Dear Colleagues,

Comments in Sid's post got me thinking about the issue of list tone.
So did Rosan's earlier notes. I started by addressing this to Sid,
and I still do. It is a question that asks for comments and thoughts
on list tone.

I've been offered comments and asked questions by Lubomir, Jean, Sid,
and now Klaus on my view of postmodernism. There are good questions
here. As Lubomir says, we donä't need to agree to grow and learn
together.

I may answer some of these issues ... I'm thinking and writing.

In the meantime, I want to step aside from the content thread to
reflect on a process issue. I'll deeply appreciate any responses to
the questions at the end of this note. post whenever you like. Take
your time if you wish. Please speak if you have thoughts or feelings
on these issues.

Best regards,

Ken



Dear Sid,

Your response was a threat to withdraw from participation in the list
while asserting blame. I will respond to that one issue without
addressing the interesting issues of substance that you raise on
tacit knowledge. (You brought up some interesting issues and
distinctions. I will answer them later, as well as the questions and
challenges to pose.)

You open,

"A break already! If my assertions offend you I will desist from
posting, as others are clearly electing to do. You asked me to be
involved, you did not say I had to play by your rule set. If ideas
without the foundation you require are tiresome and disruptive then
some other forum is clearly called for."

You conclude,

"my form of contribution is unacceptable to you so I will return to
the ranks of lurking shaking my head, biting my lip and reading Pooh
Bear."

I have an argument with postmodernism. I did not say that you, Sid
Newton, offend me.

The issue of "disruption" involves the postmodern address, not your
personal post.

You made a strong challenge to Michael's ideas as a "power game we
see at play on this list" and "a typical ploy to terminate discussion
of tacit knowing rather than to open up inquiry."

OTHER than the subject of tacit knowing, you challenged Michael's
TONE, STYLE, and FORM OF INQUIRY as an attempt to kill inquiry.

You wrote concerning

"the power game we see at play on this list (and more generally),"

you stated that some form of control is imposed,

"where we are directed"

In addition, you accused Michael of,

"a typical ploy to terminate discussion of tacit knowing rather than
to open up inquiry."

A typical ploy?

Without agreeing to Michael's propositions, I believe that Michael
made a good-faith effort to shed light on an inquiry initiated by
Chris Rust.

You responded by labeling Michael's post a "power game" and a "typical ploy."

You are debating Michael. That is appropriate on a list like this.

You may not have intended a personal attack on Michael, but you did
attack Michael's position in strong political terms.

You raised a strong debate and made political claims on the nature of
knowledge. You attacked Michael's view as a power game and a
political effort to end inquiry.

I challenged your ideas.

If a list is to be a conversation among equals, it is unfair to make
your response to Michael in strong political terms while taking my
reply to you as a personal attack.

This post addresses a basic question:

Is reasoned debate an attempt to terminate inquiry?

First, I will consider this issue.

Then, I will ask the members of this list to voice their feelings on
the quality and tone of the list.

Your claim in this letter seems to be that list tone accounts for the
fact that some subscribers choose not to participate. Aside from
general business, semester start, and other such reasons, you state
that there is an attempt to "impose a regulation on communication and
community" that has damaged the tone of the list.

My view of a good list is that reasoned argument from evidence is
helpful. Calling for reasoned argument and challenging others to
produce evidence is not an imposition or regulation. You are free not
to produce a reasonable argument, as I am to request one.

None of us has authority or control over any others here. Michael
cannot terminate an inquiry. I cannot require anyone to communicate
in a specific way.

One model for debate that I admire is the Philosophical Transactions
during the early days of The Royal Society.

If you compare the quality of debate here, and the tone, with other
JISCMAIL design lists, or with other lists such as IDForum, you will
see that we do well. There is a wider range of participation here
than we see elsewhere. Despite peaks and troughs, participation is
wide and growing. Moreover, there is far more participation by more
people than we see on other lists.

Some of us call for reasoned argument. Others demand a more
"designerly" kind of argumentation. While this is a fair request, it
is hard to see how we use the designerly reasoning that designers use
in studio. This is not a studio. It is an asynchronous written
conversation. Leaving aside the fact that this is a scholarly list
centered on research themes, it is difficult to see how designerly
means other than articulate statement can be used an asynchronous
written format. We cannot sit together over coffee. We cannot show
drawings. We cannot employ gesture or sound. We cannot even maintain
the quick interaction cycle of a phone call. We are restricted to the
medium of writing.

To me, this suggests a clear, articulate style. If we are to offer
more than personal opinion, it suggests that we demonstrate the
evidence and sources on which we base our views.

You are not the only subscriber with feelings on these issues. Many
people have thought on these matters. Not all share your feelings.
Some agree with you. Others disagree. I have heard both positions in
private conversation and read both positions in private
correspondence.

At the end of this note, I am going to ask that people speak for themselves.

You might consider your call for non-participation in the light of
what happened to DRS.

In the spring of 2000 as we prepared for the La Clusaz conference, we
used the DRS list as the venue of a formal debate. During the debate,
I received a number of irritated posts in public and private saying,
"Enough is enough."

There were complaints about tone and style. I had the sense that some
folks saw me as an eighteenth century dinosaur. At one point, someone
suggested we end the debate because a few readers found it disturbing.

We called the debate with a formal notice and a promise to answer all
challenges to a few theses. When the complaints came up, I promised
to complete the debate and then move any future lengthy debate to
PhD-Design. After la Clusaz, we have carried the kinds of inquiry
forward on this list that previously took place on DRS, concerning
research themes, perspectives, degree standards, theory construction,
and other topics.

It is interesting to note that this list has developed into a robust
venue while DRS has gone dormant.

DRS was once a lively venue. A venue that welcomes many styles of
debate, including mine, makes a livelier and more interesting forum.
It is clear that many subscribers to DRS added PhD-design to their
subscription list. The same people who are quiet there, post here.

DRS is a quiet place. A handful of posts appear in any month. Most of
these are brief notices.

If "designerly" ways of knowing will sustain a list better than our
style here, it has not yet been demonstrated on any public list.
Check the JISCMAIL archives for RTI, RIDE, ADC-LTSN, Intensities, and
the others.

It seems to me that the mix of styles on this list and the
willingness of some people to argue their views explicitly as
committed researchers makes this list a lively place. This includes
you when you take part. It also includes Rosan, Kari-Hans, Terry,
Bryn, Dick, Maria, Norm, Andrew, Lubomir, Chris, Cathy, and all the
others who have been willing to state their views, agreeing,
disagreeing, and occasionally sparring over issues and ideas. I
sparred with nearly all of these on some issues and supported nearly
everyone on others.

This broad range of views represents the rich mix that once made DRS
lively. It is my sense that a good online community is slowly growing
here.

It is not required that everyone in a community agree with everyone
else for a good community to exist. Observe, if you will, Paul
Feyerabend's years-long debate with Imre Lakatos, or Einstein's
lengthy debate with Bohr. Good debates bring vigor and excellence to
a field.

One of the challenges on a list like this is a wide range of skills,
and levels of knowledge among our subscribers. If we are to treat
subscribers as equals, we owe them the respect of taking their claims
seriously rather than dismissing claims by failing to respond.

I do not argue with people whom I consider fools. I argue with
serious people when I disagree.

Stating that people are serious does not mean that all their ideas
and statements are serious. Our field is too young for that, and it
is clear that the challenge of moving from a studio background to a
research forum leaves some of us with a deeper background than others.

In many cases, the combination of studio experience and research
training produces better scholars than research training alone. In
some cases, it produces promising scholars who will not fulfill their
promise unless they one their intellectual skills. One benefit of
good debate is a chance to sharpen those skills.

On occasion, it seems to me that people make claims that simply are
not so. I sometimes challenge those claims.

On some occasions, people offer claims that MAY be so without
developing their claims substantively.

This means that some of us feel a need to clarify if we are to
engage. It also means that some top quality scholars browse here
without bothering to take an active part.

The reason it interests me to develop robust debate is building a
larger community of discourse. I accept multiple styles of debate.
This does not mean I must agree with them. Challenging, engaging, or
debating these ideas is not an effort to "impose a regulation on
communication and community." It is an effort to persuade, certainly,
but no one is required to accept my views and no one is prohibited
from offering their own.

Your closing paragraph puts me in a bad position. How can anyone
compete with Winnie the Pooh?

Nevertheless, if one is to discuss research and research methods, one
must consider the issue of how we discuss things. At the same time, I
recall in last year's DRS debate on the practice-based Ph.D. that one
or two people urged that we stop or change threads because the issues
were "probably tiresome for us all." They did not use your exact
words as I am doing, but their point was the same, and they stated at
the time, "The list probably needs another direction."

I can certainly accept that. If these carefully developed analyses
supported by articulate description and full citations bore people, I
am happy to offer sprightly arguments, short posts, and occasional
opinions. Those who have shared a coffee or a beer with me, or worked
on a project, recognize that I, too, can use a designerly way of
knowing when it is appropriate. I am also able to crack a joke or
preach a reasonable facsimile of a sermon.

It remains my belief that a good list calls for more than jokes and
sermons. I have acted on my belief by providing substantive arguments
rather than waiting for others to do so or expecting of them more
than I am willing to contribute. I act on the categorical imperative.

Now I will ask a question.

Rosan raised an issue on which she asked subscribers and list members
to reflect.

Now I ask for responses:

Is this a problematic list?

If it is, what are the problems?

If we have problems, how do you propose we improve?

If anyone feels that he or she is being excluded from participation
or imposed upon in some way, I will welcome an explanation. I have
never challenged anyone's feelings or their right to feel. I debate
contested issues. There is no basis of contest on feelings. If you
have some feeling on these issues, I will be happy to hear and I will
not criticize your feelings.

If there are problems here, let us consider them. If my analytical
notes belong in old-fashioned paper journals rather than on the list,
I will be happy to change my style and discontinue the
eighteenth-century tradition of learned debate.

I am happy to hear from you, Sid. At the same time, you, Rosan, and
Kari-Hans have suggested a more general unhappiness with list tone
and style.

This is a general call on the question of list tone and style.

Voices?

Best regards,

Ken Friedman