i am glad, rosan,
that you resist the distinction between feeling and knowing, which you map
instantaneously into one of emotions and thinking.
the sharp distinction between emotions and thinking arose during the
renaissance. celebrating a certain rationality (logic and goal
achievement) came into conflict with the practices of everyday living and
forced a new category into being that lumped all the other
"irrationalities" into one category. now we struggle to understand this
category, distinguish among emotions, explain irrationalities as mental
disorders, etc.
why can't we think of feelings as the dawn of awareness of our practices,
the state of knowing that is not as clear as other ways, yet something we
cannot discount in going on with our lives. feelings are embodied not
abstract. they are felt not easily put in words.
inquiry has to do with putting forth a question (not complying with a
procedure). inquiry too starts with feelings of discomfort with what is,
of an uncertainty of where to go and how to respond to the present, of the
hope one could make a difference. these are all action or practice
oriented notions, which, i think, leads to design rather that research and
accurate representations.
i wonder if furthers your inquiry
klaus
At 07:51 AM 10/16/00 -0500, Rosan Chow wrote:
>Dear Klaus and all
>
>Sorry for this late reply to your very
>helpful insights.
>
>Your arguments 'feel' right to me, (I say 'feel'
>because I don't 'know' enough to make
>any sound judgement. But then again,
>I never fully understand why feeling and
>knowing has to be dichtomous).
>
>On the one hand, in the context of design 'research',
>I like your suggestion to use terms such as
>'inquiry' and 'reflection' instead of 'research'
>for the simple reason that 'research'
>is loaded with meanings that are
>cemented for centuries and hard to break.
>By changing the language, we can start
>a different discourse that may be
>more relevant and meaningful for design 'research'.
>
>On the other hand, I am stuggling with that by replacing
>'design research' with 'design inquiry', do we not
>reinforce the connotated 'power' differences that
>each term carries? The traditional discourse on 'research'
>will be maintained and any design research will be forever
>at a disadvantage and be judged from that framed perspective.
>
>I think that I maybe getting caught again in the hegemonic
>position between scientific research and design research,
>between rationality and creativity, between theoretical
>knowing and practical knowing, and knowing and feeling.
>
>Your comments and insights would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Sincerely yours
>Rosan
>
>Rosan Chow
>Graduate Student
>College of Design
>North Carolina State University
>
>
> > dear rosan,
> > i agree with what lubomir said about the distinction between science and
> > design. you are unsure of where research belongs in this distinction and i
> > think your intuition is right that it belongs to the paradigm of
> science. i
> > do not want to quote from previous papers of mine but let me repeat the
> > argument anyway:
> >
> > research is after all re-search: searching the record of past observations
> > again and again to discover patters that moreover can be generalized beyond
> > the data. this is a procedure to find continuities that are invariant,
> > ideally forever, that is also in the future which design is to change. i
> > would say that knowing design is orthogonal to the knowledge that research
> > can generate.
> >
> > there are other words we could use, inquiry and reflection, for example,
> > that may have other drawbacks but are not tied to discovering what existed
> > in the past and is invariant into a future.
> >
> > i think the kind of methodologies that are essential for design are
> >
> > (1) narrating possible futures
> > (2) searching the present for what is variable and can lead to desirable
> > futures. this includes examining ways to overcome prejudices, of violating
> > presumed laws of nature, finding temporary stabilities that hide the
> > leverage points for effective changes.
> > (3) justifying designs, a rhetoric whose criteria is not truth but the
> > recruiting of a sufficient number of stakeholders so that the design
> project
> > can be realized.
> > (4) collaborative designing. delegating design to others, designers and
> > non-designers alike. people talk of goals, values, ethics without
> realizing
> > that these are a property not of a designer's mind but of the network of
> > stakeholders in design.
> >
> > klaus
>
>
>– i
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson professor for
cybernetics, language, and communication
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104-6220
telephone: 215.898.7051 (office); 215.545.9356 (home)
fax: 215.898.2024 (office); 215.545.9357 (home)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/krippendorff/index.html
