Dear David (Sless) and others,


I can fully understand your irritation.

One could take the custodians of old-European scholarship as one of
many fractions in our community of ...

But I am amazed about the many reverent followers.

People seem to yearn for guidance and leadership in the mess of our field?

Or is it just bashful silence? Even despondency?

But there are many potential paths. And none of them has proven to be
the ideal way yet.

So, let's remain stubborn and DIFFERENT, if we do not want to end up
in the bleak desert of unified design thinking.



Jonas
__________





>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Why should my claim that research on creativity is a cul-de-sac in design
>have caused such concern? To some extent, I'm genuinely perplexed. After
>all, it is the job of researchers and teachers to identify both productive
>and unproductive lines of inquiry and offer opinions on such matters. As a
>designer and researcher interested in improving the quality of designing
>(for base or less base motives) I happen to think that research on
>creativity is a cul-de-sac. So what's the big deal? Why all this passion?
>
>Is it just my manner, my irreverence, my dismissive cryptic allusions? Am I
>perhaps an impostor with no legitimate claim to attention in such a
>discussion? I may be all of those things, and worse. Certainly, these and
>many other 'spots of commonness' in my character, methods, and manner have
>been suggested to me on and off line by list members. It has even been
>suggested that I leave the list because I found one opinion 'bleak' and
>suggested that if that view was widespread on this list, then the list was a
>bleak place.
>
>I cannot believe that I deserve such attention, even if my perfidious black
>soul is repugnant to list members. 'Ignore the bastard, and he'll go away!',
>would be my reaction, but then perhaps I'm the last person whose reaction is
>worth considering. But instead of being ignored, a senior list member
>unleashes 7,399 words to dismiss me and my crackpot ideas, and to
>demonstrate to anyone prepared to read it, that I am ignorant, and possibly
>worse.
>
>I'm fascinated that for all the talk on this list of open-ended discussion
>and inquiry, no one has asked me 'WHY?', why do I hold such a crackpot idea?
>
>I make no secret of the fact that I have a narrow interest, much much
>narrower than the free-ranging interests that characterise many
>contributions to this list. But among the 900 people on this list, I think
>there may be just a few who share my interest in improving the way we design
>things and see some types of research, though not all, contributing to that
>enterprise.
>
>I happen to think that discussing the criteria around which one makes
>decisions about what research is or is not useful in this narrow enterprise
>is interesting and important. That I think creativity research is a
>cul-de-sac from my narrow point of view, seems to me a minor issue. Far more
>interesting to me is WHY and how the criteria I apply to making that
>decision may be relevant to making similar decisions about other fields of
>scholarship.
>
>If I were a medical practitioner (and Dick Buchanan has recently reminded us
>that there are similarities between medical practice and design) and someone
>came to me from another field of knowledge and skill and told me that I HAD
>TO PAY ATTENTION to their field of interest, I would ask WHY?
>
>"What evidence do you bring to me to suggest that I take your ideas and
>point of view on board in order to do my job as a medical practitioner
>better"? "
>
>"Your research might suggest that some of what I currently do does indeed
>work--it's always nice to have ones practices validated in another context--
>but it hardly constitutes new knowledge. So, what is the value of the new
>knowledge you claim to my practice"?
>
>Despite the voluminous recitation on the depth and range of creativity
>research, no-one has yet offered me new knowledge that will improve my
>practice. The onus of proof, it seems to me, is very much on the shoulders
>of those who want to make such a claim. Apart from my natural inclination to
>be curious about many things, it is not my job to investigate every crackpot
>idea that has been put before me. I have certain criteria of practical
>judgement against which I make decisions about which research is or is not
>relevant. If you want to convince me that something is worthy of my
>attention, you need to both understand and apply my criteria, or at least
>tell me why my criteria are wrong. But, to date, no-one has asked me or any
>other designer on this list what our criteria would be and how you might
>meet them.
>
>I would be happy to discuss those criteria and, perhaps at a later moment,
>discuss why I think creativity research is a cul-de-sac from my practical
>point of view. But I will not be bullied either on or off list into silence.
>If I'm on the wrong list, then I will happily leave. 'Good by and thanks for
>all the fish etc,' but if what I have just said resonates with any other
>list members interests, and they think I am raising an interesting question,
>despite my many faults, then I shall stay and take part.
>
>David
>
>--
>Professor David Sless
>BA MSc FRSA
>Co-Chair Information Design Association
>Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
>Director
>Communication Research Institute of Australia
>** helping people communicate with people **
>
>PO Box 398 Hawker
>ACT 2614 Australia
>
>Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
>
>phone:  +61 (0)2 6259 8671
>fax:    +61 (0)2 6259 8672
>web:    http://www.communication.org.au


--