Hi Gunnar,

You ask very good questions. I was going to talk about that before, but
abstained in the face of a few other posts.

Your example on "know-how" with the bicycle is very reasonable. Actually,
in theory of action there is at least one treatise using as an example
skiing. The institutionalization of disciplines based on know-how knowledge
in the academic realm might be comparatively new, I am not sure. If you
teach somebody else how to ride a bike, it is still not academic
engagement. But when this activity is professionalized in the Sports
Academy (there are such in at least several countries) it becomes academic
by some standards. You start doing systematically and in a organized
fashion research, theory building, and so on. And theory of bike riding is
as much theoretical as theory of design. They will be theories of one and
the same class. Theories about how-to-do-it. This  class of theories is
called (in some traditions) theories about the artificial, in contrast to
the theories about the natural (objects).

The know-how knowledge will have several levels, domains, etc. We are going
now in the realm of what is called (in some traditions) technical sciences
or disciplines. These sciences/disciplines have much more complex structure
than the disciplines about naturally emerging objects because they are
concerned to some extent with the artifacts as natural objects and
predominantly as artificial objects, as well as the
process/technology/methodology of creating these artifacts).

I had never dismissed know-how. I only object hands-on knowing as the sole
or primary method for doing research. I want this to be clear. In the area
of making things, like pottery, the hands-on mode might be the primary mode
of thinking and acting. However, if you got a professor in pottery from
some academy of sciences, I bet he/she will give you a lecture about the
complexity of pottery theories and the academic standards they adhere to. I
am not joking with them. The craft of pottery is professionalized and the
reproduction of the profession is "academized" and "scientizied." (Sorry
for creating new words, there is terminological deficit.) That is a normal
process that started with Rationalism and  its first phenomena took place
in a few areas, mostly science, medicine, law, then engineering, then
craft. This is practically a process of annihilating the crafts by
replacing them with engineering and then academizing engineering as much as
possible. Engineering by itself is an academized craft. (There is an
alternative position as well.) Designers are nothing else but academized
craftsmen -- some less (and hate empty talk, aka philosophy), some more
(and adore Vitgenstein).

The academic status of know-how knowledge depends on the degree of
academization of the profession and the degree of reflectivity in the
professional discipline. In more specific terms, the status will depend on
the sophistication of theorization in the discipline, adherence to
scientific norms and values, and developing scholarly life (like our
discussion list, magazine, and conferences, to name just a few).

As you see, it has nothing to do with your formal positions and your love
to design. But your positions indicate that there is a trend towards
academizaiton of the domains in which you design.

Some of the differences of position in these discussions emerge because we
meet here with different backgrounds in terms of
academization/scientification of our domains and we ourselves as members of
scholarly communities -- the Universities. Also, some of us are more or
less pure designers and tend to see the world as craftsmen -- in the good
sense, I mean. Others are more or less allured by the academic standards of
scholarship and want to see their professions developed and reproduced as
modern engineering phenomena.

Well, one can talk for nights on this topic.

Regards,

Lubomir



At 04:05 PM 8/7/2001 -0700, Gunnar Swanson wrote:
>Michael,
>
>I didn't dismiss anything. I asked for clarification on how your
>distinctions function, how levels of "knowing-how" would be judged,
>whether the context of those judgements would move us to another
>realm, and where honoring these different modes best fit. Although I
>have in the past been the director of a university multimedia
>program, the head of a university graphic design program, and have
>taught at several universities, I am a working designer who by no
>means dismisses knowing-how (in any sense of the phrase.)
>
>The questions remain: Is riding a bicycle an example of "knowing-how"
>or a metaphor? If riding a bicycle is, in fact, a reasonable example
>of "knowing-how," how would standards be established about such an
>activity? (Is there another example that would serve better?) How
>would something that parallels bicycle riding (or knowing how to ride
>one) contribute to legitimate goals of a university?
>
>These are neither rhetorical questions nor dismissals, they are
>questions formulated in an attempt to understand your point and your
>notion of contributions to knowledge.
>
>Gunnar
>
>>Gunnar said
>>
>>The riding-a-bicycle example brings out legitimate questions about the
>>value of "knowing-how" in academic terms. If the mission of universities is
>>focused on increasing knowledge, how does "knowing-how" fit in and what
>>aspects should be honored? Should Lance Armstrong's bicycling be honored
>>more than mine? In what ways does he "know how" more than I do? In many
>>objective ways he -does- better, but is that the same? Should cycling
>>"knowing-how" be of higher or lower academic value than triathlon
>>"knowing-how"?
>>
>>I reply
>>
>>unfortunately your extension of the metaphor only shows how knowing-how can
>>be dismissed in favour of knowing-that. The transmission of knowing-how is
>>seen as a technical or vocational skill, of lower value than the
>>traditional Greek ideal of the disembodied intellect. I suggest that the
>>traditionalist's view would be that your differentiation was merely
>>splitting hairs, i.e. they are all equally valueless. My view is different
>>from the traditionalists, though I too suffer from institutionalised
>>idealism. Knowing-how is only significant in a research context if it can
>>be accompanied by knowing-why (cf. Richard Buchanan's mail 6/8/01), thereby
>>contributing to transferable knowledge and/or understanding.
>
>--
>Gunnar Swanson Design Office
>536 South Catalina Street
>Ventura CA 93001-3625
>
>+1 805 667 2200
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.gunnarswanson.com