 |
 |
Dear All, Ken Friedman has written a post in way that is quite typical of him, I suppose. I have time on my hands and would like to learn from him. So I did an analysis of his post (in inserted comments): Here is my conclusion on how to write the Friedman's way: First, avoid the issue, then misread and misrepresent Rosan’s posts, and then question her intention and ability, discredit her, and end by concluding that it is not necessary to address the real questions she raised. Wow!! All this is done without really debating the issue. Cool! I wonder who will read this except Ken Friedman! I am also disappointed that there has not been fruitful debates. But David (Sless)'s link to his website on codesign is useful and I have learned much from Andrew's analysis. If we have addressed seriously their arguments, it would have been completely different. Best, Rosan **<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1112&L=PHD-DESIGN&T=0&O=D&P=37290> Dear Gunnar, Andrew, Keith, and Rosan,[cr1] <#_msocom_1> Thanks for your replies and comments on GK van Patter.[cr2] <#_msocom_2> You may not like his style of writing,[cr3] <#_msocom_3> but GK does not ask anyone to accept ideas without examining the issues involved. His willingness to enter the debate on design education goes back many years. In GK’s own interview series with leaders from design and design research, he invited us to challenge him. GK has long been active reading and thinking on this list and with other audiences of critical thinkers. Here at Swinburne, GK presented his and Elizabeth Pastor’s work in a seminar and he participated in an international conference on design thinking. He interacts respectfully and responsibly with everyone, offering clear, sharp arguments and responding thoughtfully to the issues as hand. He does not request unquestioning support.[cr4] <#_msocom_4> While I occasionally disagree with GK’s approach, my disagreements arise from the fact that he speaks from the field. He and Elizabeth are in the arena. This has several consequences. One is that they speak their experience rather than present evidence as we might. [cr5]<#_msocom_5> At university, we are obliged to present evidence as well as debating it. In business, you don’t present your proprietary knowledge to an environment filled with possible competitors. Another is that they sometimes abstract what they know from highly confidential projects. Those who work for business or government must sometimes sign Non-Disclosure Agreements that legally bind them to disclose no information about a project or even, sometimes, about the client. Explaining methods sometimes becomes non-specific. GK’s reluctance to share every aspect of his work is also an artifact of a highly competitive industrial setting. Having been in business, I understand the need for care. Companies such as Humantific, Ideo, MakeTools, or Nielsen Norman, share information more freely than most. I’m delighted that they do.[cr6] <#_msocom_6> As Gunnar Swanson notes, those “who are employed by universities have an advantage in that it is economically more convenient for us to be open with information and arguments.” We are paid to publish, and we expose our ideas to public debate. Even when we are not as open or accessible as we should be, we’re paid on the presumption that we will be open or accessible. [cr7] <#_msocom_7> As I see it, Andrew is mistaken in his judgment of Rosan Chow’s post.[cr8]<#_msocom_8> Andrew argues that Rosan’s intention was to challenge GK’s ideas,[cr9]<#_msocom_9> but Rosan did not challenge GK’s ideas. Instead, she raised a specious concern about GK’s person. [cr10] <#_msocom_10> IF Humantific were a cult, she said, she MIGHT be worried over the influence that this dangerous cult COULD exert on professors and – THROUGH them – on the students they teach. To support this specious argument,[cr11] <#_msocom_11> Rosan provided a link to an article by Robert Jay Lifton, Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Law. Lifton’s work on cults and thought control is well known, but Lifton’s work does not apply to Rosan’s post. Silly is the least controversial statement one can make about an argument this flawed.[cr12] <#_msocom_12> This morning, Rosan posted to say, “OK, I confess that I don’t really believe (and I have never claimed or charged) that Humantific is a harmful cult ...”[cr13] <#_msocom_13> In a reply to Susana la Luz, Rosan now states that she doesn’t “really believe (and [she] have never claimed or charged) that Humantific is a harmful cult.” Why, then, did Rosan cite an article by a major researcher on cult phenomena in her post on Humantific? [cr14]<#_msocom_14> While Rosan did not claim that Humantific is a cult, she did use innuendo, claiming that she is troubled “to think that Humantific MIGHT be a cult” Rosan did accuse Humantific of a “cultic-language-infested post which one might see as a form of coercive persuasion.” Rosan repeats this accusation today, writing “I will still characterize van Patter’s post as coercive persuasion and against academic values.”[cr15]<#_msocom_15> This is as silly as her earlier use of innuendo.[cr16] <#_msocom_16> Rosan returned yet again to comment on Keith’s point – contrasting what she describes as the “the cult/ure of academy and business.” Rosan contrasted a graduation speech by Steve Jobs with GK van Patter’s post, playing on the sense of Keith’s notes on the word cult while once again taking a whack at GK. [cr17] <#_msocom_17> I suppose it is fair enough. When we step up in a public forum as GK has done, we make ourselves available to criticism from the foolish as well as from the wise.[cr18]<#_msocom_18> What I don’t understand is Rosan’s endless concern with academic standards.[cr19]<#_msocom_19> She works for a business firm rather than a university.[cr20] <#_msocom_20> She occasionally seems to criticize professors simply because we are professors,[cr21]<#_msocom_21> and she occasionally appears to argue that designers from a background in art and design schools may adduce arguments of a different nature than arguments based on conceptual rigor, attention to methods, and the other issues that concern us at research-intensive universities.[cr22]<#_msocom_22> I may be missing something, of course, as there are differences between my view of research and the kinds of research that folks pursue at the former art schools now labeled artistic universities.[cr23] <#_msocom_23> Given the amount of work that GK does with those of us who work at research-intensive universities, there is some evidence that GK manages to communicate across the cultures.[cr24] <#_msocom_24> I will address this topic specifically in a post on the relations between universities, business, and industry. Andrew may wish to criticize GK and Humantific,[cr25] <#_msocom_25> but Rosan never actually criticizes GK’s ideas. [cr26] <#_msocom_26> Instead, she makes accusations through innuendo, and now an attack on what she labels “coercive persuasion and against academic values.” I’m still a bit puzzled on just how it is that GK is able to coerce anyone, having no mechanism of control similar to the mechanisms available to cult leaders in Lifton’s analysis. Elsewhere, Lifton specifies eight mechanisms of thought control and coercive persuasion. GK uses none of these.[cr27] <#_msocom_27> Rosan does not apply “standards of critical thought” [cr28] <#_msocom_28> comparable to the comments I made on Nova, Common Ground, or Lambert Academic Press, using reasoned argument from evidence that is available to everyone. I did not worry about what these publishers might do or what could happen if they did. I stated what they do. Returning to Andrew’s concern for cultic language and skeptical examination, I’ll return in to discuss Triz, Kaizen, and Six Sigma in another post. Keith Russell notes the relation of the word cult to such words as culture and cultivate. That is where the discussion of Triz, Kaizen, and Six Sigma belong. Speaking of cults, I am worried about Keith. Keith admits that he is an adherent of Socrates, a well-known corrupter of youth convicted of capital crimes in Athens and put to death. Socrates was most likely a member of the cult of Pythagoras, a shadowy mathematical philosopher whose name bears striking resemblance to such recent cultists as Rastafari and Rasputin. Plato records that Socrates skipped out on debts, and he died owing a cock to Asclepius. While I am no Asclepius, I often lay awake at night troubled by the thought that Keith may be corrupting the youth of Newcastle when he should instead be cultivating the good, the beautiful, and the true. Should the good citizens of Newcastle force Keith to drink hemlock for his cultic activities, he may depart the planet owing me the cock I loaned him for a cultic sacrifice, not to mention the dozen eggs I should receive as interest on the loan.[cr29] <#_msocom_29> Warm wishes, Ken Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | *[log in to unmask]*<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?LOGON=A2%3Dind1112%26L%3DPHD-DESIGN%26T%3D0%26O%3DD%26P%3D37290>| Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design ------------------------------ [cr1] <#_msoanchor_1>Address people. [cr2] <#_msoanchor_2>Being polite. [cr3] <#_msoanchor_3>Reframe the issue of the discussion as a matter of preference of style… as something unimportant and trivial. (But the issue was not about style at all, it was about a way of writing/languaging that discourages critical thinking). [cr4] <#_msoanchor_4>Defend and provide ‘evidences’ but avoid speaking about the post that caused the difficulty. Once again reframe the discussion and avoid addressing the issue of languaging that discourages critical thinking. [cr5] <#_msoanchor_5>Making qualification, kind of acknowledging why there were issues. [cr6] <#_msoanchor_6>Justifying why exception must be made even though the issue might be an issue. [cr7] <#_msoanchor_7>Draw on others to support comment 6. [cr8] <#_msoanchor_8>Dismiss opponent. [cr9] <#_msoanchor_9>Misreading of Andrew’s post. Andrew said that Rosan’s fundamental intention/suggestion to use the same standard applied to Journals also to organizations and groups was not silly to him personally. Once again avoiding the important questions raised. [cr10] <#_msoanchor_10> Misreading. Rosan raised the concern about the organization. But person and organization is related. So OK. [cr11] <#_msoanchor_11>Wrong characterization. It was not an ARGUMENT. It was a REPORT on a thought that came to Rosan’s mind. [cr12] <#_msoanchor_12>Citing out of context. The link was not a support to any argument. The link was a response to Gunnar’s question about what ‘actual cultic practices’ mean. Rosan used Lifton’s definition of ‘cult’. [cr13] <#_msoanchor_13>Typo mistakes? [cr14] <#_msoanchor_14>Faulty inference based on misreading. [cr15] <#_msoanchor_15>Yes, this is the central critique. [cr16] <#_msoanchor_16>Dismiss the central critiques while equating its importance to innuendo. Using the silliness of the innuendo to distract attention to the main questions. (OK, Rosan should learn from this.)Her hER [cr17] <#_msoanchor_17>Caricaturize Rosan as a person with a heavy hand. (Rosan raised question on the problematic post not on the person). Avoid again and again the questions Rosan raised. [cr18] <#_msoanchor_18>Dismiss Rosan as foolish and avoid addressing the questions she raised about choosing commercial partners for teaching and research. [cr19] <#_msoanchor_19>Question Rosan’s intention, raising doubt on her contribution. Dirty tricks. [cr20] <#_msoanchor_20>False information. [cr21] <#_msoanchor_21>Accuse her with no evidence. [cr22] <#_msoanchor_22>Another accusation with no evidence. All is to used discredit Rosan and avoid addressing the question. [cr23] <#_msoanchor_23>Change topic. Nice try. [cr24] <#_msoanchor_24>Not sure why the sentence is written. [cr25] <#_msoanchor_25>Reframe again the issue. Andrew only criticized the post from GK and he said it clearly. [cr26] <#_msoanchor_26>Avoiding the real criticisms Rosan has raised. [cr27] <#_msoanchor_27>Never really address the criticism on the problematic post. But end with a conclusion. (Andrew’s analysis on van Patter’s post can be used to argue against this). [cr28] <#_msoanchor_28>First, avoid the issue, then misread and misrepresent Rosan’s posts, and then question her intention and ability, discredit her, and end by concluding that it is not necessary to address the real questions she raised. Wow!! All this is done without really debating the issue. Cool! [cr29] <#_msoanchor_29>Try to charm the readers.