Hi, Klaus,
Thanks for your reply. Look, I see the point you're making. The list may not be exhaustive, but it was not the core issue in my argument.
Your argument does not change the meaning of the prefix "re" word "research."
You may believe that you've provided a good argument by saying "here it is," but I am not persuaded. To say "now let's move on to a more productive conversation" and then to follow it with further arguments suggests that what you want is for me to accept you as the authority on this issue. I simply see it another way.
I'm going to withdraw from this debate for the time being. I will return to answer your challenges later.
Warm wishes,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
email: [log in to unmask]
URL: www.swinburne.edu.au/design
Phone Dean's Office +61 3 9214 6078
Phone Faculty Switchboard +61 3 9214 6755
>>> Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 8/16/2010 10:39 AM >>>
ken,
you argue that because "research" does not appear on webster's dictionary lists of words following the definition of the prefix "re-" (= 1. again, anew; 2. back, backward) research cannot be read as re-search. this is an extremely narrow and in the end mistaken reading of webster's list. had you looked through some of the words, you might have discovered that the list is not exhaustive. for example, it does not include the word "return", "repetition", "recharging", "reinterpretation." would you still want to argue that because "return" is not on the list, it's meaning does not derive from "re-turn", that "re-charging" doesn't derive from repeatedly charging, say a battery, or that "re-interpretation" is not a new interpretation?
you said that you would revise your view if i provide you with a good argument, here it is. now let's move on to a more productive conversation.
regarding the latter, let me remind you that a cornerstone of scientific research is its replicability. scientists challenge each other by repeating the same analysis, the same experiment to see whether the findings hold up, often leading to accusations of fraud (carelessness, wishful observer biases, etc.) if found not replicable. this criterion can be maintained only because of the shared believe in the fixity of the natural world, a world without human intervention.
also, in coding data, say of interviews or texts, in measuring a phenomenon, scientists are required to show that the process is reliable. this is achieved be recoding the same phenomena, duplication the measurement process and inferring their reliability from the agreement of the duplications. the agreement of the recoded data must not only be better than chance (what monkeys would code) but close to perfect agreement. most respectable journals publishing finings from coded data require a demonstration that the data making process is reliable in this sense -- re-search in action!!! (if you care to google krippendorff and reliability you may find much written on this topic)
replicability is rarely required in inquiries that support design decisions. justifications for a design must be convincing to those who matter, the stakeholders of a design, and not disappoint their expectations that it leads to a workable artifact -- or else result in the loss of designers' reputation, revealing that designer to be a charlatan. to develop compelling justifications for something that will happen in the future of human actors (stakeholders) is a totally different kind of effort than finding demonstrably valid explanations through scientific research.
you say there is all kinds of research. true enough. i invite anyone who talks of design research as if it would be clear to everyone what it entails to describe a set of operations (not a list of attributes such as being honest, careful and exhaustive) that a design researcher would have to engage in order to successfully apply for a grant to undertake that research. in scientific research such requirements are known and practiced successfully. if you want to help the reputation of design, this is where we have to be clear.
klaus
|