Yours is a nice summary.

I feel pulled in 2 different directions. My comments to the list indicate a
need for clarity about the use of terms. This can lead to jargon,
especially if the response to that need is to build a list of agreed
meanings. However, I am also aware that many terms are a bit vague, and
usefully so. That might apply especially in visual or creative domains. I
would not want to restrict the building of new concepts and linguistic
experimentation. I suppose my concern is that we should be aware of the
vagueness and creativity that is often at work but hidden. I was genuinely
shocked by the over-confidence of some delegates that we all know what we
mean by certain terms.

Michael

At 12:11 29/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael A R Biggs wrote:
> > ... My comment was that the conference
> > had revealed to me that we use common words, but often mean something
> > rather different by them, according to our discipline backgrounds. Thus
> > words become "false friends". Much of the discussion at the conference was
> > handicapped by this undisclosed lack of commonality/communication. I was
> > sufficiently surprised ...
>
>This is a common (pun noted) reaction and reflects both the flexibility of
>language and the limitations of the human mind - we are all implicitly
>egocentric and either remain ignorant of failures of communication or put
>the *blame* on the other party, regardless of whether we are transmitting
>or receiving.  One feature of learning a second language is to note how
>*maddening* these foreigners are, for having so many homonyms with such
>perverse collections of alternative meanings.  Similarly, as noted, many
>words in one's own language can be understood only in context - a feature
>I hope the chair will open to the floor.
>
>In formal writing it is therefore essential to identify, highlight or
>avoid ambiguity, but the countervailing pressure is that the use of a
>specific vocabulary is often equated with membership of a clique.  The
>pressure to "professionalize" design was cited on this list as one way in
>which such processes exclude "outsiders".  Hence any questionning of
>the use of jargon, or request for clarification, is seen as a challenge or
>an admission of ignorance.  All cliques are self-supporting and
>self-purpetuating.
>
>When looking at the way software tools are used by researchers, I
>suggested that students (at least) could use the technology to mark#, as
>they wrote, any term that had a technical or unusual meaning. It is (IMHO)
>*unhelpful* to recurse at the word is written, but better to review the
>text at some stage to check (a) that such terms have been used
>consistently and (b) that the student has a firm idea of the meaning and
>implications.  My recommendation was that all theses should contain a
>Glossary, specifically to note any special usage.  One example to support
>this recommendation was an acronym for a chemistry analytic tool; no doubt
>it was an everyday usage to the student, but only five years later I had
>difficulty tracing the one technician who remembered it.
>
>Each time I have attended a group of mixed academics discussing the nature
>and essence of the PhD degree, the outcome has been that many express
>amazement at the range of provision, support and expectation, while going
>on to say that they could "recognise" PhD quality work in their own
>discipline.  These are therefore not standards, but cliques.  A frequent
>complaint from students is that they are expected to present original
>work, but no one has discussed or informed them as to what is meant by
>"originality".  It certainly covers a wide spectrum of achievement.
>
>Some dangers in challenging vocabulary are that the questionner may be
>perceived as a pedant, and that the discussion may descend into sophistry
>or simple multiplication of the jargon.  Again, I feel the way to avoid
>this is in the first place to make oneself aware of the danger, and to
>emphasize that the need is primarily to clarify rather than limit the
>usage.  There are many concepts that *are* vague, ambiguous or evolving;
>what is to be avoided is a cosy, unquestionning  "we all know what we
>mean."
>
># typing an additonal, odd, character as a marker is better than stopping
>to apply some arbitrary word-processor tool.
>
>Anything which is unclear in the above is NOT MY FAULT; I did my best.
>
>R. Allan Reese                       Email: [log in to unmask]
>Associate Manager GRI                Direct voice:   +44 1482 466845
>Graduate School                      Voice messages: +44 1482 466844
>Hull University, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.   Fax:            +44 1482 466436
>====================================================================

*******************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane,
Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom

Telephone UK+ (0)1707 285341
Fax UK+ (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet http://www.michaelbiggs.org.uk/pub/

The full postgraduate prospectus is available online at
http://www.herts.ac.uk/

For information about art and design research degrees go to
http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/res2prac/resdegs/resindex.htm

The journal  Working Papers in Art and Design is at
http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/papers/wpades/

The Centre for Research in Electronic Art and Communication is at
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/practice/creac/

***********************************************************