Francois & Susan,
On 29 January 2017 at 15:21, Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I might regret posting this, because I do tend to avoid confrontational
> situations, and this could end up being one. At any rate, when I read the
> following, as a woman and a rhetor, I saw some problems that maybe I can
> help with.
>
Susan, I sincerely hope you do not regret posting that message because I
think it's excellent: measured, dispassionate, and meaningful. I find I
cannot add anything to it. You've said what I might have hoped to say, but
better than I could have said it. Thank you.
Francois too did an excellent job of capturing what I (and I hope many
other list-members) think.
I would like to build on Francois's post in one small way: with respect to
the notion of consensus.
In my experience, there are 2 kinds of consensus building activities:
qualitative and quantitative (or, perhaps, non-scientific and scientific).
In qualitative approaches, ethical debating is important. Deep, respectful
conversation and discussion is necessary. It is, largely, a collaborative
exercise. In quantitative approaches, consensus is typically reached
largely through collaboration to establish goals and common terminology and
concepts, but then one can proceed individually. Science, when done well,
is a good example of this. To establish the existence, for instance, of the
Higgs Boson, thousands of scientists worked *alone* or in relatively small
groups, each taking a very different route/path such that the final
conclusion was the same - that the Higgs very probably exists (the odds
against are currently between 1 in 26 million and 1 in 506 million). Yes -
I understand that the Higgs doesn't apply to design, design research etc. I
raised it only as an indisputable example of how quantitative methods work.
It's important to note the different approaches to consensus building and
where they apply. Design is one of those areas where some questions can be
subjected to quantitative approaches while others can be subjected to
qualitative approaches. And some can be subjected to both. It's not a
question of which approach is "better." They each have their place; both
can be used and can be abused.
It seems to me to be quite important that we take the time to distinguish
between the types of consensus, because the methods used in each type are
different. And if one approaches a situation expecting one kind of
consensus but finding another - well, that can lead to a great deal of
confusion and friction between the parties involved.
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
ORCID: 0000-0002-3689-5112 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3689-5112>
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|