at this point, maybe we should be less concerned with rigorous definitions
because definitions are intended to be definitive, become unquestionable,
and "true" by agreement or authority. definitions are usually upheld by
institutional hierarchies, schools of thought or gurus, all of which are
afraid of anarchism precisely because this would dethrone them. some
people are comfortable in well organized structures, i can't say that for
myself, and i dare say that design is inherently geared to question if not
bypass conventions. i like design to be open, eclectic, multi-disciplinary,
... the more perspectives we are capable of applying to a situation the
better. the more methods can be debated, challenged, and replaced by
better ones, the more likely does their outcome satisfy the needs of
participants (rather than the abstract goal of logical consistency or a
hierarchy of domination).
i like to think of methods as aiming at something, increasing the success
of reaching what their users happen to aim at, and succeeding to get there
arguably and repeatedly. methodo-logic should therefore be considered a
criterion that is subject to examination in dialogue or conversation among
those seeking their objectives. and dialogue or conversation of where one
wants to go and how to get there should be subservient to getting there.
let there be methodological anarchism! let there be many ways of creating
data (not just collecting them as if they existed to be picked up)! let
there be an acknowledgement of multiple voices (and a second-order
understanding of these).
At 10:07 AM 10/2/00 -0400, Lubomir S. Popov wrote:
>Good definition. The reason of my post is that I am concerned with
>methodological anarchism and particularly with the phenomena when data
>collected within the framework of one paradigm are interpreted from the
>position of another paradigm. I would like to warn that addopting the
>notion of "eclectism" is dangerous. In an eclectic compilation, there will
>be many problems associated with quality of data and interpretation stance
>because these issues are treated differently in different paradigms.
>Otherwise, the rest of the definition can hardly be disputed.
>At 11:15 PM 10/1/2000 -0700, Paul M. Gutherson wrote:
> >Hi all
> >I was recently at a one day conference on inter-disciplinary research
> >where a group of geographers and environmental researchers gave a
> >definition of interdisciplinary research (which incidentally they
> >arrived at after brainstorming sessions). Their definition was this:
> >"It is eclectic and integrative. It uses different disciplines to solve
> >complex problems. It is holistic, fluid and adaptable."
> >What an excellent definition of design research!!
> >P.M. Gutherson
> >[log in to unmask]
> >Tel: 01782 294669
> > __
> > Advanced Research Institute / \ | | )
> > School of Art & Design ____ \ __ /
> > Staffordshire University / \ | \ |
> > Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK _/ _\ _| _\ _|
> > tel +44(0)1782 294602 fax +44(0)1782 294873 [log in to unmask]