 |
 |
David is clearly between a rock and a hard place! Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't(Reference Jan Coker's response). With over 300 abstracts for about 100 conference slots, David is in an excellent position to evaluate the whole phenomenon of conferences about design research. What is their purpose? Should they only select papers reviewed against traditional research criteria, or should they also support papers of a more exploratory nature? Seen in the round, how can a conference such as 'Common Ground' best support the further development of design research? Possibly David's experience in designing the 'Common Ground' conference warrants a paper to that conference - distributed more widely in the design community - which is reflective on the role of the conference in fostering design research? Such could not only do much to assuage the sadness that some 200 potential contributors will feel, but could also suggest a framework for the organisation of future design research conferences. I believe this is especially important at a time when some at least believe the very foundations of what we understand as design are under challenge. Regards, John Broadbent UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ===================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. =====================================================================