Dear Colleagues,

Matt's point on meta-discourse is well taken. Perhaps he
misunderstood my position. I did not refuse to debate discourse
style. I declined to debate a specific paper. This issue is important
and I will respond to his note.

It seems that Matt responded to the statement suggesting that I have
attempted to establish the rules and criteria of acceptable list
discourse.

This is not how I see it. I do not expect everyone to adopt my
rhetorical style. I impose this discipline upon myself. Everyone is
free to participate as they wish.

While anyone is free to post as it pleases them, there is an
historical reason for the long notes and carefully polished
contributions that sometimes appear on PhD-Design.

This list was established in 1998 following the Ohio conference on
doctoral education. It was intended as a post-conference
communication channel with friendly but vaguely defined purposes. In
style, activity, participation, membership, and quality, it resembled
most of the 27 JISCMAIL discussion lists in design.

In 2000, PhD-Design took on an explicit mission. It was designated as
an email extension of the research forum established at the La Clusaz
conference on doctoral education in design. The renewed list
explicitly welcomed extended dialogue and formal debate, including
lengthy notes that resemble papers or articles.

Over the past three years, PhD-Design has grown from under 200
subscribers to over 1,100. Every active thread sees membership
growth. List discourse clearly attracts subscribers and encourages
some to participate.

Despite occasional periods of silence, PhD-Design is generally an
active list with a wide range of participants. In contrast, many
JISCMAIL design lists go for weeks (and some for months) without an
exchange of ideas, sometimes without a post.

The fact that PhD-Design is a large, growing list with many kinds of
contributors and multiple styles of discourse substantiates Lubomir's
view that PhD-Design is an open, friendly list.

At the same time, I recognize that some share Matt's perception. The
call for short, digestible posts comes up once or twice a year. Some
calls, such as this one ("sorry, Ken"), name me an author whose style
intimidates subscribers and renders them silent.

Some feel that there is room both kinds of contribution. I believe
this to be so. Others argue that carefully structured, well-reasoned
notes discourage other kinds of communication. I would like to know
if others feel this to be the case.

Please permit me to state my view before asking for a spectrum of opinions.

Like most of you, I often post short notes on issues involving
personal opinion. I often send short notes to share information on
conferences, journals, research resources, and funding.

In contras, I generally post carefully written, well-reasoned notes
on research issues. Many of these issues involve truth claims. Some
involve contrasting truth claims and divergent opinions. One
reasonable way to distinguish among opinions is to invite each reader
to judge among competing positions by substantiating truth claims
with evidence. Doing so demands transparency and responsible citation
of sources.

This should not intimidate researchers. It certainly should not
intimidate professional designers whose jobs require them to weight
and balance evidence every day. Even people who may not wish to write
such notes may wish to read them and use the information.
Well-informed opinion permits better short responses, including
informal notes and even the kinds of notes that simply state a
position in response to a thread.

As Matt notes, many kinds of rhetoric and participation are valid.

Cecilia notes that intellectual debate is one valid kind of rhetoric.
Lubomir notes that carefully structured, well-reasoned notes serve
many goals in our community. Dick notes that humor is welcome, and
Jacob agrees with him.

Each time this thread recurs, I find myself wondering whether there
might be a better way. This is an academic list, founded by
designers, scholars and researchers to discuss - and debate -
research issues. I am puzzled by the argument that scholarly and
scientific debate is damaging to a research list. I also recognize
that some genuinely feel this to be the case.

In my view, members are free to post thoughts, opinions, and comments
of all kinds. Those who read what I write will be aware that I have
never complained about other styles or other kinds of contribution. I
have objected to false truth claims, but that is another issue. The
objections involve false truth claims, not the style of the note.

Each of us has the right to his or her own opinion. I have never
challenged an opinion stated as an opinion or an interpretation. What
I have often challenged are opinions stated in the form of objective
truth claims about historical, physical, or social facts when the
facts stated are inaccurate or unsubstantiated.

If the members of this list agree that the kinds of carefully argued,
substantiated posts I write on certain topics inhibit list
participation, I will be happy to consider another style.

Some of us use the list as a forum of scholarly exchange. It is
difficult for me to see why this should prevent others from enjoying
other forms of exchange. Nevertheless, this is a matter of tone and
emotion. If Matt is right, I may be insensitive to the emotional
nuances that cause others to refrain from posting.

We shifted the mission of this list in 2000 to welcome lengthy,
well-developed notes. We can change our mission in 2003, asking
people to avoid lengthy posts or footnotes in favor of short opinion
statements and brief comments.

Some of us wish to participate in an email forum for design research
that welcomes intellectual debate and well-written exchange. It is
not necessary for PhD-Design to serve as that forum.

Rather than see this thread come up two or three times a year for the
next decade, I would like to see people speak their mind. I would
like a better sense of consensus on this than we have had until now.

Do lengthy, well-reasoned notes cause many subscribers to remain silent?

Do such notes make list dynamics unfriendly and intimidating?

Do subscribers want me to stop posting the kinds of notes that Matt
labels erudite but unwieldy?

Should we do something about this?

If so, what should we do?

I am open to suggestions.

While Keith Russell and David Durling are the list owners of
PhD-Design and therefore the final arbiters, I played an important
role in developing the revised list mission that grew out of La
Clusaz. Since I have been labeled by name as a major factor in
intimidating some list members, I have a personal reason to want this
situation clarified. I cannot - and would not wish to - make
decisions on a new list direction, I can and do ask subscribers to
take Matt's question seriously. I can and will reflect on my own
future participation depending on the response.

This has come up before. Each time we pose the question directly, the
list tends to go silent, as though colleagues are reluctant to speak.
Since the question recurs every six months or so, it is an important
enough issue that I would like to see a resolution to this.

I do not like to be accused of intimidating people. If carefully
written notes with transparent documentation and full citation
intimidate other subscribers, I will take this fact on board.

My response and participation on this topic will hopefully not
intimidate anyone or prevent subscribers from expressing their
feelings. I will be quite busy for the next few weeks, and I will not
post often. This should leave ample space for anyone who feels my
presence to be overbearing.

Please speak your mind.

Sincerely,

Ken Friedman