Hi Danny,
I'm a bit puzzled by your use of 'positivist'? Most uses of anthopology and
ethnography in design research I've seen seem to assume _some_ subjectivism
and interpretation by the participants. As I understand it, the 'truth
value' of positivism _totally_ excludes subjective/interpretive
opinions/behaviours of the subjects or observer.
A criticism of some current uses of anthopology/ethnography in design
research might be that they don't draw out the implications sufficiently or
that they are unskilled, a bit disciplinarily parochial, over-simplistic or
one-eyed but 'positivist' and 'functionalist' don't seem to accurately
describe the situation.
Or am I missing something?
Terry
===
>This debate is important for designers because positivist versions of
ethnographic methods continue to be imported into the design discipline with
very little critical assessment of the contemporary debates in the
disciplines that hatched those methods .... but to say a shallow,
functionalist reading of ethnographic methods
e
|