Dear all
"Richard N. Taylor" wrote:
> Fifth, several folks have questioned why we
> didn't cite this or that reference in our
> proposal. Please keep in mind that this document
> was written as an internal-to-UCI proposal, and
> that its goal was to start the establishment of
> this school. The proposal was never written with
> the intent of seeing worldwide circulation or
> deliberative discussion on a list with 1200+
> recipients! Schön's book, e.g. is on my desk,
> some of the other authors cited have been our
> consultants.... I appreciate the references;
> please be advised that no slight was intended nor
> were we trying to demonstrate that we had done an
> exhaustive study.
I have to confess that I did forget that the proposal was written as an
internal document.
But I think my forgetfulness is caused by the fact that it IS now in the
public domain and seems to me (and i can be
very wrong) that it is upheld to be a very important document on design
education from which one can model and learn. Given this context, I did
read the report as critically (as evaluative not negative) as I should
and could.
So I have a question now about the nature of this conference:
How should we see the report - as an internal proposal based on a not so
exhaustive study or something else.
Some clarification will help me to determine if certain comment should
be made, such as
I am very looking forward to the respone Richard Taylor that has not yet
made to the questions raised by Harold Nelson. I personally think Harold
and Erik Stolterman's 'design as service' idea is profound once I get
over the loaded word 'service'.
best rosan
|