Dear Terence,
I’m curious about the source of the list you provided.
Thanks.
M
Milena Radzikowska, MDes, PhD
Professor of Information Design
Faculty of Business and Communication Studies
Mount Royal University
She/Her
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.milenaradzikowska.com
“I guess this is what we’re doing now...”
I LIVE AND WORK on the ancestral and traditional Indigenous territories of the Blackfoot and the people of the Treaty 7 region in Southern Alberta, which includes the Siksika, the Piikani, the Kainai, the Tsuu T’ina and the Stoney Nakoda First Nations. The City of Calgary is also home to the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III.
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact the sender immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
> On Aug 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Associative thinking is the ability to join the dots, ANY dots, between any
> ideas.
>
> Associative thinking is one of the core valuable skills of any designer.
>
> IT is one of the WORST problems of research, especially design research.
>
> In essence, research needs precision. Good research requires tightly,
> exactly and precisely defined ideas, theories, analysis, argument,
> processes etc.
>
> Associative thinking leads to the opposite.
>
> An example is the uselessness of the phrase, 'Everything is design'.
>
> If everything is design, then the word 'design' defines nothing, is useless
> and may as well be dropped.
>
> I suggest it is important for researchers and those making theory to be very
> clear about the exact differences between important words in research.
>
> We have lots of such words in the research area that are only useful if they
> mean very different things.
>
> Some examples for which it is crucially important to know and exactly make
> use of the differences include:
>
> Principle
> Original
> Axiom
> Heuristic
> Habit
> Paradigm
> Example
> Archetype
> Rule of thumb
> Framework
> Approximation
> Evaluation
> Theory
> Exploration
> Test
> Problem
> Self-evident
> Theoretical function
> Model
> Decision guide
> Thought pattern
> Illusion
> Delusion
> Representation
> Learning
> Observation
> Design
> Instance
> Class
> Object
> Element
> Component
> Systemic model
> Solving
> Variable path
> Concept
> Idea
> Thought
> Memory
> Perception
> Feeling
> Affect
> Mental image
> Behaviour
> Analysis
> Evaluation
> Critique
> Assessment
>
> In research, especially design research, it seems to be helpful if we use
> these and similar terms exactly and carefully, rather than using
> associative thinking to 'stretch' the meanings of words.
>
> Best regards,
> Terence
> ==
> Dr Terence Love,
> School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Western Australia
> CEO, Design Out Crime and CPTED Centre
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
> ==
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|