Hi Terry,
On 3/23/05 9:31 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In research terms, I suggest
> it's helpful to return to the original meaning and, as is the practice in
> other
> disciplines with problematic terms, to avoid using the word in its
> problematic meaning and context.
"
What is wrong with switching to "structuring" and analysis, or
"constructing" and deconstructing (or "packing" and unpacking for that
matter) to represent the "assembly of components" that the word synthesis
means for you? I was taught (as an architect and product designer) to
understand that synthesis was concerned with holistic integration and
resolution - so your definition makes no sense to me and seems grounded in
the era of the industrial revolution. It doesn't seem at all useful as a
term to structure research more coherently. I (and some of the public I
know) actually like our meaning of "synthesis" and think it differentiates
another whole focus for research aimed at how form and meaning emerge (based
on contemporary theories such as conceptual blending) as well as the
perception, communication, and interaction involving them - while it is
useful to distinguish components and their assembly it is also useful to
examine how inputs of different kinds are filtered, adapted, merged and
blended to get something not apparent from the input. I am truly grateful
for the capacity of language forms to morph into new meanings and uses.
"Car" is a lot easier to say than "horseless carraige" (a component
assembly) and it has entirely different implications for research. OK that
isn't fair. But "car" is still easier to say than "auto-mobile" and is just
as well understood.
As always,
Chuck
|