Hello Ken,

Thanks for taking time to write, though I believe you are missing the point of the discussion… and some accuracy of fact.

First, the facts:

> When I read your post today, I was puzzled. I recall the journal Multi — we had some correspondence about it. I just checked the archive to find your initial CFP. I also checked for responses. I saw no complaint about Multi on the list, and there was no debate about it. Certainly no one demanded that you should not post. 


I do remember (and still have) the original correspondence we had. I never said, nor did I imply that anyone complained about the post on the list. I said, "My very first [which should now be corrected to: second] one (inviting members to contribute to a new academic journal that I was struggling to get off the ground) was met with an IMMEDIATE shut down by one of the founding members of the group (and a very ‘big’ name in design history) who demanded that I be removed from the list.” That is true. The person in question (who is still living and still active) did indeed reach out to David and ask that I be removed from the list. I know who it is, because I still have his original e-mail that was sent to a 26 year-old me that blasted me for “infringing on” his “intellectual discourse” in a “callous manner” by sending “garbage to a list that is meant for serious scholars.” He then went on ask  “please remove me from your e-mail list and do not contact me in the future.” 

I’d say that’s pretty much an immediate shut down — more so because he took the time to write to me directly. I never said it was on the list.

> If anyone wrote to you privately demanding that you should not post to the list, you did not need to pay attention. CFPs and new journal announcements may interest people, or not, but it has always been the case that every list member is free to post and no one has the right to tell a list member not to post.


That’s nice to hear now, but it’s 20 years too late, honestly. No one stepped in then, and no one had much of a kind word of support, which I can now say was somewhat damaging to the project. When a young researcher asks for help, I believe, someone should help.  I have gone on to have a reasonably successful career in the design world, but I can’t help but wonder how many other young, nervous researchers were shut down by this same man, while he went on to have endless conversations and long-winded replies to issues that were of direct interest to him (and many of which he “re-interpreted” to publish as his own ideas at a later date)? It’s a shame, because while some folks on this list can wax poetic about the most banal details related to the most myopic issues in design, others, it seems have less time to write and more time to actually engage the profession. I wonder, is the aim of the list truly an inclusive conversation, or is it a privy conversation between some that others are permitted overhear? Two decades of experience have demonstrated the latter, it may take me another two decades to believe it may be the former. Or, it may take a shift in values among those that participate to more actively—and productively—engage others on the list.

> Could this inappropriate response have come when you posted to another list even though you recall it in connection with PhD-Design? 

No. It was this group. (I’m happy to share the name with you off list: Until he sent that note, I thought of him as a “big” name — and I used his books and many readings in my classes. After that, I considered him instead to be a “big” jerk and have, for two decades shared the details this experience with my students. Now that I’m a more senior scholar, I feel less apprehensive to speak out about it. His behavior is the direct opposite of that which I would expect from a senior researcher, and now, despite his continued celebrated success, I find it very difficult to respect his work because I know that he’s an arrogant, abusive, ignorant fool.)

Second, I agree, it’s not possible, practical, or desirable to acknowledge every post to the group. It’s human nature to gravitate toward those that are of personal interest. Perhaps, as more senior scholars, we should be a bit more mindful of the next generation of scholars emerging in our field (for many of which, this list may be a first point of contact) and support their endeavors and projects… even when they are on the periphery of our fields. I believe in design writ broad. My career has encompassed graphic design, product design, environmental graphic design, interior design, and urban planning. (Hence the name “Multi” for the journal — they’re all connected) I’m currently the chair of an architecture department, but some of the most amazing research that can be applied to the practice architecture started in another cognate area. I believe it’s our responsibility on as senior members of this list to be inclusive, not exclusive. 

Coincidentally, you mention David Sless in your reply. Oddly, when I wrote my initial reply to Ami et.al. this morning, David crossed my mind. To my memory, he has been one of only two people on this group (over two decades!!) to ever reach out to me with a kind or supportive word. David, I believe, emulates the type supportive mentorship that many emerging scholars require… perhaps even more so now than twenty years ago. I thought to mention his kindness, but I did not. Though I now acknowledge it, which underscores the point of Ami's response: some people are nice, and some people are not. I hope that the outcome of this is that some of my more senior colleagues on this list take a moment to reflect on how we communicate in this forum. It should be inclusive, kind, supportive, and positive… even when we’re being critical.

Thanks for taking the time to write back, Ken, it is good to hear from you.

All best,

Alex Bitterman




> On Mar 23, 2020, at 14:53, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alex,
> 
> When I read your post today, I was puzzled. I recall the journal Multi — we had some correspondence about it. I just checked the archive to find your initial CFP. I also checked for responses. I saw no complaint about Multi on the list, and there was no debate about it. Certainly no one demanded that you should not post. 
> 
> Your name first appeared on the list in a post you did not yourself send. David Sless posted a conference note on IIID that mentions your paper "Deconstructing the measure of disability: toward an inclusive metric for the evaluation of systems of visual communications and infographics.”
> 
> Your first post appeared on August 25, 2010. It was a CFP for the material culture area of the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association. On August 28, you posted a call for Multi.
> 
> I searched the list archive to see who might have posted “an IMMEDIATE shut down by one of the founding members of the group (and a very ‘big’ name in design history) who demanded that I be removed from the list.”
> 
> I can’t find anything, certainly not by one of the big names in design history. To my recollection, none of the founders of the list was a design historian. The founding group for this list included studio people — notably list owner David Durling. There were a few people engaged in design theory and certainly people responsible for doctoral programs. There were no design historians.
> 
> In your post today, you wrote: “He then went to the lengths to send me an e-mail off list to chastise me and warned me that I should never post such ‘spam’ to the group again despite the fact that he posted similar messages frequently.”
> 
> If anyone wrote to you privately demanding that you should not post to the list, you did not need to pay attention. CFPs and new journal announcements may interest people, or not, but it has always been the case that every list member is free to post and no one has the right to tell a list member not to post.
> 
> Could this inappropriate response have come when you posted to another list even though you recall it in connection with PhD-Design? 
> 
> Your post today reflects feelings that many people experience, myself among them. People feel they aren’t welcome because others do not respond to their posts or comments. As I see it, this is a consequence of the fact that people tend to be deeply engaged in the issues that interest them. That is often a consequence of the fact that scholars and researchers tend to be specialists. Even those who have broader interest than most have a limited range.
> 
> Everyone feels neglected or overlooked some of the time, and some feel more overlooked than not. At least that’s my experience. When you consider the large scale of a list with over 3,000 members, posting can sometimes feel like throwing a stone into a bottomless sea. You don’t even see the ripples on the surface.
> 
> One example is your recent article. I thought it was interesting, but it is so far removed from my field of activity that I looked at it, thought about it briefly, and moved on to the next thing. As you saw in replies to your post, others found it interesting and helpful for their students and colleagues, so they passed it on. No one thought to write you about it until your post today. I must look at a couple dozens books and articles every day that deserve attention. As it is with most folks, I only write to the author when there seems to be a specific reason. 
> 
> One recent example of a reason to write about an article was a journal article on design thinking that carried some notable flaws and gaps. Another was a mistake in a brilliant book by one of my favourite authors. There was an error in the description of the scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi. I wrote to suggest a change for the next edition. Normally, I don’t write, even when I think a book or article is terrific.
> 
> When you post an article to a list like this, I can fairly well say that many people who read it would have had no reason to respond. Your article on “Rainbow diaspora: the emerging renaissance of gay neighbourhoods” would certainly interest a fair percentage of subscribers to a list such as PhD-Design. My guess would be that we have a significant percentage of LGBT list members. Strong interest in the article wouldn’t necessarily translate into significant list response. If you had put the article on your Academia page, the Academia system would have been able to tell you how many online readers you received and the number of full downloads. The Town Planning Review web site probably doesn’t do that.
> 
> At any rate, your article, and your recent post were certainly welcome to many, myself among them. That said, I want to say that I wouldn’t have replied to the note about the article. Even though I read it, it is outside my main area of interest. 
> 
> Today I’m replying to your post because you raised issues that also concern me.
> 
> Warm wishes,
> 
> Ken 
> 
> Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
> 
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Eminent Scholar | College of Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning | University of Cincinnati ||| Email  [log in to unmask] | Academia https://tongji.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------