Dear Ken and Terry,
I can see the issues from both sides - if the argument being made by
Murphy were a bridge I wouldnąt take my Porsche across it; on the other
hand, I find some of the metaphors useful to stimulate ideas.
That is, for me, the maths is no where near as important as the images -
if the metaphor bridge gets me to some other place that I find useful,
then I am cool.
Which gets me back to my earlier comments and the quote that I lifted from
the Murphy talk. I find a useful taxonomy in what he talks about - useful
from the perspective of inspecting my own practice - not in order to prove
I am eminent or dull, not to claim I am more about generation of ideas
than dissemination of ideas. Useful in that I can become aware of how much
time I give to certain kinds of pursuits over certain other kinds of
pursuits. For example, I love generating ideas and I possibly would do
that most of the time if I didnąt have other obligations.But, I also
understand how attempts to disseminate my ideas feed back into my ideas -
as I have to elaborate, I am required to do kinds of testing that I might
not bother with while generating ideas.
All this is a pretty normal kind of realisation but given a set of terms
seems to help me qualify and confirm my professional practice.
Cheers
Keith
Ps - I never quite knew what to do with attempts to square things as if
there is an automatic magic in doing that?
On 6/11/2013 9:40 pm, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>While it seems to me that Terry is mistaken in his reading of Peter
>Murphy's inaugural lecture, I don't want to debate this. I offered some
>comments to Terry off-list, but I am unwilling to post an argument here
>without substantiating my views.
>
>The one issue that should be clear is that Peter Murphy is not claiming
>causal relationships. He is observing and describing empirical facts,
>offering some interpretations of those facts, and questioning the way we
>approach research funding and higher education. Murphy builds a careful
>argument and substantiates his argument with carefully referenced data. I
>would be far more inclined to consider and debate Terry's analyses if he
>offered greater substantiation for his views. Terry and I have debated
>that issue before. In my view, Terry demands greater rigour in the
>arguments of those whom he disputes than he offers in his own analysis
>and disagreement. Murphy may be wrong, but he provides evidence for his
>assertions. This allows each reader to decide on the quality of Murphy's
>data and arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|