 |
 |
Hi Ann, in response to your post, I suggest 'PhD issues' and 'down-to-earth issues relating research to practice' are not polar opposites, judging from the people I know who are practicing both and are also subscribers to this list. I think what happens is that we tend to try and essentialise and define what each of these is, which limits the possiblity for ideas to cross over and fertilise. And I have found that despite the run-ins in which I have been involved over the years, the 'nature' of this list is up for grabs, depending on how you construct meaning. Also, I have found that although there are often only a few very vocal people responsible for most of the textual production on the list, much of it gets read (or 'skimmed'), some taken up, and still some that crosses over into other arenas and discussions. In fact, the list, its membership and its dynamics formed the basis of a rich discussion in the empirical research of my PhD. And although the '1500 others' might be silent/lurking, that doesn't mean they are not listening, learning, taking up some of the ideas and discussing these in other arenas such as the design classroom/studio. If we split the list in two, what might constitute the membership of each and how do we demarcate between PhD and research-practice relationships? I know the list isn't perfect, but it is progress. kind regards, teena