Dear All,

David asked whether anyone else shared Anne-Maries’ surprise. I’m not 
surprised for three reasons.

Two reasons are relatively objective. One is more personal.

The most important reason we don’t discuss articles from Design Philosophy 
Papers here is simple. This is a forum in its own right. I haven’t been a 
subscriber since the list began, but I see in the archives that people have 
been talking about design philosophy since the start. This focus really took 
off after the list regrouped in the wake of the La Clusaz conference, and 
the conference itself took philosophies of design as a track theme.

The topics on a discussion list like this tend to be homegrown. We bring our 
own topics to the list.

The second objective reason is the way list members tend to treat 
literature. I commented on this last week. Few list members develop 
referenced discussions, and those who do it don’t do it often. We don’t 
discuss articles from leading journals like Design Studies or Design Issues. 
Why should we discuss articles from Design Philosophy Papers?

The third reason is Design Philosophy Papers itself. My subjective opinion 
is that this is a relatively minor journal. While Anne-Marie’s advisors and 
editors subscribe to PhD-Design, their roles in her journal are different 
from their roles they play here. The advisory board is distinguished, the 
editors less so. This is understandable. What’s hard to understand is why 
the editors and writers represent a narrower spectrum of opinions than the 
advisors.

The regular writers and editors seem to represent two strong schools of 
thought. One school refers back to Heidegger. This is understandable given 
Heidegger’s interest in technology. Still, Heidegger is an opaque figure who 
can be used in an oracular fashion to justify nearly any position on any 
topic. What about Dewey, Arendt, or Mumford on technological civilization? 
What about Rawls, Nozick, or Quine on contemporary issues?

The second strong school involves polemics in a postmodern vein.

Whether or not Anne-Marie intends it, the journal welcomes a few 
contemporary philosophical positions and ignores most others. Given the 
clear position of what she publishes, I’d guess that few well-known writers 
from outside the journal’s current circle want to publish there.

The journal publishes a narrow selection from a broad field, and this makes 
the journal too narrow to interest the wider field. An objective analysis 
suggests I am not alone in this opinion. A while back, I collected a 
composite bibliography from list members on philosophy of design. If you 
compare the list with works cited in Design Philosophy Papers, you’ll find 
little overlap. By definition, this means that the journal is narrow.

I’m told there over one hundred thousand specialized academic journals and 
bulletins in circulation today. Nearly no one cites what they publish. Even 
if you support the position Anne-Marie and her writers stake out, you’ve got 
to acknowledge that it is narrow and not broad, academic and not general. 
I’m not surprised that people never talk about Design Philosophy Papers 
here.

Tom Gleason’s idea is to do something at the other end of the spectrum.

IMHO, Tom is more likely to do what the field needs by building his new 
journal than by packing his big tent into the narrow suitcase of a 
specialist journal.

Sincerely,

Cindy Jackson

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963