Lubomir,
Now I am confused. I have read all the posts again. I do not think
Maria, Dick, or Jacques have stated anything other than what I
stated. In supporting their views, I believe I simply supported the
appropriate engagement with empirical reality.
Dick stated that we must engage empirical reality to do research on
empirical issues. Maria stated that direct exposure to the clients
for whom we design, and direct interaction with the end-users of
design enables us to do appropriate research and to design better.
Jacques said that he admires Pattie Moore for the five years she
spent playing the role of an elderly person so that she could
understand the needs of the elderly from a foundation of direct
experience.
In this, they argue for the same faithful adherence to good method
that is found in the work of all the scientists whom I cited, and
dozens more.
The argument they made, and mine, does not call for direct engagement
in empirical reality and the human world for all research or for all
purposes. It requires it for those kinds of research that seek to
generate reports about what human beings EXPERIENCE.
Perhaps I have misread Maria, Jacques, or Dick. I'll be happy to have
their response. But I do not think they claimed "that just being a
member of a particular community and having first hand experience
with its life" . . . "guarantee[s] that this person will produce
research." Moreover, I don't think their posts asserted that "each
member of the community is a great expert, researcher, and theoretic
on its life"?
To which groups of posts did you address your response?
Ken
|