Dear Friends,
Erik's note and Lorraine's comment on the membership activity of the
past two days suggest a quick thought.
Building a research community takes time. We may not have common
ground, but we do share common interests in four main themes:
philosophies and theories of design; foundations and methods of
design research; form and structure for the doctorate in design; and
the relationship between practice and research in design. We explore
a wide range of issues.
While common interests bring us together, powerful forces push us
apart. Our many disciplines and professions tend to separate us
despite interest in a common field.
Consider the case of a software engineer, a machine engineer, a
medical technology product manager, a product designer, a fashion
designer, an architect, a researcher in electronic markets, a
typographer, and an interaction communications designer.
In the old world of guild training and single-discipline professional
practice, they would have had little to say to each other. In the
knowledge economy, a single product may involve software, medical
technology, fashion, and architecture. Its makers, sellers, buyers,
and users may be linked in electronic markets. A well-conceived and
readable service manual explains the product and its uses. The
product is controlled by an interactive computer system and supported
by a Web-based Intranet. If we change the rubric "medical technology"
to any of a thousand products and services, we describe products and
markets that employ tens of millions of people around the world.
Most of us are involved in the knowledge economy as professionals,
researchers, educators, or all three. As conscientious citizens, many
of us seek ways to extend participation in the knowledge to those who
are excluded from it benefits. As concerned citizens, we also ask
what aspects of this economy we should change.
In this world, we have everything to say to each other and we have
much to learn from each other precisely because of our differences.
Unfortunately, this is where centrifugal forces come into play.
The nature of disciplinary and professional life keeps us from
crossing the boundaries of work teams and academic departments. Even
when we do speak with each other across boundaries, the flow of works
means that we may not speak with each other as often as we should.
The pressures and schedule of daily life means we often do not have
the time that dialogue requires, let alone the time to study and
learn.
This is why this list is so promising. The time we spend here gives
us an opportunity to learn from colleagues. Reading is also a form of
participation, and many list members save threads for study and
reflection. I certainly do! The diverse exchange that sometimes seems
to challenge our concentration is also a benefit. It would take much
more work to discover the ideas and information that a subscription
to PhD-Design brings us in a day's reading.
The time we spend learning from each other on this list is an
investment in professional practice and in our skills as educators
and researchers. In a world that demands broad scope and scale of
knowledge, this is a great advantage. In many places, you would
expect to pay a great deal to attend a seminar with experts in so
many fields. Here, the price we pay is time and attention.
At Common Ground, Dick pointed out that our community is subject to
centripetal and centrifugal forces. He said that his hope is a
community that overcomes the forces that pull us apart to focus on
common concerns. Many of us share this hope.
If our field is to be holistic and interdisciplinary rather than a
series of reductionist enterprises divided by intellectual boundaries
and job functions, we require a forum for dialogue and interaction.
There are few forums as holistic and interdisciplinary as PhD-Design.
That very fact makes participating in this list a more demanding
challenge than we meet elsewhere. One aspect of the challenge is the
time and attention it demands.
Every time we work together to identify concerns, solve problems, and
address challenges we grow. This community first came together in
Ohio. Soon after, we began to debate research issues and doctoral
education on the DRS list. We met in La Clusaz, and renewed our
dialogue on PhD-Design. Now, following the Brunel meeting, we have a
chance to interact in the larger global community made possible by
the JISCMAIL system.
It seems to me our dialogues open important issues, in part by
developing differences, in part by seeking similarity, in part by
pursuing multiple threads. Inquiry requires care. Building community
requires care. Over the past two days, we lost only twelve
subscribers. This is a better figure than Lubomir estimated. Today,
we gained two. Now we total 904 subscribers. I offer these figures by
way of noting the continued interest in our community.
I join Erik and Lorraine in encouraging whatever kind of
participation suits you best. There are times when I cannot keep up,
and there are times when I cannot keep away. PhD-Design is an
outstanding forum for our community. The demands of such a forum are
a benefit rather than a cost. The time this forum requires is an
investment in an important and growing field.
Best regards,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
|