Dear Terry,
There are really two issues here that interest me in the thread. One
involves process, the other involves substance.
On process, what you refer to as "associative" may actually be the flow of
conversation as people respond to one another. I responded to Clive. I had
actually forgotten the entire axiom business long ago. Whether or not anyone
else was getting you wrong or associating may be less significant than the
fact that most of us were responding to issues that come up in the threads
to which we responded or to prior takes.
If you want people to respond in a tight, focused way to your proposed
axiom, it would help for you to make your meaning clear and occasionally to
post again with a reminder. Unless, of course, people just don't have
anything to say about the axiom or don't wish to respond.
On substance, I can't understand the value of an axiom that states that "all
design methods are information *gathering* methods." Gathering information
is one part of any design process. So I don't think Clive is all that far
off in raising the problem of understanding. Even though I'd taken Clive's
comments in reference to design research, I'd be willing to argue that his
comments apply even better to design. Design action -- and design methods --
require understanding, ethics, and commitment. The axiom you posit doesn't
seem reasonable to me. Whether it forms a complete axiom is irrelevant.
Klaus also raises valid questions.
As I wrote, I've felt like staying out of this debate. It doesn't seem
fruitful. It would be interesting to know why you posit the axiom and what
purpose you intend such an axiom to serve.
Yours,
Ken
|