Dear Klaus,

It is very interesting how often we differ in our visions. I hope 
that some day we will both benefit from this.

Yes, I believe that the main groups of discourses (I would say the 
main paradigms) are incommensurate. Simply because they are based on 
completely different ontological and epistemological beliefs. There 
is a drive towards mix and match, picking the best from every 
paradigm with the intent to make something new and better. I would 
say this is naive and scholarly incompetent. People pick from other 
paradigms or discourses what they believe is good from the  stand 
point of their own paradigm/position. They do not realize this. In 
design, this is called eclectic. Same for science. People who can not 
understand the underlying principles of a design movement or style, 
or of particular paradigms, engage indiscriminately in picking pieces 
and putting them together according to their own logic. However, 
often they pick the worst from the other paradigms. I know you will 
disagree with me and vehemently object this.

One anecdote, actually a real case. In one Ph.D. program in 
Chemistry, most of the students were Chinese. There were a few 
American students. So, one of the American students graduated and 
found a job in Seattle. After six months, he married a Chinese woman. 
He sent a lot of photographs to his former colleagues. They reviewed 
the photos, and one of the Chinese said: I new that John is dumb, I 
new it. But I could not imagine he is so dumb -- to marry the ugliest 
Chinese woman. If he had only told me he likes Chinese women, I would 
have introduced them to the most beautiful girls from China. What is 
the conclusion? That what we believe is the best from the other 
paradigm, is the best from our standpoint. It might be actually be 
not that good from the standpoint of the followers of the other paradigm.

I would agree that there is some possibilities for exchange and 
transfer between objectivist paradigms. There is a lot of exchange 
between Positivism and Dialectical Materialism. However, I don't see 
much of a possibility for this between objectivist and humanist 
paradigms (I will use this terminology.) They can influence each one 
of the proponents of the other and mostly marginal believers, but 
only to a certain degree, in an indirect way, by gradually changing 
their believes. This is not a mix-and-match exchange, but an 
ideological conversion at the higher levels of abstraction. I am not 
sure how much exchange we can have between Hermeneutics and 
Phenomenology. Some people can not make a difference between their 
logic and principles of inquiry and claim they are almost the same. I 
would not. At least, I was taught to belive that they are very 
different. I was also thought to see the epistemological differences 
between Existentialism and Phenomenology. It is all about training 
and experience. You might object.

It is good that you make a caveat saying that the exchanges are 
possible within the limits of the disciplines. I would like to 
emphasize this because this statement of yours is important. We might 
be closer then you think and as I mentioned before, our differences 
may not be that big. We have very similar background in terms of 
education in design and social sciences.

I acknowledge many different approaches. I work with three paradigms. 
Believe me, it is a pain when I have to switch between paradigms. It 
is more painful then switching languages. I don't like that I have 
always reflect on what I say and does it make sense in the current 
paradigm or discourse. I am not perfect and believe that I mix and 
match unintentionally. Just like I mix words when I speak a language 
that is not my forte.

Acknowledging diversity of approaches is not relativistic. It is a 
requirement of good methodological preparation. Accepting all kinds 
of unprofessinal statements at face value is not relativistic either. 
It is irresponsible. I will hyperbolize a bit to make my case. We can 
not accept that every five-year old child has great ideas and 
deserves a grant to materialize them. Too many ideas that are naive 
and poor will clog the scholarly arena and will push out the ideas 
that deserve support and further development. It is just like a 
search on the Internet: I get 2 million entires, no matter how much 
you would like to narrow my search. The five good pieces that I look 
for are probably somewhere there, but I don't have the time to sift 
through millions of items. I understand that such an approach slows 
down invention, but it also keeps some kind of sanity in the field. 
You can also argue about who decided what makes sense. There are 
institutional mechanism in science and we can not deny this. This 
issue is also similar to the problem with the balance between 
tradition and innovation. It is a complex question that deserves its 
own thread.

Design and science have something in common. It is the 
intellectuality, the consistency in thinking, the building of 
intellectual systems, based on principles. Principles make decision 
making easier and help novices in the field.

I have no problem if designers have their own ways to explore the 
world. However, if designers want to make science and when they 
believe they make science, they need to know that they start playing 
in the field of Science. They have to follow the standards and norms 
of behavior of this institution. Otherwise, it would not be science, 
it will be design. By the way, I have mentioned at least a dozen of 
times on this list that I don't see a reason why designers want to be 
scientists. I still believe that design has higher regulation than 
science and designers look more interesting and spirited than 
scholars. I still believe that design is more exciting then science. 
However, who ever wants to do science, let him/her do it. But should 
do that in a professional way, just like they do design. No 
epistemological Kitsch please.

My concern is not with relativism. I adore relativism, but evidently 
of different type.  My concern is with intellectual Kitsch. And the 
mentality that anything goes. It is erroneous and it is dishonest. 
Yes, it is dishonest. In reality, not everything goes. The gate 
keepers decide what goes. It is human and it is normal. Everybody 
wants to defend their views, to gather a group of supporters so that 
his views get institutionalized and promoted. This is the way to the 
top (in science), in simple terms. I am not sure that professors let 
all their students to write what they want. They correct, they 
advise, etc. That is intervention. It shapes other people's thinking. 
And it is accepted.

By the way, to relate to a previous post and to contribute to the 
spirit of this one, I will mention a case with me. Many years ago I 
wrote a material criticizing the psychological approach to 
environment &  behavior studies at urban level. I made a case that a 
sociological (and culturological) perspective is more holistic and 
productive, takes into account social relationships and works with a 
richer picture and more considerations. This idea went like a 
bombshell and was perceived as a major offence. Why? The people who 
reviewed it were either psychologists or trained under psychological 
influences. The case was made with references to both psychological 
and sociological/culturological literature. However, the 
psychologists didn't communicate with the sociological literature. 
This happens everyday and people of high standing promulgate it, even 
when they think that they are open for new ideas.

This is a complex problem and we can go for ever. So much for now. 
Unfortunately, I have several tasks that can't wait.

Kind regards,

Lubomir



At 12:10 AM 1/29/2008, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>dear lubomir,
>
>so, you are saying that different discourses, different ways disciplines
>have conceptualized what they do, result in seeing the world in
>incommensurable ways.
>
>to me the interesting thing is that the world affords quite a number of such
>discourses, explanations, conceptual systems, which are productive of new
>insights within experiential limits of their disciplines.
>
>i do not think that acknowledging diversity of approached is relativistic
>and it is rooted in people gathering data and analyzing them  in view of
>what they wish to do.
>
>i am suggesting the same to apply to design.  design has its own way of
>exploring the world and necessarily construct a world that is different from
>other disciplines.
>
>klaus
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
>research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lubomir
>S. Popov
>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:15 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: affordance - was Roots, traps, constructions
>
>Dear Keith,
>
>When communicating with you, I recollected an anecdote about Roger Barker,
>the founder of Ecological Psychology (1968 book). The anecdote may not be
>funny by itself, but it is interesting in the context of the recent
>discussions about ways of thinking. The anecdote was told by Robert Bechtel,
>prominent environmental psychologist and editor of Environment & Behavior,
>at a session on Roger Barker (if memory serves) at the annual conference of
>Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA).
>
>A group of psychologists surrounded Roger Barker at a conference and told
>him: "Roger, you think just like a sociologist!" Which, in psychological
>parlance, meant: Roger, you are son of a bitch! This illustrates the
>difference in their ways of thinking and the paradigmatic divide among
>disciplines, even when they are very close social disciplines. So, we should
>not be astonished that we talk different "languages" on this list.
>Considering that several hundred fields are represented, with their
>diversity of paradigms and schools of thought, it seems to me that we are
>communicating pretty well together.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Lubomir
>
>
>At 10:06 PM 1/27/2008, Keith Russell wrote:
> >Dear Lubomir
> >
> >Yep - I agree with what you say - but the issue for me can quickly be
> >found in the definition of "affordance" that says "Affordance is a
> >quality or a perceived quality of an object." The thought experiments
> >that Gibson undertakes in his work all involve "perceiving" qualities
> >rather than in listing "perceived" qualities. The listing is a
> >subsequent activity based on acceptance of the directness of perceiving
> >being granted the material status of a direct perception.
> >
> >While Gibson goes a long way towards a phenomenology, he gets
> >distracted by the simplicity of a non-poetic account of directness.
> >Gibson is happy with love.
> >
> >Nope, I'm not coming from Norman's cultures of perception.
> >
> >cheers
> >
> >keith russell
> >OZ newcastle
> >
> > >>> "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]> 01/28/08 1:51 PM >>>
> >
> >
> >Dear Keith,
> >
> >Affordance is a quality or a perceived quality of an object. Theory of
> >affordance is conceived in an ecological framework. Every time you hear
> >ecology, suspect  Positivism and Materialism. There is a difference
> >between conceptualizing experience like a result of human-environment
> >interaction and the study of experience as a way to understand the
> >world. These are two different conceptualizations, imply different
> >methodologies, and epistemologies. I don't see much of a phenomenology
> >(in the Husserlian sense) in Ecological Psychology. Ecological
> >Psychology is soaked with Positivism and systems thinking. Actually,
> >maybe a benign version of a more enlightened Positivism. For me, it is
> >too much on the Positivist side. I admire Bronfenbrenner, and actually
> >use a lot of his staff.
> >Long ago he was one of my deities, together with Roger Barker
> >(environmental psychology, behavior setting). I still believe I can
> >make something out of the behavior setting concept in my theoretical
> >pursuits. I often refer to these scholars, Barker in particular.
> >However, I am aware of the shortcomings of the paradigm and wish I can
> >go further away from it. I would rather work with Goffman and Burke
> >when researching environment and behavior interactions.
> >
> >It is quite possible that you conceptualise affordance in a slifghtly
> >different way, in particular if your background is in HCI. In that
> >field, Norman introduces slightly different tilt and more emphasis on
> >the perceived properties, but still stays in the framework of eco and
> >systems thinking.
> >
> >Sorry, I am going for the night. It is getting late here.
> >
> >Have a great evening at the other end of the world,
> >
> >Lubomir
> >
> >At 09:00 PM 1/27/2008, Keith Russell wrote:
> > >Dear Lubomir
> > >
> > >You point out that the concept of affordance is related to
> > >materialist thinking - but only if one wishes it so. Gibson allows a
> > >directness in the experience of things that is a directness of
> > >experience, not a directness of things. Giving oneself over
> > >to/finding oneself expereincing directly, does not make the thing any
> > >more real than a phenomenological apprehension. Indeed, they might
> > >usefully be treated
> >as
> > >the same.
> > >
> > >My left field email (earlier) was a pediction we would end up here.
> > >
> > >cheers
> > >
> > >keith russell
> > >OZ Australia
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >Lubomir wrote, in part:
> > >
> > >Let me mention that the concept of affordance is at disciplinary
> > >level (including multi- or inter- in this reading). In this regard,
> > >the concept of affordance can not serve for resolving the fundamental
> > >question of philosophy. By the way, the concept of affordance is
> > >related to materialist thinking. The very idea that the material
> > >world affords implies that there is a material world that affords the
> > >realm of ideas. Extreme idealism claims that the idea has controls
> > >matter.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > >