Good point,
I agree that the issue of language is crucial. I think that in a lot
of the discussion there is a tendency to try to determine the 'right'
meaning or definition for a term, which I find completely futile.
I have several times proposed that Ilkka Tuomi has something
interesting to say about knowledge and how it is created, transferred
and maintained etc. Now I'd like to recommend his new book: "Networks
of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet". (His
earlier "Corporate Knowledge" is also very good but hard to get
outside of Finland.)
One of the things he elaborates in these books is the way how
knowledge is embodied in communities and the language they use. He
bases on work of many others such as Fleck, Bakhtin, Constant,
Vygotsky, Lave and Wenger, Engeström, Nonaka and Takeuchi etc.
The main point of this for me in this context is that meaning is
created and maintained in a social process and context. Once we are
in another context, or have a bunch of people like this crowd, with
so many contexts being applied at the same time, it becomes
impossible to arrive at such consensus. In my opinion we simply are
not the kind of a community that could even evolve such a shared
system of meanings.
This is a problem that must be overcome, but I propose that not with
forcing some canonical definitions, but instead by greater
sensitivity to explaining one's point of view and its context, to
identifying which communities share what meanings, and to accepting
the idea of sustaining and using different meanings for the same
words (with the context references preserved!).
kh
...
At 15:57 +0000 2.3.2003, Dr Terence Love wrote:
>Hello,
>
> >From different viewpoints, Ken and David have recently argued
>for particular modes of discussion. I feel this issue is much more
>important than it appears. For me, there are several reasons that
>suggest it's time to seriously address problems of modes of
>discussion and analysis in design research. I believe it's an
>important issue blocking the development of the field and causing
>many problems with theory and concepts, especially in areas such as
>'creativity', 'design', 'design methods', 'intuition'.
...
>In what follows, I'm suggesting the problem lies in the way we are
>discussing and analysing, rather than the design research issues
>themselves. The following note is not complete and there are
>probably lots of mistakes in it. It's intended to raise the issue
>rather than be the definitive word on it.
|