List:
I too was saddened by the exchanges between Terry and several others and applaud Don’s suggestion offered in what I took to be the spirit of one idea not a complete solution.
However, I’m afraid too-quick adoption of Don’s idea by itself will lead us to believe we have solved the issue of problematic exchanges and I'm not sure it does.
Several respondents took issue not only with Terry’s ideas but with Terry’s rhetorical form. Limiting responses to two replies will limit the number of exchanges but does not address their form.
A proven way to improve the form of communication is to “let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” This is admittedly and elaboration on “be nice” and sounds overly parental but it does provide some proven advice to govern form.
All intelligent people skilled in rhetoric have the ability to switch topics and subtly redefine words to their rhetorical advantage. I suggest that rhetorical tactics such as switching topics be replaced by first listening well and making an honest attempt to understand the contributor’s point before advancing to rebuttal of that specific point. Tactically this may sound like, “I understand you to mean A.” before going on to say “But I think A1.” Understand the point, don’t change the point. It’s respectful of the original idea and person presenting it. This is one application of the principle “Be quick to hear.”
As Don suggested, it may be more productive to listen well off-line. I have had several people take the extra time do this with me in the past and it has improved the quality of the exchange and strengthened rather than weakened our relationship. This is one application of the principle “Slow to speak.” Slow down. Check with the individual as an individual rather than in public and listen well before correcting them publically.
Finally, I suggest that as we write our response that we picture ourselves sitting beside our adversary and write a response that is respectful in that context, particularly if we strongly or emotionally disagree with them. I suggest three things that have helped me respond when I am emotionally engaged: first be careful to stick to the specific issue at hand, second avoid using adjectives of excess such as “always… never… forever…” because they usually are not true (never say never), and third refrain from assigning motives unless there has been some personal clarification of motives (on-list or in off-list discussion). The truth is that without discussion we simply do not know another individual’s motives. This is an application of the principle of being “slow to anger” or perhaps better, slow to express anger.
My motive here is to suggest some specific principles (in addition to Don's two response guideline) to improve the form of our discourse. I do not have in mind specific individuals or specific features of the recent exchange that I want to correct. For that reason some of my suggestions above may not apply directly to the recent exchanges but in my experience these suggestions do help promote good disagreement.
Mike Zender
University of Cincinnati
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|