Dear Rosan,

The one thing I do not want to do is to turn this into a personal critique.
The "who" applies to people who fit the categories I described. I may know
more people on this work than you realize -- I know them from reading their
output, from conference proceedings and web sites, and from participating in
a couple of conferences.

Whether I know people or not, I'm not going to get into a debate about "who"
fits the description. I've got a mailbox full of private notes on this. Many
people agree with me and some people seem to think I'm Godzilla the Hun.

You asked "who" and I described a model. This model describes many people
I've met in North America and Europe. These people often tend to be
professional prasctitioners of design who believe they are researchers after
a few research courses. This also describes people in other professions who
have training in professional practice but not in research.

If you want me to name names, you've come to the wrong place. Let's stick to
issues.

Please let me clear one thing up. You are the source of what I know about
your work and your attitudes.

You've posted to this list for several years, you have published your
thoughts on the web site for the Basic Paradox and the Bremen EAD web site,
you've published on the Calgary conference web site and elsewhere. Since
much of your commentary includes your views about your own work, I also have
some understanding of your attitudes toward your work. I did not address you
as you seem to feel  "without, to me again, any knowledge of my work and my
attitude toward my work." I've read you carefully. When I enter a
conversation, I come prepared.

Sincerely,

Cindy


>Dear Cindy
>
>i am just wondering if this list is full of the type of design researchers
>you
>seem to know very well.
>
>when i read your previous post, i doubted if the design researchers you
>know
>and criticize are the same as the ones i know. for one thing, i ignorantly
>have
>not heard of 'wallpaper' and 'metroplis'. and the design researchers whom i
>am
>aware of do not seem to fit into your characterization... although of
>course we
>have our own set of problems.
>
>my major concerns were, i suppose, how much you actually know about design
>researchers who are beyond your immediate experiences to allow you to make
>such
>a generalization; and that your sometimes quick judgements on the
>contributions
>from the list members perhaps are based on this particular perception of
>design
>researchers which to me is rather incomplete and requires, i believe, some
>adjustment if the discussions among us are to move in a productive
>direction.... to be very honest, i can still remember very well how you
>have,
>to me, forcefully attacked my contributions without, to me again, any
>knowledge
>of my work and my attitude toward my work. are you then not one of the
>researchers you so criticize?
>
>having said all that, i can imagine the existence of the type of design
>researchers you describe below and i can understand where you are coming
>from.
>
>still, i am curious about what erik has to say.
>
>best regards, rosan

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/