Dear colleagues,
On the 17th of August I posted the result of a poll of the most important issues confronting the PHD-Design list currently. Sixty-six voters participated in the poll. Several list members responded that they were not convinced that the result was acceptable since the poll did not meet commonly shared standards of reasonableness. Some list members encouraged me to revise the list of issues and try a second poll.
After taking the subsequent discussions into account, I have revised the list of issues and created a second poll.
The poll asks you to rank order—from very important to not at all important—what you consider to be the issues confronting the PHD-Design list currently?
Please cast your votes at the following URL:
https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_ba504af73ef2b4ab&akey=74b030fe9b3b580b
I will post the results next week.
————
I considered three objections is revising the first poll.
(R1) The first poll result was not informative since the quantity of votes cast is too few to fairly represent all PhD-Design list members’ preferences.
(R2) The first poll result was not meaningful since the wording of some of the issues was unclear.
(R3) The first poll result was not useful since survey sampling is not the appropriate method to gain understanding of the issues.
R1 would be refuted if the quantity of votes cast is 340 or greater since then there is 95% probability that sample accurately reflects the attitudes of the population with a margin of error of 5%.
R2 is more difficult to refute since accusations of bias due to the meaning of the wording cannot be fully prevented. On the 24th of August I posted a revised the list of issues and requested list members’ feedback. The resulting thread contained an exchange of 24 messages between 8 list members. I have taken this feedback into account in devising the wording the final list of issues.
R3 doubts that survey sampling is the appropriate method to answer the poll question. A second poll would do little to address this objection. A potential counter argument might be that the public discussion that the revised list of issues generated has furthered understanding of the list issues within the PhD-Design list community.
I created the second poll with the following revised list of issues.
Marginalization of women’s views in discussions
Intolerance of diverse cultural views in discussions
Exclusion of diverse epistemological views in discussions
Harmful effects of careless reasoning on the quality of argumentation
Harmful effects of narrow interests on the quality of argumentation
Prejudice toward topics of most interest to those list members of high academic rank
Insufficient discussion of topics relevant to PhD studies in particular
Excessive posting of irrelevant information
Please cast your votes at the following URL:
https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_ba504af73ef2b4ab&akey=74b030fe9b3b580b
I will post the results next week.
Best wishes,
Luke
Luke Feast, Ph.D. | Senior Lecturer | Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies | Auckland University of Technology | New Zealand | Email [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|