 |
 |
Dear Andrew and Amanda, Andrew Jackson wrote, “Good heaven’s Ken, this is supposed to be a PhD discussion group. Regardless of the merits of this particular exchange, nobody's going to post anything, especially PhD students, if they risk being comprehensively shot down in flames when they venture an opinion!” Amanda made strong claims in rejecting Kyle Bagwell’s article on the basis of an abstract and stating that Jurgen seemed to be asking for the kinds of analysis she rejected in Bagwell. In responding to a strong, harsh critique, I wrote a straightforward post. It may have been blunt, but I argued the case: I criticized Amanda’s claims, and the method she used in reaching them. Amanda is a senior lecturer. She has her PhD and I assume she is tutoring doctoral students. When people we look to for tutorial advice offer these kinds of unsubstantiated opinion, others may respond. Even so, I did not shoot Amanda down in flames. I offered a sharp rebuttal, the kind of thing one expects in debates among professors. This is a discussion list about doctoral education in design, and it is a research list. There is a difference between venturing a speculative idea that one specifically states IS speculative, and offering an opinion seemingly based on fact when the facts are incorrect. Read the salient part of Amanda’s post again. She criticized Bagwell’s analysis in harsh terms and stated that Jurgen seemed to be asking for the kind of analysis she criticized in Bagwell. Amanda, your rejoinder to Jurgen is not accurate. In your earlier post, you did not state that Bagwell’s article is worthwhile. Your post stated that the “whole point” of economic analyses such as Bagwell’s article is to “maintain their ‘claims to truth’ by treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they ‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’.” You stated that the goal of this process this is to “make anything into a marketable commodity,” and then you stated that this is what Jurgen seemed to be asking for. Perhaps your chose your words poorly, but you did write it: “I think that’s the whole point about economic analyses like Bagwell’s (though I admit I haven’t read that one). They seem to maintain their ‘claims to truth’ by treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they ‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’. This process is necessary to make anything into a marketable commodity. Which is what Jurgen seemed to be asking for.” If you meant to state that Bagwell’s chapter is worthwhile, your words did not do so. Amanda, Andrew, life at university is sometimes about getting things clear. This has not been the tradition at art and design schools, but it is how universities work. If I have characterized Amanda’s post incorrectly, please explain the error. To suggest that Bagwell maintains “‘claims to truth’ by treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they ‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’,” is an inflammatory accusation. So is the accusation that this is done to “make anything into a marketable commodity.” That is what Amanda’s post said Jurgen seemed to be asking for. If Amanda meant to say that Bagwell’s article is excellent, she did not do so. Neither did she thank Jurgen for asking an important question. Whatever the intentions behind the post, I responded to what appeared on this list. Yours, Ken Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia