Oh, I know - reminds me of this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-O26gzYvTZIC&pg=PT66&lpg=PT62&ots=etSh6YwGhl&focus=viewport&dq=friedman+fables+net+results&output=html_text
___________
hastily thumbed while out & about
> On Mar 15, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Terry,
>
> Research produces new knowledge. Clinical research produces new knowledge for a professional practitioner working on an individual case. Knowledge may be new for a physician treating a patient or a lawyer arguing a case without constituting new knowledge for the larger disciplines of medicine or law.
>
> In 2013, one list member of the list compared your style of argument with a Jesuitical wrangle. This current argument is wrangling, but it is not Jesuitical. Jesuits hold to the premises of an argument. They wrangle from the premises through thick and thin. You hold to the conclusions. When your premises do not yield the conclusion you wish to reach, you shift to new premises.
>
> In my last post, I stated that I can’t see going further in this thread without something new or useful. You have added something new: a complaint that the Frascati Manual and the ERA Indicators are too limited. You chose the documents. I did not. I posted the documents to which you referred (OECD 2003, ARC 2008).
>
> You also added something useful. The additional documents you propose are useful. Nevertheless, they do not support the conclusions you wish to reach. As you have often done in past debates, you have added URL references to the debate without showing any relation between the contents of these documents and your claims. If these documents (Moed 2011, Elsevier 2013) support your claims, please show us precisely where in either text the authors define “clinical research” or “experimental development” in a way that supports your claims. On my reading, these documents do not support your claims. In fact, Moed mentions neither clinical research nor experimental development — he introduces a series of articles, none of which seems to define either clinical research or experimental development. You will find the definitions I use in Buchanan (2001: 17-19) or Friedman (2000: 17-22; 2003: 509-513).
>
> All I can see from the latest .pdf documents is that you disagree with wide usage of the term “clinical research.” You have not shown that the common usage is incorrect or problematic.
>
> List subscribers may judge for themselves which argument is reasonable and which is mere wrangling.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>
> —
>
> References
>
> Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are available through March 26th at URL: https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
>
> Items 3 and 6 are available permanently at the given URLs.
>
> 1) Australian Research Council. 2008. ERA Indicator Descriptors (19 December 2008).
>
> 2) Buchanan, Richard. 2001. “Design Research and the New Learning.” Design Issues, Volume 17, Number 4, Autumn 2001, pp. 3-23.
>
> 3) Elsevier. 2013. International Comparative Performance of the UK. A report prepared by Elsevier for the
> UK’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). URL:
> http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/171711/Elsevier_BIS_2013_web_Dec2013-2.pdf
>
> 4) Friedman, Ken. 2000. “Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into Practice.” In IDATER 2000: International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Development. P. H. Roberts and E. W. L. Norman, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University, 5-32.
>
> 5) Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–522. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
>
> 6) Moed, Henk. 2011. “Research Assessment 101: An introduction.” Research Trends. No. 23. URL:
> http://www.researchtrends.com/issue23-may-2011/research-assessment-101-an-introduction/
>
> 7) OECD. 2003. Frascati Manual. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
>
> —
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|