Dear Alec and Mary,

This is not a matter of "hard-liners" versus soft-liners, dead
liners, or flatliners.

This is a matter of the research narrative.

Alec writes, "In a few words my position on PhD is "a PhD thesis (the
argument) can be in visual symbolic texts as well as alpha-numeric
texts, and the thesis (object) should not have to be a book. This
upset a few hard-liners."

This contains two mistakes. The first is the matter of "visual
symbolic texts" in contrast with alphanumeric texts.

If "visual symbolic texts" could be clear and unambiguous, they would
have to be equivalent to alphanumeric texts. No visual symbolic text
system is equivalent to an alphanumeric text system. (If ideograms
are considered to be "visual-symbolic texts, then I'd make an
exception for thesis projects in Chinese, Japanese or similar
languages.)

The general equivalence is necessary for a simple reason. To express
a research result clearly, all readers must be able to understand the
findings in the same way.

All visual symbols are open to such ambiguity of interpretation that
this is impossible. A glass in a circle may mean "fragile," "bar
service available," "house ware sold here," or "glassware
manufacture," depending on circumstances.

The second issue is simply a mistaken notion. No one in any of these
debates has ever required that the thesis be presented in a book. The
requirement is a research report. The book is an acceptable and
easily used format. Any format that allows a full and proper research
result is acceptable.

A full and proper research result requires that the author or authors:

1. State the research problem,
2. Discuss knowledge in the field to date,
3. Discuss past attempts to examine or solve the problem,
4. Discuss methods and approach,
5. Compare possible alterative methods,
6. Discuss problems encountered in the research,
7. Explain how the researcher addresses those problems,
8. Explicitly contribute to the body of knowledge within the field,
9. State implications for future research.

What Alec writes is confusing in relation to these criteria. An
exhibit can present a full research repot because it can include a
text. An argument expressed in "visual symbolic texts" cannot.

If what Alec means by an exhibit is an artifact independent of text,
it cannot be a research report.

A CD-ROM or an exhibit or a Web site that contains all the elements
that can be presented in a book are equivalent precisely because they
use words and numbers combined in explicit description to present
research results.

I have been hoping for clear answers to my questions. So far, the
issues remain muddy.

The paragraph in Alec's note to Mary shifts back and forth between
the stand-alone object and the exhibit, between the visual symbolic
text and some other kind of communication.

The La Clusaz proceedings were informative and well received
precisely because all the referees understood the issues and
distinctions that arise in reviewing papers, including clear, common
terminology.

Anyone who read my post of Saturday, 23 March, titled "Further notes
following off-list dialogues" will see that I have no contempt for
exhibits. I understand perfectly well what an exhibit is in research,
in science and in art. The problem is not exhibits. It is whether a
specific exhibit constitutes a research report.

The questions I asked stand.

I will welcome a clear explanation.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman

p.s. I will once again note that the conference calls I have seen say
nothing about a second volume of proceedings in any form, CD-ROM or
otherwise.

Any exhibit that is properly developed could certainly form the basis
of a research report, and such research reports could certainly be
included in conference proceedings, regardless of medium. For such a
conference, a research result that fulfills all nine criteria could
certainly be refereed and included in a conference that called for
such submission within the frame of the refereed submissions.

That will not be happening at Common Ground. The exhibition is an
experiment. It has not been announced or planned as a refereed
equivalent to the research papers.


--

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