Dear
Terence,
Thank
you for including me in the list of people who contributed to the last
correspondence. I cannot speak for others but I, for one, was not suggesting in
any way possible that history is not important to think of the relation between
design thinking and design thinking research. I was suggesting that there might
be other ways of approaching the question that do not necessarily start from a
particular version of history and associated concept clarification stemming
from that version (“social representation” one of the ideas). That’s likely
matter for a paper, more than a design list serv exchange. I wouldn't like to use one for the other.
I
was also suggesting that maybe it was worth reflecting on the thread itself and
the way we were communicating in it, as it might mirror wider aspects of the correspondence played inside the list serv. When inviting people to look at the
thread, I suggested that part of its length was explained by the different
versions of history played in the correspondence of this community. Your brief
exchange with Charles seems to point in that direction as well.
So, perhaps we
are still playing within the same language game that has fuelled that thread
and that sometimes seems to fuel discussions in here. Nothing wrong with that,
I suppose (or even with calling it a ‘language game’, as far as I see it). I
just wonder what can be found outside that language game. I wonder about that and other matters by using words, and if I'm allowed to add, unapologetically so.
Best
Regards,
Pedro
PhD Anthropologist, Independent Ethnographic Researcher
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|