 |
 |
Dear Terry, My apologies if I misinterpreted the reason you posted the review. You wrote earlier that you had tested 40 years of design theory. I misunderstood this as an example. I’ve probably said everything useful that I have to say, so I will go into lurk mode for a while. Yours, Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/ Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia —snip— > You are making things up. > > I've written this before about you making up things that don't exist in a discourse in order to make your side of the argument look better. > > In this case, in the post I wrote I agreed with you that it takes a lot of pages to review the design research literature. Nothing else. I then gave some evidence that reviewing the design literature can require a lot of pages by posting the reviews that I'd done in 1996. Their purpose was to show only that it takes a lot of pages even to do an overview of the literature. > > (As an aside, in response to your comment about superficiality, these reviews had a specific purpose . They provided a broad overview for the first time of the integration of social, environmental, ethical and technical factors in designing as a human process; and the spread of meanings allocated to the terms 'design' and 'design process' . Naturally, they were superficial rather than deeply analytical of the theories:. There purpose was to provide an overview - in time sequence.) > > Nowhere in my email did I claim that they were proof of the mess in design. > > That you made up. > > You do that a lot. In that post I'd already drawn attention to you making up false information in your earlier email comments on the 2000 paper on the Meta-Analysis tool. > > You are not alone in this. I suggest we need more generally to improve the precision of thinking and analysis. There is a widespread tradition of imprecise thinking in the design theory community. Carlos often drew attention to the problem across discussions , and I'd welcome having him back on this list not least for his awareness of loose thinking. I'd be grateful for more precise thinking from you. > > On a different tack and as a contrast, Chuck has been brave enough to put forward several of his papers. Yippee! I'm looking forward to reading them. > > Many years ago, a motorcycling journalist writing on rear suspension behaviour commented they would trust the quality of design of a shaft drive more than a chain drive. Why? Because designing a shaft drive for a motorcycle is technically more difficult so it requires the designers to think carefully and that echoes through into all aspects of the design. > > Chuck has been designing design theories at the difficult end of things - in the realm of human creative cognition and drawing on current research from cognitive neuroscience. They will be fun to read. —snip— ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------