In the last two weeks this starts looking as a real discussion list. Before
it was just like a diplomatic exchange of courtesies.

I don't tolerate rudeness, but I would say we have not experienced such
phenomena on the list. As far as no one calls names, arguments are not
offensive. And limited outbursts of emotions are natural. Scientists are
human too.

Lubomir Popov




At 09:39 PM 5/11/2000 +0200, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Alec, Beryl, Mike,
>
>Thanks for three good posts.
>
>(1)
>
>Alec, I appreciate your courteous note.
>
>Saw in appended note to Conall that you are concerned about hostility
>toward you on my part. If there seems to have been any, please forgive me.
>There was none intended.
>
>Yesterday only, as I wrote, I was angry. Your note cleared things up. Thank
>you.
>
>(2)
>
>Beryl's challenge is worth while. I've been working on an answer as I wrote
>off-list to her. I hope others are doing the same.
>
>Beryl notes that she has received a lot of good off-list comment from
>people who have not posted. This is unfortunate. Rich dialogue builds a
>field.
>
>I've received over the month of the debate some 30 or 40 posts from people
>with views for and against my own. I've urged most of them to post. Only a
>few have done so. Can't say why. While some people have been concerned that
>I'd challenge them vigorously on opposing views, this wouldn't explain the
>failure of those who agree with me to post supporting but somewhat
>divergent views.
>
>One issue Beryl raised is truly significant.
>
>Beryl has noticed the difficulty of finding proper site-based information
>on doctoral programs in design.
>
>To have this information available would be important.
>
>At different times over the past year, I've gone surfing to different
>European university design programs and design schools that I know offer
>doctoral programs. The information is difficult to find. Sometimes it
>doesn't exist at all. This often extends to the offerings at master's level
>and one sometimes finds little concrete information on programs or faculty
>at all.
>
>It's hard to find anything comparable to the rich data available on good US
>university sites.
>
>The kinds of data I have sought include: general department information,
>faculty bibliographies and biographies, PhD program requirements, PhD
>admission requirements, PhD thesis requirements, lists of completed thesis
>projects, overview of graduated students, roster of current research
>projects, list of activities. Sometimes it is even hard to find such basics
>as tuition costs or who to contact.
>
>In some cases, I have discovered this information isn't even available on
>paper!
>
>I recognize that it takes time to get this up on the Web. Six years ago, I
>took part in the group that persuaded my school to launch its Web site.
>Four years ago, I proposed posting certain kinds of faculty project and
>research information on our Web site. At different times, groups of our
>faculty have worked to develop information standards, site facilities and
>other resources, and some of them are up and running. It's an ongoing
>process. Over the past four years, we have had two Web redesigns, a
>relatively unsuccessful department level web project to get departments on
>the web, and several other initiatives. Some initiatives and web services
>have worked well. Others haven't.
>
>Now we have a new vice president of communications and a new web editor. We
>are just finally beginning to move toward a comprehensive site with all
>data available for all faculty members, all departments, all programs and
>more.
>
>We know we need to do it and we're working at it. There are recognized
>standards of information that university-level schools and schools with
>research mater's degrees and doctoral programs should meet. Implicit in
>Beryl's suggestion is the notion that design schools with doctoral programs
>must do the same.
>
>During this debate, I have had occasion to visit h web sites of some
>American universities with doctoral programs in design. Two that stand out
>are Harvard University School of Design and Illinois Institute of
>Technology. For other reasons, I've looked at the School of Information at
>University of California at Berkeley, and at some of the master's and
>undergraduate programs at Carnegie Mellon, at Curtin University in
>Australia, and at BC Tech.
>
>In working on the programs of my own school, I am noting the difference in
>levels of information and quality of information at all levels and making
>notes. If I were in a design school with a doctoral program, I'd be doing
>the same.
>
>One important difference that the design schools face is the difference in
>university level information. In the US and Canada, much of this
>information is found at the university level. In Europe, it seems often to
>be left to departments. When the departments don't provide it, it doesn't
>exist.
>
>This is an issue for consideration.
>
>(3)
>
>Mike's post made good sense to me.
>
>I was not offering a criticism of all British programs. Mike knows my
>appreciation for his work and for the work of many of our colleagues.
>
>Nevertheless, I do see the forces within the British university system that
>can lead to doctoral programs and graduate studies working as a cash cow.
>Beyond this, some of my British colleagues complain that they are under
>explicit pressure by some of their own faculty members to reduce doctoral
>standards. One reason specifically involves meeting the market demand
>rather than lose students to other schools.
>
>I'm not going to document the specific cases. First, much of what I have
>learned, I have learned in confidence. Second, that way lies libel action.
>Although truth is complete defense against libel, I do not need the trouble.
>
>The way to remove any suspicion that a school is running a cash cow
>involves good public information, well structured sites and good catalogues
>giving program criteria, admission standards, faculty information, and the
>like.
>
>This is just the kind of thing Beryl couldn't find. I've had the same
>problem. So have several British doctoral supervisors trying to assemble
>information for benchmarking their own programs.
>
>One more issue would genuinely clear the air. That is publication of
>theses. In the United States, this has not involved publishing a book and
>trying to circulate it. It has involved the University Microfilms
>International system of publishing on demand via microform and
>microform-to-xerox reprints.
>
>These publishing facilities are backed up and made even more useful by DAI,
>Dissertation Abstracts International. DAI in print and now on the web makes
>it possible to search he database of all doctoral dissertations by title,
>subject, and keyword, and it enhances the flow of scholarly information.
>
>This serves many important purposes. It makes possible the exchange of
>information and the growth of knowledge within and across fields. It also
>makes it possible for anyone to learn about the work, research, and
>graduates of any other school.
>
>If we are to develop as a field, it's time that we began taking seriously
>the challenge of scholarly communication, of sharing resources and results.
>This particularly involves taking seriously the standard of an original
>contribution to the field of knowledge. A project must be available to the
>field to contribute to the field.
>
>Having been a publisher in a past life, I have been looking into finding
>some way to publish and distribute these kinds of projects, and finding a
>way to record and abstract the information. I haven't succeeded yet. It's a
>matter of bringing together the resources of a major publisher and a market
>of active and interested users.
>
>One of the most intriguing business objections to such a program is the
>fact that European publishers see no evidence at this time that designers,
>design research scholars and design schools would be willing to do the kind
>of work required to take part in such a scheme. American publishers aren't
>interested for another reason. The American schools already do it under
>standard university-wide regulations, and this means the market need is
>met.
>
>I did something not unlike this once before in another field, so I will
>keep at it a while. A strong commitment from the schools themselves to
>organize and make available their own research in some form would go a long
>way. (University level design schools in nations with a lively doctoral
>monograph tradition already do this, but they aren't yet good about sharing
>information or knowledge on the monographs they publish.)
>
>I'll close with two brief notes. For my part, all comments are welcomed,
>brief, or long. I've never argued against the brief. I've openly stated the
>importance of a robust, well-developed argument in what was called as a
>formal debate.
>
>Some of the best questions and comments here have been short.
>
>I'll disagree on one issue. If those two students found the debate "all a
>bit blokey and points scoring really," they haven't read the archive
>carefully.
>
>This debate started on April 7. It involves far more people than most DRS
>threads with nearly 50 participants in contrast with the average of five or
>six. There has been something like 130 contributions. Printed in Times 12
>on A4 paper, the thread runs over 300 pages of deep and often reflective
>material.
>
>These archives will reveal many topics:
>
>articulating a philosophy of design,
>analyzing the epistemological dimensions of design theory,
>explaining the development of the PhD from the 9th century to the 21st,
>examining the difference between guild education and research training,
>comparing research methods in anthropology and design,
>distinguishing between kinds of doctorate,
>comparing engineering or physics training with design research training . . .
>
>and more.
>
>I'd accept the students' opinion if they had simply said, "This subject
>doesn't interest us." Saying they weren't interested because it was all
>"blokey . . . point scoring" suggests they grazed, but they didn't browse.
>They didn't hunt by topics nor read the topics through.
>
>A content analysis by topic, author, content structure, and amount of
>material devoted to each theme will reveal a robust debate. This thread was
>convened as a formal debate. A debate organizes and presents evidence in
>the light of theory or principle. Debaters attend to challenges and
>queries, responding to challenges, incorporating valid new ideas, and
>modifying views.
>
>In this sense, every learned debate involves scoring some kind of point.
>Putting ideas forward and subjecting them to challenge is part of the
>research process.
>
>Debate isn't always the best way to move forward. This time I decided to
>try a formal debate and I felt obliged to live up to my public offer to
>meet all challenges.
>
>I am about to end my debate. I owe Jean Schneider the second half of my
>response to his deep questions, and I owe a note to Luis Pereira. Then I'll
>summarize and be done.
>
>The sea welcomes all fish:
>
>And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures,
>And let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
>So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves,
>of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every bird of every kind.
>
>-- Genesis 1:20-21
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
>Department of Knowledge Management
>Norwegian School of Management
>
>+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
>+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
>
>Home office:
>
>+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
>+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>




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