Dear all:
Since as Terry acknowledged (several posts ago): He uses the term
'perspective' not 'research' deliberately... Here is mine, though perhaps I
move away a little from design (in its more evident way), to raise it:
The last Klaus post, made me think about the article: FQS 4(2), Art. 25,
(2003) "*Franz Breuer & Wolff-Michael Roth: Subjectivity and Reflexivity
in the Social Sciences: Epistemic Windows and Methodical Consequences*"
that can be donwloaded (in its German, English and Spanish versions) from
here http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/18 or
just the English one from here
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/698/1511this
paper could be useful to bring new nuances to the ongoing conversation
on "Human-centred and universe-centred perspectives in discussions about
design",
I highlight of the mentioned paper a couple of passages:
First one: "Objective knowledge is the construction of an epistemological
subject that regards itself as the absolute because and as long as it does
not know anything about itself" (authors quoting RAUSCHENBACH 1996, p.21).
Or in German. "Objektive Erkenntnis ist die Konstruktion eines Subjekts,
das sich selbst verabsolutiert, weil und solange es nichts von sich weiß"
(RAUSCHENBACH 1996, S.21).
Or in Spanish: "El conocimiento objetivo representa la construcción de un
sujeto que se absolutiza a si mismo porque y mientras no sabe nada de si
mismo" (RAUSCHENBACH 1996, p.21).
I hope don't be taken as absolute affirmations, but as invitations to read
(If you wish, of course) all the article I bring to the scene in order to
every participant here can judge if is useful to him or herself. Besides,
the authors of the article I am quoting (like me) don't advocate, I think,
by deny any objectivity at all, but for using the acknowledgment of a
minimum of subjectivity in all epistemologic trade (without the God's
trick, of seeing all from nowhere) as a way to apply, for instance: *Situatedd
Knowledges (*see Donna Haraway's: * "Situated Knowledges: The Science
Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective"* in
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Haraway,%20Situated%20Knowledges.pdf<http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/%7Eewa/Haraway,%20Situated%20Knowledges.pdf>)
and *Strong Objectivity *(see Sandra Harding's:* "Rethinking Standpoint
Epistemology: What Is "Strong Objectivity"?"* in
https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/courses/484%20materials/harding-standpoint-strong-objectivity.pdf<https://www.msu.edu/%7Epennock5/courses/484%20materials/harding-standpoint-strong-objectivity.pdf>)
Second and (to me) more important:
We take the position that it makes little sense to talk about knowledge
without also talking about the epistemic subject: the knower and the known
form a dialectic unit. Any bit of knowledge, however purified in the
process of reporting it to a wider audience, bears the marks of its
epistemic subject. Knowledge is therefore inherently subjective, inherently
structured by the subjectivity of the researcher. All we have to do is look
underneath the neat surface of "facts," reopen the black boxes that are
used to hide the contingencies of knowledge production and the subjective
nature reappears (authors quoting LATOUR 1987).
Or a smaller fragment in German:
"Erkenntnis ohne erkennendes Subjekt" erscheint uns nicht als eine für
sozialwissenschaftliche Praxis sinnvolle Annahme. Und: Jede Erkenntnis –
auch die wissenschaftliche – trägt unweigerlich Merkmale des erkennenden
Subjekts in sich, ist insofern unaufhebbar subjektiv – subjektgebunden,
subjekthaft.
Or also a short one in Spanish:
"el conocimiento sin un sujeto que conoce" no es una premisa razonable de
la praxis socio-científica, pues todo conocimiento – incluyendo el
científico – es, ineludiblemente, portador de características del sujeto
que conoce y, por tanto, irrevocable e intrínsecamente subjetivo.
Sadly, this version in Spanish has not its English counterpart, then I
must, with all my limitations, retranslate it to English to make my point,
like this:
"knowledge without knowing subject" is not a reasonable premise of
socio-scientific praxis, because all knowledge - including scientific - is
inescapably carrier of knower's features and therefore irrevocable and
intrinsically subjective.
A very long post in order to state the reasons by which my position is
closer to the one of Klaus.
I hope this can generate any comments, or could make sense for some of you.
Anyway is the echo of your thoughts and teachings in me.
Best wishes,
Alfredo
MSc. *Alfredo Gutiérrez Borrero *
Coordinador Proyecto de Grado
tel: (571) 2427030 ext 1739
*http://www.utadeo.edu.co/programas/pregrados/diseno_industri/index.php
<http://www.utadeo.edu.co/programas/pregrados/diseno_industri/index.php> *
*Profesor Asociado Programa de Diseño Industrial*
*Facultad de Artes y Diseño*
*Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano*
*Bogotá - Colombia, S.A.*
*Lecturer Grade B (Britain equivalent) Instructor (USA equivalent) of
Industrial Design *
*School of Arts and Design Jorge Tadeo Lozano UniversityBogotá - Colombia,
S.A.*
* Grupo de Investigación categoría B"Diseño, Pensamiento,
Creación" COL0080293 *
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Klaus Krippendorff <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> well,
> terry,
> thanks for your effort to respond to ken and my posts, but unfortunately
> timing is not the difference.
>
> to me, the issue is whether
> (1) you acknowledge that science is a social practice, that theories are
> stated in the discourse of scientists, and that facts are constructed
> or
> (2) you are convinced that the scientific method would enable you to step
> out of your body, look at what you do from a god's eye view (recognize or
> analyses your own flaws of perception and cognition), and observe the world
> without being an observer.
>
> i see that you claim (2), which denigrates the human ability to construct
> their world for their own purposes. this is manifest in your words:
> "for klaus, ... (in) human-centred research ... the reality of creating
> knowledge and theories is ... created by people and their communication
> with all the confusions, biases, politics and manipulations and errors and
> oddities that that brings.
>
> you believe you could apply a universalist perspective and recognize or
> avoid "all the confusions, biases, politics and manipulations and errors
> and oddities".
> whether before, during or after a research undertaking, i suggest you
> can't escape your body even once. the scientific method is not magic.
>
> you are evidently able to describe your construction of the universe
> without reference to who describes it (in the form of abstract-objectivist
> propositions -- from the god's eye perspective) you can also claim that you
> could observe that universe without being an observer. to me, the latter is
> an illusion. an epistemologically untenable claim.
>
> klaus
>
>
>
> -n. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, 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]
> t they are (incontrovertibly) exist, independent of its
> multiple ways of describing it. this has little to do with opinions on
> which
> you can agree or not, but with epistemological confusions.
>
> be 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
