Dear Andrew,

This is a long, thoughtful post, but there are so many questions
entangled one with the next that I cannot see how to answer it
without unpacking it.

As I wrote, I am working on a couple of projects. I don't have the
time to clarify and unpack what you have written.

I will answer three main points concerning my response to Philippe.
If you have specific questions you'd like me to address on your
account - rather than his - disentangle them and ask. I will respond.

--

(1) Response to ambiguities in Philippe's post

It seems to me I answered Philippe based on what his post seemed to
say. There was some ambiguity or confusion in the post as I read it.
Some of your comments are possibly right. We'd need the ambiguities
clarified to know.

(2) Misuse of terms

It seems to me important to avoid the loose and general use of such
terms as "objectivism," "positivism," and "representationalism." I
often see these terms used inappropriately among designers and design
research scholars.

It begs the question to suggest that humanists in general agree
widely on the meaning of these terms. This is not so. If you read in
such areas of the humanities as history, intellectual history (or
history of ideas), and other fields, you'll see wide ranges of
opinion.

I did not suggest that I have a correct interpretation of the term
where others do not.

My critique was subtler, and perhaps harsher.

I suggest that much of the time this word is used in design circles,
it is used by people who have no interpretation whatsoever of its
meaning. It is often used a code word for any philosophical or
methodological position to which the speaker objects. On several
occasions, I have seen the term positivism used to discredit research
positions with which the speaker actually agrees while disagreeing
with the researcher or the findings. In these debates, the term
positivism is simply used as a way of saying, "I don't like this
person," or "I don't like these findings," in a way virtually
guaranteed to rouse audience approval. A great many design research
students confuse positivism with quantitative research, and since
they do not like quantitative research methods, they infer that they
oppose positivism.

No one is asked anyone to take sides in a war. To ask for clarity and
definition of terms is another issue. There is no point raising an
issue that has no meaning. Asking for the meaning of a term is not
asking the person who uses the term to hold the position that the
term represents, nor to take sides in a war.

If you look at the DRS debate from 1999, you will see some genuine
misstatements of fact concerning terms. At one point, someone wrote
that the German word "verstehen" means "theory of action." This is
not so. It was necessary to sort this out to make sense of the rest.

I offer this as a case in point. If people do not understand what
they are writing, the rest is not likely to be helpful.

It is possible to clarify the many variant forms of positivism. More
than this, it is not necessary to use positivism or objectivism as
code words to create opposing camps. Better to designate clearly what
it is that one objects to than to use coded and loaded words.

Here I will stand by my post.

Philippe proposed these terms. I would not have done so. Once he did,
I wanted clarity on what he meant. Lacking clarity, I wanted the
terms off the field.

(3) Reading, erudition, and transparency

To participate in dialogue based on ideas and definitions, and to
develop ideas anchored in hundreds of years of thinking requires
reading. University life is to some degree academic life. When people
accept the responsibilities of professorship, of supervising Ph.D.
work (the philosophical doctorate, not the professional doctorate),
when people sign on to earn the Ph.D., we expect them to become
academic intellectuals of some kind.

Many designers and design teachers are lively characters and
interesting thinkers, but not all. To say they are "always
intellectually lively" is not supported by the evidence. Having done
massive empirical research on several hundred art and design schools
in the 1970s, I assert plainly this is not so. If the culture of art
and design schools has changed dramatically since then, one might
argue that my evidence is old, but having been connected enough to
art and design schools since, I since no major culture shift. There
are local pockets of excellence. There is a growing layer of wide
development across broad ranges of the field. This layer is seeding
the next phase of a culture that has yet to change.

You raise the issue of stray academic intellectuals in the context of
transparency. I'm not sure what you mean by referring to a stray
academic intellectual who might "if unscrupulous, unduly impress
people with erudition," but that is precisely the point of clarity.

When one is required to define one's terms and locate one's sources,
everyone is free to challenge and position. That is transparency.
These are also the standards of discourse in a "more exclusively
academic field."

--

Incidentally, the Berkeley anecdote from Boswell's life of Johnson is
only partially mistaken. It was apt in the context, I'm sure, and the
same story can be told of numerous Zen masters. Berkeley was both an
empiricist and an idealist, and there was occasionally confusion on
his position. In this case, one could as well say that Johnson was
responding to Boswell's account of Berkeley's position as to Berkeley
himself.

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time
together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove that the
universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied
his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never
shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his
foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from
it, 'I refute it thus'."

If you have specific questions of your own, ask.

-- Ken Friedman