Dear all,
I share many of Tim's frustrations, as I'm sure other list inhabitants have noticed with my occasional outbursts. Following these I often retreat into lurking. But I do not leave, and I would beg Tim and others not to do so.
This list is important for us as a research and practice community, in fostering the next generation of researchers and practitioners, many of whom lurk on this list.
Through it these new researchers have an opportunity to exchange ideas and information, occasionally it also providing leads for new directions and valuable insights. It is also an opportunity to witness the quality of debate and scholarship in an older generation—sometimes not a pretty sight—but, and most importantly, passionate. It is that passion for design that keeps us all debating.
Like almost any community I know, including my own family, debates can be heated and at time acrimonious, often with logic defying arguments, They can also be supportive and nurturing. The measure of their importance to us is that we stay, whether to fight, nurture, or be nurtured.
I think it's worth hanging in there.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/blog1
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
On 14/03/2013, at 7:46 PM, Tim Smithers wrote:
> What kind of discussion list is this?
>
> It's recently been asserted here that ...
>
> "We have a big, pretty messy literature about design
> activities that is pretty much broad brush and guesswork"
>
> The "we" here, I take it, means us; more than 2000 design
> research interested people we can, I think, reasonably
> suppose.
>
> However, if this really is a design research discussion list,
> assertions like this one would not be posted here. It's an
> assertion made without any pointers to the literature referred
> to, and made with no kind of support or justification or
> argumentation for how this "big" literature can fairly be
> described as mostly "broad brush" and "guesswork."
>
> This kind of assertion has no place in a constructive
> discussion of designing and design research, and it is mildly
> insulting to those authors who have contributed to the
> literature on design activities.
>
> This kind of assertion, and others like it, are Ego Trip
> posts. Is this what PhD-Design list is here for?
>
> I don't think so, but, as many of you know, it takes a great
> deal of time and effort to respond in a constructive way to
> this kind of post.
>
> Regrettably, very much so, I'm not in a situation in which I
> can dedicate this kind of time and effort to this, and I don't
> think I'm alone in this.
>
> However, nor can I easily just watch this kind of thing go by,
> leaving it's mark on the list, suggesting that this kind of
> post is a good example of good design research discussion.
>
> So, this will be my last PhD-Design post, and I won't be here
> to see what follows. I've decided to drop off the list, in
> frustration, not in protest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|