Hi Tim,
You wrote <snip> I like to use the word definition to mean a clear, concise,
and complete statement of the necessary and sufficient of the thing being
defined.
I agree, this is the aim of the discussion as far as I am concerned. The
test is whether a definition is necessary and sufficient, which is easier
to conceive of as ' it includes what needs to be included and excludes what
needs to be excluded'.
<snip> Everything that has been called a definition here, in the recent
PhD-Design posts about designing and designs, from all the people who have
posted, are not definitions;
Not all.
<snip>With working characterisations, on the other hand, we can each have
our own, and perfectly properly so. Indeed it is often productive for there
to be different people with their own different working characterisations
working on the same thing. They and others can compare, contrast, build
from, adapt, modify, start out different from, these different working
characterisations.
And I think this is a much better, more useful way of discussing and arguing
about things. And, I think this is what we really have in design research,
and can see we have from the recent posts here, as well as many others posts
over the many years now of PhD-Design list.
I'm suggesting we've had 50 years of this mess and its time to pony up to
some definitions.
The necessary analyses have been done over the last 50 years or more. It
simply requires hard critical thinking instead of associative thinking.
Best regards,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
BA(Hons) PhD(UWA), PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|