Dear Ken,

In research events, the act of 'recounting the voices of others', 
involves the researcher in a multitude of ways, however, this is not 
often acknowledged in research writing. By arranging the event for 
the purposes of the research, through the question/s asked, within 
the relations of power between researcher and interviewee (the 
researcher is often understood as being more powerful because by 
asking questions, interpreting answers, and 'writing up' the event, 
they get to choose what counts as 'knowledge'), and in many other 
ways. See references below for much better explanations.

Again, this is my epistemological position. And again, it is a 
provocation, depending on your position. In writing this, I am 
constructing this account for the purpose of establishing my point of 
view, as a product of my experience, in the context of what has 
already been written so far, and within the meaning-making community 
in which I am socialised. And thus it is a kind of fiction. It is not 
'true', just as a philosopher's writing is not 'true', as it depends 
on one's understanding of 'truth' or 'reality'. However, from my 
position, if an account 'rings true' (an expression for feeling like 
it's more or less what one believes) for me when I read it, then it 
has integrity and is reliable for me, and perhaps also for others. 
This is of course, context-dependent.

In calling for others to tell stories of their experiences, I may 
then interpret and make judgements about whether the stories 'ring 
true' for me. But either way, they are stories, constructed within 
the specific context of this discussion. Yes, there will be bias 
(even as one might attempt objectivity), yes, there will be 
embellishment, yes, there will be omission, yes, there will be 
rhetoric, yes, there will be narrative convention. As in all writing. 
Hence, all writing is fiction of a kind.

Ethically, the 'responsible recounting' of the research event that 
you demand is dependent on the researcher's ethics, the purpose of 
the research, to what knowledge product it may be applied and whose 
interests it serves. As Gavin has suggested 'reasonable or valid 
might be exchanged for useful', when making decisions about what 
counts as knowledge, and my position is not 'more useful or 
illuminating than any other'. I am however, interested in reading 
about other people's stories of their experience in design, 
particularly graphic design or visual communication, and particularly 
in the university, women and men.

cheers, teena



Rhodes, C. 2000, 'Ghostwriting Research: Positioning the Researcher 
in the Interview Text', Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 511-25.

Scheurich, J.J., 1997, Research Method in the Modern, The Falmer Press, London.

>Dear Teena,
>
>To me, the claim that "all writing is fiction" leads to an infinite 
>regress. If all writing is fiction, then why is Foucauld's take on 
>power relations any more reasonable or reliable than that of Simone 
>de Beauvoir or Herman Melville?
>
>If all writing is fiction, then why would we wish to bother with any 
>account whatsoever? Why would any account be more useful or 
>illuminating than any other?
>
>If all writing is fiction, why would a post-structuralist account be 
>more useful than an empiricist account or a cognitive account?
>
>When we ask for an account of what people witness, hear, say, or 
>experience, we ask for integrity and reliability, not "validity." 
>This is not a matter of "proof." It is a matter of asking the author 
>to describe what is said, a responsible account of what others say.
>
>To argue that "all writing is fiction" is to that that we have no 
>responsibility to the voices of those whose stories we recount. When 
>we recount the voices of other speakers, the words that we report 
>demand responsible reporting. This is not "proof," but 
>responsibility.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>--
>
>Teena Clerke wrote:
>
>(1)
>
>my intention was to provide an opening for discussion about design 
>research epistemology without introducing the construct of 'gender', 
>but by removing the actual bodies themselves. I saw this as a 
>poststructuralist way to ask a question about possibilities. I 
>wanted to see what people imagined design research might look like 
>if either men or women were removed from its practice. This asks for 
>an entirely different kind of imagining other than the binary of 
>men/women. In a Foucauldian sense, power and knowledge are 
>interrelated within the social relations between people and are 
>(re)produced within discourses. So, I thought if you take out the 
>bodies, what kind of discursive imagining would ensue?
>
>(2)
>
>Fiona talks about her embodied experiences in design research, 
>sitting through meetings and listening to the various ways in design 
>is perceived in a large faculty. I am curious to hear of others' 
>personal experiences, and particularly welcome those not based on 
>'proof'. In this call, I do not wish to debate 'validity' because 
>from my epistemological position, all writing is fiction.
>
>--
>
>Ken Friedman
>Professor
>
>Dean, Swinburne Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Melbourne, Australia