Hi Susan,
Thanks for your message. I've changed the subject line to reflect the change
in direction in your post.
You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference
list<end>; and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not the role
of references.
The four Greek models of proof are:
Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
agreed axioms
Deontic - self-evident proof
Casuistic - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
Usually academic research (following Socrates) depends only on logic and
deontic proof and requires casuistic and rhetorical proof are eschewed.
My understanding of the role of references in academic papers is they are
solely abbreviation in a logical proof. In effect, the author is saying,
'There is part of the reasoning and evidence that I could write here but
instead I will point you to a place where it is already available.' or ' I
have used the reasoning or evidence from someone else. It is here. Please
check the reasoning and evidence in the original'
Mistakenly, some academics think the purpose of a reference is somehow
'convey and attach to an authority to try to persuade the reader the author
is correct' (using casuism or rhetoric), or that it is purely a matter of
ethics (not stealing ideas). These misunderstandings of the role of
references are often characteristic of Masters and PhD students who carry
them as a mistaken approach from school and undergraduate teaching.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----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 Susan
Hagan
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 11:24 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: "The World's Best 25 Design Schools"
Hi Terry,
I can see your point, in part, related to the author. The closest connection
I make is to the peer review.
But if I understand you correctly-" for sound theory making avoid any taint
of rhetoric and its trappings (status of speaker etc)."-I have to take
exception to your perspective on rhetoric and its place in theory making.
Yes, references to ethos might be the lowest form of proof. But unless I've
missed something, Aristotle does tell us that rhetoric is present when the
facts are not decided. In theory building, the facts are not decided.
Rhetoric plays an important role in the long tradition of debate and
discussion not only in the areas of the law, the courts, and the church, but
also, as the literature concerning the rhetoric of science points out, in
the world of cold hard fact.
The background of the speaker might not be germaine here. I leave that to
others to decide, but "the good man (or woman) speaking" does play a role in
argument (peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference list), even as
we rightly remove the author's name when the paper goes to review.
Back to reading student papers.
Susan (a black box)
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the
> validity of theory should be independent of subjective judgement,
> particularly about the author.
>
> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove
> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and
> judgements about the quality of theory.
>
> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric
> and its trappings (status of speaker etc).
>
> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of
> validating theory is the basis of contemporary academic
> theory-making
>
> I feel its of concern on this list if we start to judge validity of
> theory in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
>
> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is
> writing has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and
> testing of design theory (already a serious problem in design research
> due to misplaced use of rhetoric). It discourages participation by
> those with less status. Perhaps worse, it necessarily results in
> conservative theory making aligned to the agreed views of a high
> status group. This latter is a particular problem in the current
> situation where there is a need for significant radical change in
> design theory because much of the existing design theory is out-date and
doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
>
> I suggest insisting on accuracy of reasoning and sound evidence is a
> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the
> number of the author's prefect badges (unless of course one is
'blackboard monitor').
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Evans
>
> <snip>I am sorry to hear that you are not prepared to be transparent
> about your current professional position. That is not only unusual
> within an academic community but it will also make it impossible for
> myself and others to make an informed judgement about the credibility
> of your postings.<end>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
