Dear Gunnar, Andrew, Keith, and Rosan,

Thanks for your replies and comments on GK van Patter. You may not like
his style of writing, but GK does not ask anyone to accept ideas without
examining the issues involved. His willingness to enter the debate on
design education goes back many years. In GK’s own interview series
with leaders from design and design research, he invited us to challenge
him. GK has long been active reading and thinking on this list and with
other audiences of critical thinkers. Here at Swinburne, GK presented
his and Elizabeth Pastor’s work in a seminar and he participated in an
international conference on design thinking. He interacts respectfully
and responsibly with everyone, offering clear, sharp arguments and
responding thoughtfully to the issues as hand. He does not request
unquestioning support.

While I occasionally disagree with GK’s approach, my disagreements
arise from the fact that he speaks from the field. He and Elizabeth are
in the arena. This has several consequences. One is that they speak
their experience rather than present evidence as we might. At
university, we are obliged to present evidence as well as debating it.
In business, you don’t present your proprietary knowledge to an
environment filled with possible competitors. Another is that they
sometimes abstract what they know from highly confidential projects.
Those who work for business or government must sometimes sign
Non-Disclosure Agreements that legally bind them to disclose no
information about a project or even, sometimes, about the client.
Explaining methods sometimes becomes non-specific. GK’s reluctance to
share every aspect of his work is also an artifact of a highly
competitive industrial setting. Having been in business, I understand
the need for care. Companies such as Humantific, Ideo, MakeTools, or
Nielsen Norman, share information more freely than most. I’m delighted
that they do.

As Gunnar Swanson notes, those “who are employed by universities have
an advantage in that it is economically more convenient for us to be
open with information and arguments.” We are paid to publish, and we
expose our ideas to public debate. Even when we are not as open or
accessible as we should be, we’re paid on the presumption that we will
be open or accessible. 

As I see it, Andrew is mistaken in his judgment of Rosan Chow’s post.
Andrew argues that Rosan’s intention was to challenge GK’s ideas,
but Rosan did not challenge GK’s ideas. Instead, she raised a specious
concern about GK’s person. IF Humantific were a cult, she said, she
MIGHT be worried over the influence that this dangerous cult COULD exert
on professors and – THROUGH them – on the students they teach. To
support this specious argument, Rosan provided a link to an article by
Robert Jay Lifton, Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology
Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Law. Lifton’s work on cults
and thought control is well known, but Lifton’s work does not apply to
Rosan’s post. Silly is the least controversial statement one can make
about an argument this flawed.

This morning, Rosan posted to say, “OK, I confess that I don’t
really believe (and I have never claimed or charged) that Humantific is
a harmful cult ...”

In a reply to Susana la Luz, Rosan now states that she doesn’t
“really believe (and [she] have never claimed or charged) that
Humantific is a harmful cult.” Why, then, did Rosan cite an article by
a major researcher on cult phenomena in her post on Humantific? While
Rosan did not claim that Humantific is a cult, she did use innuendo,
claiming that she is troubled “to think that Humantific MIGHT be a
cult” Rosan did accuse Humantific of a “cultic-language-infested
post which one might see as a form of coercive persuasion.” Rosan
repeats this accusation today, writing “I will still characterize van
Patter’s post as coercive persuasion and against academic values.”
This is as silly as her earlier use of innuendo.

Rosan returned yet again to comment on Keith’s point – contrasting
what she describes as the “the cult/ure of academy and business.”
Rosan contrasted a graduation speech by Steve Jobs with GK van
Patter’s post, playing on the sense of Keith’s notes on the word
cult while once again taking a whack at GK. I suppose it is fair enough.
When we step up in a public forum as GK has done, we make ourselves
available to criticism from the foolish as well as from the wise. What I
don’t understand is Rosan’s endless concern with academic standards.
She works for a business firm rather than a university. She occasionally
seems to criticize professors simply because we are professors, and she
occasionally appears to argue that designers from a background in art
and design schools may adduce arguments of a different nature than
arguments based on conceptual rigor, attention to methods, and the other
issues that concern us at research-intensive universities. I may be
missing something, of course, as there are differences between my view
of research and the kinds of research that folks pursue at the former
art schools now labeled artistic universities. Given the amount of work
that GK does with those of us who work at research-intensive
universities, there is some evidence that GK manages to communicate
across the cultures. I will address this topic specifically in a post on
the relations between universities, business, and industry.

Andrew may wish to criticize GK and Humantific, but Rosan never
actually criticizes GK’s ideas. Instead, she makes accusations through
innuendo, and now an attack on what she labels “coercive persuasion
and against academic values.” I’m still a bit puzzled on just how it
is that GK is able to coerce anyone, having no mechanism of control
similar to the mechanisms available to cult leaders in Lifton’s
analysis. Elsewhere, Lifton specifies eight mechanisms of thought
control and coercive persuasion. GK uses none of these.

Rosan does not apply “standards of critical thought” comparable to
the comments I made on Nova, Common Ground, or Lambert Academic Press,
using reasoned argument from evidence that is available to everyone. I
did not worry about what these publishers might do or what could happen
if they did. I stated what they do.

Returning to Andrew’s concern for cultic language and skeptical
examination, I’ll return in to discuss Triz, Kaizen, and Six Sigma in
another post.

Keith Russell notes the relation of the word cult to such words as
culture and cultivate. That is where the discussion of Triz, Kaizen, and
Six Sigma belong.

Speaking of cults, I am worried about Keith. Keith admits that he is an
adherent of Socrates, a well-known corrupter of youth convicted of
capital crimes in Athens and put to death. Socrates was most likely a
member of the cult of Pythagoras, a shadowy mathematical philosopher
whose name bears striking resemblance to such recent cultists as
Rastafari and Rasputin. Plato records that Socrates skipped out on
debts, and he died owing a cock to Asclepius. 

While I am no Asclepius, I often lay awake at night troubled by the
thought that Keith may be corrupting the youth of Newcastle when he
should instead be cultivating the good, the beautiful, and the true.
Should the good citizens of Newcastle force Keith to drink hemlock for
his cultic activities, he may depart the planet owing me the cock I
loaned him for a cultic sacrifice, not to mention the dozen eggs I
should receive as interest on the loan.

Warm wishes,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3
9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design

--

Gunnar Swanson wrote:

—snip—

Many religious organizations share with consulting and political
organizations the ability to remain “on point” (as they say in
politics) or “on brand” (as we designers often advise our clients to
be.) This often takes the form of overstating the value of a some
strongly-branded “truths” as a lure to a buy-in without examination
of the complexities that remain hidden.

—snip—

Those of us who are employed by universities have an advantage in that
it is economically more convenient for us to be open with information
and arguments. (That’s not to say that we are collectively very good
at openness and accessibility.) But even while acknowledging legitimate
economic interest in consultants’ not always being completely open
about what they do and how they do it, claims that “Those that say
don’t know; those that know don’t say” have never inspired me to
take the leap of faith that the claimant is one of those who knows.

—snip—


Andrew King wrote:

—snip—

I am aware, as Ken has intimated, that the concept of ‘cult’ is a
controversial one, and for that reason attempted to explain each of my
listed characterisations. In my opinion, (and I do not claim it to be
anything other than my opinion) cultic behaviour is characterised not
primarily by the use of language games, or of terminology designed to
co-opt areas of thought or knowledge as these are to some extent,
necessary to all human organisations. I use the epithet ‘cultic’ to
characterise the use of such strategies to erect barriers to critical
thought, and information sharing, and in attempts to represent, or imply
a representation, that the cultic worldview, or narrative of ‘the way
the world is’ is a universally valid and exclusive one, eg that it
invalidates all other narratives.

Of oourse, the last of those behaviours can be attributed to scientific
practice, but even if the characterisation is valid, critical thought -
in essence the possibility of doubt - is nevertheless preserved.

Personally, I do not think Rosan’s post, in its fundamental
intention, is ‘silly’ (I think that’s another controversial term
:-). If we are to apply standards of critical thought to Journals, why
not also to organisations and groups? As I said above, I have no opinion
on Humantific or its use of the term codesign, but I have long held
reservations about such design and design management related phenomena
as ‘Triz’, ‘Kaizen’, ‘Six Sigma’ etc. I have no definitive
opinion on these either, but I feel a sceptical examination is
advisable.

—snip—

Keith Russell wrote:

—snip—

In talking about cults we need to remember that “cult” shares its
origins with “culture” and “cultivate.”

—snip—

Rosan Chow wrote:

—snip—

Perhaps it was a typical difficulty in cross-cult/ural communication.
In this case between the cult/ure of academy and business. 

But are we not supposed to tolerate if not respect cult/ural
differences and try to adjust our behaviors and use of language when in
a different cult/ure?

Steve Jobs, a prominent cult leader and top salesman of an extremely
successful business, played along the cultural practices of the
University when he was delivering the graduation lecture in Stanford.
(When I think about it now, the graduation ceremony did look like a cult
gathering and he looked even more like a cult leader in the gown than in
a black mock-turtle-neck). He did not behave or talk as he was in
Macworld, but delivered a very inspiring lecture that invited rather
than closed thinking. It was very different from van Patter's post.

—snip—