Dear David,

The thread on creativity interests many subscribers to this list.
There have been some thoughtful ideas posted and some notes have been
been spot-on. There have also been some problematic ideas put
forward, including factually inaccurate information on creativity and
creativity research. I have not yet written write a fully formed note
on the topic, but your latest post irritates me enough to enter the
thread on a process issue.

You are mistaken to write "this is a list about PhDs in design." This
is not so. The name of this list is an historical contingency. The
name has not actually defined the list for three years.

The PhD-Design list was established after the 1998 conference on
doctoral education in design at Columbus, Ohio. When the focus was
centered on doctoral education, the list was usually quiet.

A few months before the conference in La Clusaz, Chris Rust posted a
thought experiment on the DRS list. Chris's note and the comments of
his friend, Zeke Conran involved an imaginary attempt by Pablo
Picasso to earn a Ph.D. This grew into a deep exchange of ideas on
doctoral education and the thread turned into a significant and
interesting debate.

The debate attracted many new subscribers to the DRS list, and the
volume surprised some long-time subscribers. Preferring their normal
list volume, some list members suggested that those who wish lengthy
and robust exchange should find another venue. We agreed that the
PhD-Design list would become the venue of lengthy exchanges.

Today, over 900 people around the world subscribe to PhD-Design. It
has become the largest active discussion list dedicated to design
research.

The call to La Clusaz stated that doctoral education in design
requires attention to several themes. These include 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. When we moved our
discussions to PhD-Design, we stated explicitly that PhD-Design
welcomes debate and dialogue on ALL THESE THEMES.

These issues are central to doctoral education. They are not limited
to doctoral education. Neither is the PhD-Design list.

This list is NOT "a list about PhDs in design." It is a list about
doctoral education in design AMONG OTHER TOPICS. Any member is free
to decide what interests him or her. If subscribers do not respond on
a theme, the topic will yield an empty thread. This is not such a
case.

You write, "As this is a list about PhDs in design, I will try and
frame the issue as if I was advising a student."

You are not advising students here. You are a member of a forum in
which the majority of list members are scholars, researchers, and
professors at a wide range of universities, design schools,
professional schools, and research institutions.

It is boorish to lecture a group of distinguished colleagues as
though you were their doctoral advisor.

You have posted imaginary advice to doctoral students before. It did
not seem worth offering a response. When you state that a thread on
creativity and creativity research is fruitless, you implicitly
suggest the thread should end. This time, I want to respond.

PhD-Design has a few, simple ground rules. Any member is free to
introduce any topic that he or she deems appropriate. Every member is
free to debate at great length or short, over a few hours or several
months. Anyone may challenge, respond, or argue. No one is permitted
to curtail the debate or call for any debate to close.

This is not the first time you have suggested that a thread be
closed. This time, I want to state explicitly that this is your view.
Others do not share your view. If you feel that the thread is too
abstract, difficult, or problematic, don't participate.

If you want to say, "I believe this is a silly debate on an
impossible topic," go ahead and say why. Do not suggest that others
stop posting on a topic of interest. The last time you did this, it
seems to me that your complaints about the "spiral of abstraction"
killed a perfectly viable discussion. I should have taken a stronger
stand. This time, I will. You have the right to speak for yourself in
stating that you see this thread as fruitless or overly abstract.
Other subscribers may not share your view.

This thread began when David Durling, Rosan Chow, Klaus Krippendorff,
and others chose to develop it. The notes of the past few days from
Dick Buchanan, John Feland, Susan Hagan, and Birgit Jevnaker have
been profound and interesting. The point is not to reach agreement or
a conclusion. Sometimes people want to know something simply because
they are curious, eager, or passionate about the questions they ask.
The point is to examine the topic in a serious and intelligent way.

Before long, I will offer a few thoughts on this intriguing and
useful thread. I value the contributions to this thread. I hope that
those who have taken the time to share their thoughts will continue.

Yours,

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