On 5 May 2007, at 6:31 pm, Richard Buchanan wrote:
> I remember very
> well the nasty and vituperative review that you wrote for the DRS
> Newsletter
> last year about the book by Gray and Malins. Whatever the merits of
> the
> book, you could have been more kind to the authors, without
> indulging in
> gratuitous personal attack. It would have been healthier for the
> field.
Dick,
I didn't want to intrude on a private spat between you and Terry, and
certainly not to foment things further, but I couldn't help but
notice the point you made about his book review that we ran last year
in DRN and which received either extreme praise or extreme
condemnation. For anyone who is not aware of this review, it was the
May 2006 edition which can be found at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/design-research.html
I agree with you that the tone of the review could have been kinder
and more appropriate, and indeed it could have been shorter and more
to the point. That is not at issue. However, I had seen earlier
[even longer!] versions of the review, and saw Terry struggling in
frustration to analyse fully a text that he found to have so many
flaws that a reviewer hardly knows where to begin or perhaps where to
end...
I have now met or corresponded with many folks who disagreed with the
tone of the review, some even regarding it as unprofessional. But I
have yet to meet a single person who disagreed fundamentally with the
analysis. I know several experienced supervisors who will not
recommend the book to their students.
I know you look for high standards in research, and in your own
publications you have tried to point the way to clearer
understandings about the nature of research in design. You and I have
spoken about the concerns that I share with many good scholars here
in the UK and across Europe about research training and the poor
quality of outcomes of some of our PhD candidates, often emanating
from residual confusions about the nature of PhD inquiry. I believe
you share my concerns, and that we both look towards a future where
doctoral training is more robust, and where at least some of the
present confusions and issues may reach better accommodation if not
actual agreement. We do pretty well on this list in discussing some
of these issues from time to time.
We lack adequate research training texts in the design field,
especially in [art and] design. Maybe people like us should write
them, but we haven't. When a new text such as 'Visualizing Research'
comes to publication, there should be a debate about what what new
insights it offers the field. There has not been much public debate
about this particular book, though there has been to my knowledge
quite a bit of debate privately. Incidentally, the authors were
offered the opportunity to publish their response in DRN, but
refused. Terry also tried to get a response from subscribers to this
list, but that failed too. This lack of engagement may be due to the
tone of the review, or to a number of other factors that silences
such a debate: Ken Friedman's editorial surfaced those issues rather
well.
It is healthy for the field that we debate new ideas in research
training. 'Visualizing Research' is important because it attempts to
offer a process for utilising art and design practice in research. In
this sense it is part of a wider push towards practice-as-research.
You mention the merits of the book, and I am left wondering what they
are. Do you (or anyone else here) have any further thoughts on this?
Regards,
David
________________________________________________________________________
______
David Durling FDRS • Professor of Design • School of Arts &
Education, Middlesex University,
Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK • tel: 020 8411 5108 (24
hour answering machine)
international: + 44 20 8411 5108 • email: [log in to unmask] •
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.dartevents.net http://www.durling.co.uk
|