 |
 |
Dear Ken, and list. Thanks for your attempts to keep some clarity around this topic. To that end, I'd like to point out that you've taken my comment about interrogation of design canons out of context. You wrote -snip- To speak of "years of endnoted interrogation of design canons" misses the point of literacy. -snip- However I wasn't referring to literacy, literature reviews or even plumbing here. I was suggesting that old publishing paradigms are not the only ways that disciplinary 'authority' is established these days, and that maybe we could consider using new modes of social networking, but in ways that are still scholarly and rigorous. In this, I was replying to your earlier point about Mendeley being a social networking site and hence an inappropriate platform for assembling a reading list. Best wishes, Amanda Dr Amanda Bill Institute of Design for Industry and Environment College of Creative Arts Massey University, Wellington New Zealand +64 4 8015799 ex 62555 email: [log in to unmask] On 1/07/11 11:42 AM, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: [Reply to David Sless. Long Post.] Dear David, Thanks for your good post on the critical literature review. For the most part I agree, and I want to make the nature of my agreement clear. I was writing about the critical literature review, and not "the plumbing." This thread has concatenated a number of unlike threads. Along the way, a few points and their authors may have been confused. These issues are important to me, and I want to keep my views clear. My response is not a disagreement with your concepts, but a clarification to reiterate my earlier posts. I am not concerned with plumbing, but with central issues in the growth of our field. [Ken Friedman wrote] -snip- Content counts, not the storage system or the software. ... To speak of "years of endnoted interrogation of design canons" misses the point of literacy. Literacy entails knowing and using the useful literature. But this is not simply a matter of a canon in the sense of an historical, philosophical, or literary canon. In any field of research connected linked with an applied profession such as medicine, law, or design, literacy also entails understanding and applying empirical, conceptual, and theoretical research. The issue is not a matter of interrogating the canon. The issue involves interrogating the human and physical world, using theoretical, conceptual, and empirical literature as tools in the process of interrogation.