Dear All,

I would like to join Klaus in questioning the place  of
rigorous definitions.  The
discussion over the emails in the last few days  has made very plain to me
how issues such as design rhetoric knowledge cannot be defined without
understanding  the context in which the defitions are
to be used.  That in this sense defintions are not aims in themselves
but only tools in the process. For example, understanding WHY Rosan sought
to define design  knowledge made the question (and responces) much
clearer. Perhaps this is one of the differces between "scientific"
thinking and "design thinking" in that the objectives of scientific
thought have had longer to be formalized (or at least seem to be better
formalized when looked at from the outside.) Hopefully when we are clearer
about the contexts "design knowledge" can be applied  we will find
defintions easier...


Shana Tova (Happy New Year)

Avigail
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avigail Sachs

[log in to unmask]

Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning        4 Avishai St.
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology         Jerusalem,93149    
Haifa, 32000 ISRAEL                              ISRAEL
         
(home) +972-4-824-8722                                  
(work) +972-4-837-1190 ext. 5
(fax)  +972-4-837-1269    


On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

> 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).
> 
> klaus
> 
> 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.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Lubomir Popov
> >
> >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!!
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >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]
> > >
> > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%