 |
 |
Andrew, A third possibility here is the cross-over from design research to business and management is still too new for the policies to have caught up. Policy tends to trail practice. I'm don't mean to be pedantic, but this is a common problem these days as universities and their means of ranking and promotion are simply far behind the practices of academics as they seek to get ideas "out there" in new forms and for new audiences. Unfortunately, this neither answers your question nor offers much hope. It does, however, suggest an imperative for those in positions to help us all align policy to practice (by linking indexes, getting journals on lists, expanding the remits of journals, changing departmental criteria, etc.) cheers, derek _________________ Dr. Derek B. Miller Director The Policy Lab 321 Columbus Ave. Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House Boston, MA 02116 United States of America Phone +1 617 440 4409 Twitter @Policylabtweets Web www.thepolicylab.org On Saturday, April 9, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Andrew Jackson wrote: > Dear Ken > > I am interested in your discussion of the availability of significant > journals for the publication of design research. > > 18 months ago, after many years working in university design departments, I > started work in a business school. Soon after I arrived I was dismayed to > find that none of the journals that are appropriate outlets for my research > would be counted in my faculty's submission to the REF (the UK's next > research assessment exercise). Apparently this is because the REF panel for > business and management will only consider publications in journals that > have been included in the Association of Business Schools (ABS) approved > journal rankings. > > Whilst I don't object to this in principle, their ranking does not seem to > include a single journal devoted to design research. So, by implication, > either the ABS thinks that design is not part of business and management, or > that the work of design researchers is not of a high enough quality to be > considered in an assessment of business and management research? Both > assumptions are patently incorrect. > > As someone who has done work in this area, I wondered what your thoughts > were on this issue? > > Kind regards > > Andrew Jackson > Senior Lecturer in Advertising and Branding > Canterbury Christ Church University > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Friedman > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 5:03 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Building the body of knowledge > > Dear Andy, > > You asked with respect to my post: > > [1] > > KF: "The issue is not the problem of a false dichotomy between theory and > practice. It is rather that some folks imagine there to be an abstract > function in the world known as "theory" and another function known as > "practice" that has properties inconsistent with theory." > > AP: What's the difference between those statements? You seem to be > re-phrasing the same essential point. > > KF: Apologies for the ambiguity in language. This is, in one sense, a > restatement, but it amplifies the nature of the problem. > > There is no dichotomy between theory and practice. The reason for the false > or inaccurate notion of a dichotomy is that some people imagine there to be > an abstract function in the world known as "theory" and another function > known as "practice" that has properties inconsistent with theory. > > I was attempting to explain the reason that the dichotomy is false, pointing > to an article as a deeper explanation on this issue of how to understand the > relation between practice and theory in a more useful way. > > [2] > > KF: This and other recent threads address provocative points. I'd be more > comfortable if I had the sense that these conversations demonstrated a sense > of what we already know about these issues. But that brings us back to Don > Norman's (2010) comment on how often our papers and conversations fail to > address what is already known. > > AP: Well, that's probably true, but it's also a design problem. Journals and > conferences are terribly poor ways to share and build up a body of > knowledge. > > KF: I'd have to disagree with this in great part. We haven't yet managed > well in our field for exactly the reasons that Don Norman discusses. Among > our weak spots is using the robust system of current literature to > understand what is already known in the fields on which we draw in the > transdisciplinary work of design. > > Conferences work well when they are focused, solid, and robust. I won't go > into what works and what doesn't in design conferences other than to say > that our field has a handful of serious conferences and a great many > conferences that do not serve us well. The number of our journals is > growing, but we have only a few journals that serve the field as well as > they might. > > Nevertheless, it is inaccurate to say that " journals and conferences are > terribly poor ways to share and build up a body of knowledge." This is > hardly the case in such fields as physics or philosophy, nor in fields > linked to such professional practices as law, medicine, or engineering. The > issue is how we build and use journals and conferences: the quality of the > journals and conferences in a field, and the way we use them make them poor > or excellent. We have done poorly in the field of design, and the fact that > this is a young research field has much to do with it. > > Someone once asked Richard Feynman what single document he would save if > everything else in our libraries were to be destroyed. In the event of such > a catastrophe, he suggested that we could rebuild nearly the entirety of our > technological and scientific base provided that we managed to save the > complete run of the journal Philosophical Transactions. > > Now there is in your comment a subtle issue that I won't address here, and > that involves the differences between data, information, and knowledge. We > record and transmit information in journals and we share information in > conferences. Knowledge is a property of knowing agents, and for any of us to > "know" something, we must take information in, adapt it, apply it, and > master it, to engender mastery. The "knowledge of a field" is never > recorded, but it always inheres in those knowing persons that comprise the > field; what journals are very good at is sharing the descriptions of what we > learn and know, so that we can help others to expand their knowledge by > sharing information about what we know. > > Allowing for these distinctions between information and knowledge, journals > and conferences are marvelous mechanisms for fields whose members manage to > build them and use them in a robust way. We have not designed the majority > of our mechanisms as well as others have done in fields such as physics, > medicine, engineering, or informatics. > > When more of our journals rise to the level of Design Studies, International > Journal of Design, or Design Issues, it will be a different story. (I could > add another five or six journals to the list, but Gerda Gemser, Cees de > Bont, Paul Hekkert and I have just completed an article on that exact topic, > now under submission at a leading journal. I'll keep the list to myself > until we publish.) > > In a light illustration of a serious topic, I'll offer an example by Nobel > Laureate Paul Krugman (1998) on what economists and policy-makers could have > learned from a simply article. You can read it for yourself at Slate: > > http://www.slate.com/id/1937/ > > The point is this: someone with the skill and knowledge to read well and > draw from an interesting case can "know" a great deal. This is the case of a > modest empirical model, a "toy world," if you will -- and from it, a serious > economist knows how to develop a major conclusion. > > That's the value of a journal, a conference, or other such mechanisms in > building a body of knowledge. > > Yours, > > Ken > > -- > > Reference > > Krugman, Paul. 1998. "Baby-Sitting the Economy. The baby-sitting co-op that > went bust teaches us something that could save the world." Slate. Friday, > August 14, 1998. > > -- > > Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Dean, Faculty of Design | > Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | > [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | > www.swinburne.edu.au/design > > Conference Co-Chair: Doctoral Education in Design - Practice, Knowledge, > Vision | Hong Kong Polytechnic University | May 22-25, 2011 | > www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/DocEduDesign2011 > > Fluxus and the Essential Questions of Life | University of Chicago Press | > http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226033594 >