 |
 |
well, lubomir, i guess to keep on proposing things without hoping that the world changes accordingly prevents you from feeling a failure and that is a good thing. as i have suggested before, design is making proposals that enroll others into their project. a good design is one that gets a lot of people involved, cooperating and make change happen there is no need to remove stakeholders from the definition - as in simon's - and then having to find an ethic for design. human-centered design, including participatory design is inherently ethical and does not need armchair designers to think of one back to your proposal. i am glad you see having too much power as one problem for implementing your proposal. the other is an over inflated sense of self-importance. when i was a student tomas maldonado had the idea that designers should be at the center of corporations. other proposed that designers should be the team leaders in development groups, the only ones capable of integrating the contributions by other team members. in my experiences this rarely happens. to me, good team players is quite an acceptable job description. i think some modesty of the kind you displayed would make cooperation regarding or enrollment in one's proposal more likely klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lubomir S. Popov Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:31 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Interdisciplinary research Dear Klaus, My proposal is not hopeless because I have never hoped to implement it and I have never intended to do that. I also wrote clearly that I am not in that business. The proposal is a methodological piece, a sketch, a direction. I have worked for ten years with philosophers of science and have learned something from them. In their circles, these ideas are pretty common. That is their bread and butter. However, even they do not talk about changing science. They talk about how science is possible. It is a world of ideas. In that world ideas are more important than change. In the long run, every change starts with an idea. The interdisciplinary movement is gaining momentum. Right now there are such talks on at least two other discussion lists. Interdisciplinarity is the next stage. Its role is to restructure the disciplinary landscape in science and to sow the ideas for a new organization. Then we can talk about other forms of organization in more detail. Of course, our intellectual exercises can start today and we can keep the fire going until the right time comes. Everything is with its time. There is Zeitgeist. Right now people have hard time moving from the disciplinary organization of science created during the Modernity to a different organization that is conceived in the framework of Postmodernity. What I propose is a postmodern model. The model may not look feasible, but this is not a problem. It would have been a problem if I have too much power and start reorganizing science here and now. I am not crazy to imagine that nor I imagine reorganizing an university. I have enough experience. Besides, contemporary universities are tuition collection businesses. Who cares about organization of science. I reviewed the papers on the links you send me. I have always respected your contributions as a researcher in several fields. It is inspiring to see your own name in the history of statistics. I believe that every student in statistics have used your "Krippendorff's alpha" and keeps you in high respect. I see your publications and your work on content analysis. It is awesome. You have a distinguished path in science and I am glad to communicate with people like you. Kind regards, Lubomir At 11:05 PM 8/12/2007, Klaus Krippendorff wrote: >lubomir, > >i am glad i didn't offend you by saying that your outsider's proposal >to change what scientists do is an almost hopeless proposal. at the >same time, it is always worth trying. all changes start somewhere and >if you find a large audience, you may plant a seed. i have planted >many seeds for changes a few have grown. that is life. > >i am attaching a link to a headline that just appeared a week ago: >http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-conway16may16,0,3767872.stor >y?col >l=la-promo-opinion >it's funny if you know the public sphere in the u.s. but in case you >do not know who bill o'reilly is, he is a television news show host on >the rightist fox television station. should you want to know the story >behind it, you can click on >http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-mitchell9may09,0,3143633.sto >ry and http://mediamatters.org/items/200705110001 -- just for fun > >design takes many forms. one of the things that i have been doing is >designing research tools. > >klaus > >-----Original Message----- >From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and >related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >Of Lubomir S. Popov >Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:36 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Interdisciplinary research > >Hi Klaus, > >I agree with you. I am aware that the proposal is not feasible at this >point of time. It needs further development before we think about any >kind of implementation. I am also aware that this proposal can not be >engineered easily. When the time is right, all things will come together by themselves. >Paradigms are not created intentionally. >They are discovered after they emerge and become evident. After they >take their own life in science. Philosophers of science describe them >and codify them. I agree with you about feasibility. > >Wishing you productive work, > >Lubomir > > > >At 05:08 PM 8/12/2007, Klaus Krippendorff wrote: > >lubomir, > > > >you made a proposal that is likely too big for anyone to handle. > >while i agree with some of your points, even if you were the > >president of a university or of the united states, you couldn't > >realize such a proposal because you are dealing first of all with > >people, second with their chosen identities, and third with long > >traditions that live on beyond the life-span of individuals, you > >included. as admirable as a reconceptualization of science is, there > >have been many proposals like that. i cannot think of anyone that succeeded. > > > >this is an example of a design "problem" that cannot be "solved" by > >the sheer will and intention of any one designer, as it involves the > >lives of stakeholders who need to be brought on board and they are > >not likely to follow anyone but want to realize their own stake in > >any reorganization. on a small scale i have seen this in germany > >after the > >1968 student revolution where all kinds of new faculties were > >created, most of which later went back to order disciplines, maybe > >with a small twist. the u.s. is actually more open to try new > >things, but as i said, should you become president of a reputable > >university you would have a hell of a time putting your proposal to > >work > > > >my preference would be to work within one's community, here of > >designers who you might influence by example and by creating benefits > >for them from adopting your proposal. should you succeed among > >friends, others may model you. > > > >by the way, reorganizing science around solving problem situation > >sounds pretty much like reorganizing science around design, making > >design thinking into a super discipline. > > > >this suggests another word: superdisciplinary > > > >klaus > > > >p.s., i have to be nonresponsive for a while. i need to do something > >else > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and > >related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > >Behalf Of Lubomir S. Popov > >Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 4:04 PM > >To: [log in to unmask] > >Subject: Re: Interdisciplinary research > > > >Dear Klaus, > > > >You bounce back some interesting questions: > >-- what does it mean for outsiders to transcend them (disciplinary > >boundaries)? > >do we have the power to tell medical professionals that we don't care > >about medicine? > >-- (regarding new organization of inquiry for design) the problem the > >way i see it is in accepting the boundaries of other disciplines in > >how we define ourselves. > > > >Answering these questions will take me in a different direction than > >the one I have already charted. These questions emerge again in a > >disciplinary environment. I am suggesting a new kind of organization > >of science. What exactly, it is far beyond my reach. There should be > >philosophers of science and technology that should bother about that > >more >than I do. > > > >In brief, I would mention that one approach is to organize science > >not by disciplines and then search for a way to stick them, but to > >organize science around problem situations. Because these problem > >situations are billions, the only feasible attempt in that direction > >is to create a methodological organization of science. Science as a > >methodology for understanding problem situations rather than as a knowledge bank. > >Currently disciplines are knowledge banks. > >Methodology is second to that. Research is about knowledge creation. > > > >Traditional disciplinary science examines objects with the purpose to > >understand them and to develop information about them. It is object > >oriented. Because the objects have many aspects, it takes several > >lifetimes to get into them. People simplify their work by focusing on > >one aspect and developing a discipline about it. That is why we now > >discuss the problem with sticking together the pieces of knowledge > >developed in different disciplines. And all the talk about > >inter/multi/trans disciplinarity is a consequence of this > >aspect-focused organization of science and the problems that arise > >from >this particularization. > > > >By the way, the particularization emerges because of the goals of > >science to produce knowledge about the object -- the object for > >itself and by itself, regardless any problem situation and practical > >needs of the >human kind. > >Academicians are content when they produce new knowledge for itself > >and by itself. Disciplinary departmentalization is helping them to > >manage the sea of issues by specializing on particular aspect or issue. > > > >(Simplified) At the other end are engineers who need knowledge for > >problem solving. They do not care about knowledge by itself and for > >itself. They are interested in relevant knowledge, even if they have > >to cut through several disciplines. In most cases that is necessary. > >Then engineers start looking for ways to make this cut in their > >lifetime, ways to put together this knowledge. In this situation they > >experience the problem with departmentalization of science and start > >searching for a new organization. The problem is that they are not > >paid for that and very soon they have to leave this problem and focus > >on the engineering projects they have. > > > >There is a disconnect between the communities who experience the > >problem > >(engineers) and the communities who are expected to solve such a > >problem (philosophers/methodologists). There is a disconnect in their > >professional problems and goals due to the reward structures that are > >currently supported by society. > > > >A new organization of science might be developed around the study of > >problem situations. The problem situation becomes the object of study. > >So, one pure object might create or become a part of many different > >problem situations depending on changes in its environment and the >teleology of the humankind. > > > >I expect that the changes will start from within. However, the > >changes will be spurred by pressure from outside. The pressure will > >be not to change the disciplinary organization of science, but to > >provide better information for engineering solutions. Then in the "basic-applied-R&D" > >continuum certain restructuring processes will start and will > >continue until a new organization is found. I don't expect that > >anyone can command medical researchers to change their disciplinary boundaries. > >But the pressure (including rewards) on them to operate more > >efficiently and their own search for relevant knowledge will force > >them to invent a new organization of science. > > > >At this stage I propose a problem situation-related organization of >science. > >If we start working on this proposal, we will see that it will lead > >us away from disciplinary thinking. Of course, we would not be able > >to cut our ties with disciplinary thinking until we develop the new > >organizational structures. Here is an interesting problem: > >How to distance ourselves from disciplinary thinking and still use it > >as a stepping stone until we develop a new type of thinking. > > > >The problem-oriented science will change its focus from ontology > >towards methodology. Epistemology will gain bigger importance than > >before because of the primary role of methodology. In the long run we > >are looking for problem-solvers, engineers, rather than conventional > >scientists. We can call these people methodologists. They will be > >trained in methods rather than in content. (I do not exclude content > >in full. It is always necessary.) > > > >You can imagine the enormity of such change and the multitude of > >problems that have to be resolved. It is a nice challenge for > >philosophers and methodologists. But, until their reward structure is > >pushing them towards traditional problems in their fields, I doubt > >whether they will focus on this task. It is a vicious cycle that has > >to be broken in some way. I believe in external, societal pressure. > >However, when this pressure will accumulate critical force, I can not > >predict. Until then, there will be thousands of discussions by > >disciplinary scientists who are already experiencing the problem, but > >do not have the tools to tackle it. I see this as a personal tragedy. > >I have been waiting all my life for the solution of particular > >problems that will enable me to resolve my focal problems. However, > >because of slow movement in the scientific community, I have to slow > >down to almost a halt and to look for other problems that are > >feasible under current circumstances. > > > >Kind regards, > > > >Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. > > > >At 11:36 PM 8/11/2007, Klaus Krippendorff wrote: > > >good post, > > >lubomir, > > >but since it is the disciplines that define their discourse and its > > >boundary, what does it mean for outsiders to transcend them? do we > > >have the power to tell medical professionals that we don't care > > >about >medicine? > > >you say we need to build a new organization of inquiry for design. > > >i agree, and as you know i have written precisely about that. the > > >problem the way i see it is in accepting the boundaries of other > > >disciplines in how we define ourselves. for example, as soon as > > >you say design is not engineering, not medicine, not mathematics, > > >you tie your identity the discursive boundaries that other > > >disciplines draw for themselves. my approach is to clarify design > > >from what designers would accept as doing and show it is such a > > >light that it is respected as >such by others. > > >klaus > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and > > >related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > > >Behalf Of Lubomir S. Popov > > >Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:42 PM > > >To: [log in to unmask] > > >Subject: Interdisciplinary research > > > > > >Just some musing ... > > > > > >In the last ten days we had several posts oriented or tangent to > > >the interdisciplinary nature of design research. Most of the posts > > >looked at interdisciplinarity as a way to bridge gaps. This is a > > >typical disciplinary position -- bridging or overlapping. It comes > > >from the disciplinary organization of science and conceptualizes > > >this problem from a disciplinary perspective. In all cases, such > > >approach is better than working within strict disciplinary boundaries. > > >However, the disciplinary nature of the approach pushes down its ceiling. > > > > > >The issue is how to transcend the disciplinary organization of > > >science and build a new organization of inquiry for design. This is > > >not only a problem for the design professions, but for all > > >professions as well, or at least for most of the professions > > >engaged with some kind of engineering. I mention this in order to > > >delineate the enormity of such endeavor. The problem is not > > >resolved in any of the professions. Some professions have limited > > >success, others none at >all. > > > > > >There are a number of approaches in preliminary stages, ranging > > >from organizing individual agents in a team to inventing new methodologies. > > >In the 1970's, there were several attempts to resolve this problem, > > >but I haven't heard yet about a viable solution. One of the > > >proposals was very abstract, in its initial stage. It suggested to > > >build a conceptual configuration of the object of study and to use > > >this configuration for organizing the research effort. It talked > > >about aspects/facets of the object of study, but stopped short of > > >talking in >disciplinary terms. > > >(The concept of interdisciplinary research is still an outgrowth of > > >disciplinary > > >thinking.) Talking in non-disciplinary terms was the biggest > > >success of this approach. > > >However, I haven't seen it operationalized to the point that it can > > >be > >used. > > > > > >Kind regards, > > > > > >Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.