him to
be attacking such a position?

You then go on to say:

>Philippe cites Dewey and Schon. Dewey's philosophy and Schon's work
>are based on the existence of an empirical world external to the
>thinker. Most varieties of reflective realism assert the objective
>existence of the world - as Dewey and Schon did - without attempting
>to reduce the world to some form of inappropriate scheme.

Once again I am confused. Phillipe seems to me to be saying that among
those approaches which even the acolytes of the new approach could
profitably retain from the 'rejected', are those of Dewey and Schon. To
imply as you seem to be doing, that he is ignorant of the fact that their
positions 'are based on the existence of an empirical world external to the
thinker' makes little sense. He is citing them precisely as examples of
that sort of thinker, and appealing to those who reject that paradigm of
knowledge not to reject the methodology out of hand.

As you yourelf state Ken,
>The varieties of issues and ideas wrapped up in this post deserve
>careful attention and clarification.

To suggest that Phillipe is 'using these kinds of terms in cavalier manner'
as you seem to be doing seems quite uneccessary.

Your concluding remarks were most interesting but also provocative:

>A distinguished North American design scholar called me yesterday.
>She and her doctoral students are engaged in a research project on
>the issue of our literature and the uses we make of it. She has been
>shocked by the failure to read or to use the existing literature.
>
>In blunt terms - and that's why I won't identify her - she said of
>design research as a broad field, "These people don't read. They skim
>a few references and fly by the seat of their pants."

Now first of all, let me say that from my own much less exalted position I
entirely agree. Practising designers and teachers of design practice, are
always intellectually lively and often lively intellectuals, but are not
often 'academic intellectuals' as I am sure many of them would agree. An
unfortunate byproduct of this is that an academic intellectual who does
stray into the design field can, if unscrupulous, unduly impress people
with erudition, in a way that might meet with much more robust challenge
and question in a more exclusively academic field. To the responsibility
for clarity to which you allude, ought perhaps to be added a responsibility
for transparency, particularly about the broader contexts of particular
debates.

However, to conclude. To immediately follow the 'seat of their pants'
criticism, as you do in your post Ken, by the following seems to me to be
rather offensive:
>
>Philippe's post is somewhat unclear. Perhaps he is just writing
>quickly. If so, I would like to ask for greater care and clarity.
>Perhaps his thoughts have not come across clearly because English is
>his second language. If so, then I apologize for the
>misinterpretation. I am fortunate to be able to write in my native
>language. This gives me an advantage, and that is why I feel a
>responsibility to be clear for the benefit of those who do not share
>this advantage.

Clearly the suggestion is that it is possible that Phillipe 'doesn't read,
skims a few references and flies by the seat of his pants' The tone of your
remarks about his use of English is also I find, patronising in the
extreme, and in the context downright offensive. I found no dificulty in
understanding his meaning, and as I have tried to tease out above, I feel
some of your own difficulties are the result of tendentious argument and/or
inattention. For example, you conclude:
>
>Whatever the reason, Philippe has not represented my views or those
>of Dewey and Schon.

I have to say there is nothing anywhere in the post to suggest that
Phillipe was attempting to represent your views, he simply drew attention
to the issues on which you have at such exhaustive length, written. Nor, if
you read the text carefully does he misrepresent Dewey or Schon -he simply
cites them as examples of exactly what you yourself claim them to be.
>
>Representing ideas effectively requires reading.

Indeed it does Ken, and while I find it hard to resist grinding my teeth at
the patronising tone of that remark, let me say in a friendlier spirit that
I am entirley in awe of your own reading, and have derived much
entertainment and benefit from parts of your writing, not least those
passages of historical context and exegesis in which you display that
reading so effectively. My own is sadly limited by comparison, but before
you wag the finger at others might I draw your attention to at least one
point which has long puzzled me?

It is your very curious and interesting citation of Paul Feyerabend's
'Against Method' as part of evidence of the 'many valid approaches to
science that can usefully be applied to design and design research' in your
paper 'Design Science and Design Education' (Friedman 1997). Now I may not
have read much, but I have read 'Against Method'. I don't claim to
understand all its arguments or to know whether they stand up, but I have
read it with care and attention. Are you really suggesting Ken, that voodoo
or astrology 'can be usefully applied to design research'? (If so you are
indeed even less of a 'positivist' than you have argued!). Because as far
as I can understand it, Feyerabend's conclusion is that scientific method
however constituted cannot make any 'special truth claim' and that it is
quite as irrational as voodoo and astrology. Feyerabend takes great pains
to make it clear that he cannot see any reason why scientific method should
be given any special priveliges over any other form of 'knowledge
construction'.

Now I do not want to get involved in any discussion of whether or not you
agree or disagree with Feyerabend. I just think he's a very odd author to
cite in that context without any further comment,  since his arguments, if
accepted, destroy as far as I can see, many of the positions you yourself
have taken.

Incidentally, was it not during some heated exchanges on positivism and
constructionism in the 'practice-based research' thread, that you (unless I
am greatly mistaken), enthusiastically endorsed Dr Johnson's 'refutation'
of Dr Berkely in which he kicked a stone, saying 'thus I refute him'. I
recollect as a schoolboy studying English literature having the error of
this famous canard of Johnson' s explained to me, alas I cannot remember
the details of the argument, but its broad thrust was a) Johnson's action
was no refutation of what he thought Berkeley to be saying, b) Berkeley
wasn't saying that anyway! I am sorry I cannot quote chapter and verse on
this one as I don't have the information near to hand and time presses, but
I would be happy to discuss the thought of Johnson, Berkeley and Feyerabend
in more detail, and with due references, on or off list, at some future
date, in a spirit of cordial academic raillery. Meanwhile, be gentle with
us Ken, and perhaps we can all help sort each other's errors out, afer all,
everybody's guilty of something  . . .

Regards

Andrew J King



Andrew J King
<http://www.ajking.dircon.co.uk>
______________________________________
design  craft  theory  criticism  education  on-line
______________________________________