Dear Jerry,
Thank you for your message and your diagram and discussion
Looking at the diagram, I'm interested in your explanation of the origins and mechanisms of 'desire to know' in your diagram? What is it? How is it operationalised? What are its foundations? Where does it come from? Etc.
What are the symmetric opposites of the factors at v1, v2, and v3? You have 'desire to know' as a driver (with no output on the diagram) and outputs at v2 and v3 without any indicative driver. The diagram appears incomplete?
The factor 'Desire to know' is of a different ontological category to all other items on your diagram - which should rings some bells concerning the coherence and validity of the representation the diagram attempts.
Wondering what a more complete diagram would look like?
Best wishes,
Terence
-----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 Jerry Diethelm
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2012 7:41 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Diagram of Research, Knowledge & Practice
Diagram of Research, Knowledge and Practice
Here¹s a diagram of the way I conceive of knowledge, research and practice, using the basic, applied and clinical model for research that Ken Friedman
describes. *** Since the list rejects pdfs, the diagram described
below will be found at : ***
http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/Research%20&%20Practice%20Diagram.pdf
It more explicitly emphasizes the connection of research and knowledge to their human purposes and motivations. This is of course implied in the terms applied and clinical, but I show the valuing dimension because I think the motivating force from the consciousness connection is often lost in our desire for our models to be as objective as possible. Research more pointedly becomes ³research in order to.²
The diagram has two main paths from human purposes and motivations, one leads to the production of cultural actions, policies and products, the other to the production of knowledge. Applied knowledge grows out of basic knowledge to support useful cultural ends. Clinical knowledge supports the production of specific cultural products. Clinical practice no doubt calls on tacit knowledge.
As Ken describes, each of the forms of research is associated with its motivating values and beliefs. I use V for the valuing dimension in the diagram. Beliefs, on my view, are sacred values.
A central human purpose is V1, the desire to know. Human knowledge is a cultural product. V2 is the more general case of cultural production, and its aims of cultural support and enhancement utilize applied knowledge. V3 is the more focused and situated professional practice. V4 is an acknowledgement of the tacit knowledge that grows in human experience.
One key difference I find in the two main paths is that the valuing dimension in cultural production is the parent of the process, while in knowledge production it must be distilled out to produce reliable theory and fact.
Best regards to all,
Jerry
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
|