JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2002

PHD-DESIGN 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Building Research Communities

From:

"Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Lubomir S. Popov

Date:

Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:12:38 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (316 lines)

Hi Peter,
Hi Peter,

I can understand you agenda. The only thing is that you are speaking about 
design, while I am talking about science. If you are a designer speaking 
about science, I can understand you and even accept what you say. However, 
the spirit of my post was much different and directed to much different 
audience -- people who share common conventions and do not need examples. 
How examples help shape common conventions is a completely different topic 
and I am not going to engage in it now.

With appreciation for you ideas,

Lubomir
At 10:59 PM 10/7/2002 -0400, peter storkerson wrote:
>
>
>Dear Lubomir (and colleagues),
>
>
>I wanted to respond to your posting with some caveats which are presented in
>a spirit of collaboration - not criticism- because they are representative
>of the problematics of my field of communication design. I do not represent
>them as characteristic of others. If they are different from others, that,
>too is a source of interesting and valuable exchange.
>
>
>First, as you point out, in science, abstractions work because there are
>agreed upon "examples" which enable participants to construe meaning. In the
>second paragraph, you use the term "reductionism" I am presuming that you
>are using the two terms in proximity because they have a lot to do with each
>other. I may be pushing the envelope on that aspect, but if so, please bear
>with me. In part, at least, I am using your posting for my own purposes.
>
>
>
>I would like to focus on the nature of these ³examples², i.e. that they are
>experimental or observational, thus experiential. Scientists write and share
>"recipes" by which they reliably turn their raw materials (abstract
>hypotheses and theories) into events and entities (experiences). In this way
>there are stable relationships between specified concepts and operational
>ostensions. As you say, competent scientists are also competent
>practitioners (cooks) or they rely on other scientists as cooks. We choose
>to elevate theory over practice while in reality they are inseparable.
>
>
>I make two assertions. First, without the translation into experience,
>abstractions would be meaningless and unintelligible. It has been argued
>that a theoretical entity that does not have measurable experiential
>(physical) characteristics is unintelligible, and the field of scientific
>imaging exists, to no small extent in extending sensory apparatus to make
>abstractions intelligible. In short, as lakoff and Johnson argue, even
>abstract reason entails embodiment.
>
>
>Second, scientists carry in their heads, very practical understandings of
>the translations from abstract to physical. They can, for example, imagine
>what "M V squared" "means" in the sense of how it plays out when the car
>hits the abutment. We all know about engineers who walk in, all excited
>about their little black boxes, which are meaningless to the rest of us.
>They look at the black boxes and immediately see what they can do. My point
>here is very simple. It is that the experiential aspects get folded into the
>abstract signs so that we carry them around as ³tacit knowledge² without
>having to think about it or even be aware of it. This is what knowing is.
>
>
>If the term "reduction" is used to refer to this process, it is really only
>half right. The OED says the term refers to "the practice of describing a
>phenomenon (particularly one involving human thought and action) in terms of
>an apparently more Œbasicı or Œprimitiveı phenomenon." But what is being
>done is the opposite, we are given an abstraction but we imagine something
>concrete and experiential, and that is what makes it meaningful.
>
>I am especially concerned because of the association of terms such as
>reduction and abstraction with notions such as the essence-appearance
>distinction, i.e. that the abstractions or reductions are essential while
>the concrete appearances are transient. For a designer this distinction
>collapses. By the same token the term ³example² is misleading in this
>context, because it folds the concrete experiential outcomes into the
>abstraction. It reminds me of a governmental official who said that people
>were "opting out" of medical insurance plans, when it turned out that
>membership in the plans was costing them almost their entire incomes.
>
>Scientists operate with some very extensive webs of theories that enable
>them to make reliable mappings between the halves, so they can get away with
>abstractions.
>
>Without such a web of knowledge, the use of abstraction alone carries with
>it the danger of outsmarting oneıs self. Abstractions wonıt tell us when
>they are wrong. I write ³New York is west of Boston, Chicago is west of New
>York, and Boston is west of Chicago.² But I cannot draw it, at least not
>without making a cylinder of some sort. The rules of drawing are the rules
>of geometry in the experiential world. The rules of language and logic are
>not the same.
>
>
>We have no such web of theory, at least in communication design. In C.D., we
>are at the very beginning of building theory, and that process is very much
>involved in trying to figure out what abstractions make sense to use with
>reference to the activities we are trying to understand. It is the
>abstractions themselves that we have to examine and question by virtue of
>how they play out. This is different from the notion of ³examples² in
>science because by and large we know what they are examples of; in
>communication design, we do not. C.D. is still often taught by examples
>(slides of great work) because we so lack taxonomies for principled
>discussion.
>
>
>In terms of theory building, I can go into details if needed, but, believe
>me, when you start to look at communication and knowing, the things you find
>out about it look as different from common sense as the earth being round
>rather than flat. For example, we think of communication as information
>passing letıs say from teacher to student. But we know that the student can
>parrot the information back without understanding it. Eventually, we come to
>something like the conclusion that at least in such cases as learning, the
>communicative content is not what is said but what is not said. It is what
>is left out by the sender and must be ³induced² in or created by the
>receiver to make what was sent intelligible. Even worse, this aspect of
>communication often takes place intuitively, subliminally, without either
>one being able to articulate what was learned. The world is stranger than
>imagination. In short, theory building is critical. It is liable to be
>tricky, subtle and dependent on creative speculation which alternates
>between operational and conceptual.
>
>
>I also donıt think that ³science² is an appropriate model for at least my
>kind of design. The idea that we can be external observers of ourselves and
>each other is simply not credible to me. Moreover, unlike rocks, we do learn
>and we are in the process of transforming ourselves. This does not mean we
>should adopt the model of humanities which are avowedly interested primarily
>in the metaphors that can be spun, however meaningful, or that we can revert
>to pastoral models of design in the days when science and art were the same.
>Modern requirements are far to demanding of precision for such qualitative
>approaches.
>
>I also donıt think that everyoneıs work has to be grounded. Well developed
>fields have varieties of theories, some high level, i.e. general or abstract
>while others are low level operational, local, and highly predictive. They
>support each other. Wilard Quine, Hilary Putnam (Representation and Reason),
>and others speak of the ³holism² of knowledge, e.g. I can be confident that
>I know what a lawnmower is without knowing all about it, because there are
>others who know about what I donıt.
>
>
>I think that there are ways that we can be highly reasoned about our work.
>We can ³know² and understand, and be objective about ourselves, but these
>ways are different from science epistemologically ontologically and
>methodologically.
>
>More than anything else, we need a broader range of theories and theoretical
>approaches to research in and for design (or communication design). We need
>to be entrepreneurial  about research. If we stick to the tried and true
>methods and ideas, we confine ourselves to current limitations and errors.
>Any theory by itself is a fragment. Thee more theory we have, the more will
>theory building be practicable. I think the solution to this problem is time
>and much more of what is being done, with the limitations but mindful of
>them.
>
>For here,given the paucity of theory and research, I merely argue that we
>have to be mindful of the limitations of abstractions, just as we are of
>other approaches, and that we have to try extra hard, as it were to find
>ways to operationally specify and experiment with those theories IN DESIGN
>CONTEXTS to substantiate, develop, customize, and enrich them.
>
>
>Finally, I say that I am speaking of communication design. I have tried to
>keep abreast of discussions in Product design, planning and other design
>fields. I sense some of the same quandary in the PHD list. You know if the
>shoe fits.
>
>I've gone on too long.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Peter Storkerson
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>On 10/2/02 11:44 AM, "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I don't see any problem with abstractions. Science is the art of
> > abstraction. If it is not abstraction, it is not science.
> >
> > The science community communicates faster through abstractions. They can do
> > that because they know the examples beyond the abstractions. The
> > abstractions are actually concepts that are negotiated in a long process
> > and the examples were assimilated in that process. At one point of time,
> > after the members of the community acquire similar background, they can
> > operate only with the abstractions and they do not meed any more the
> > examples. The problems arises  when members from one community enter
> > another community. And the exhistance of such a problem indicates that
> > there is a multicommunal aggregate. Some of the scholars might have
> > experienced it when they move from one paradigmatic community to another.
> > They can not understand each other and need examples to construe the
> > meaning of the concepts used in the discourse. I have experienced this many
> > times. Even in one and the same paradigm, there are regional/cultural
> > differences and when scholars migrate they experience that pretty clearly.
> >
> > As far as reductionism in science, it is part of the game. In some
> > paradigms it is more, in others less. Even in the most holistic paradigms
> > there is a lot of reductionism. It is true that most of the designers are
> > exposed mostly to reductionist science -- however, they are not to be
> > blamed for that. The guilty party are the scientists who hold to paradigms
> > like positivism and teach courses or write books for designers.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Lubomir
> >
> >
> > At 07:27 PM 10/2/2002 +1000, davidsless wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues
> >>
> >> I continue to reel in irritation at the endless spiral of abstraction.
> >> Perhaps I have some kind of allergy! (At least I am comforted by the fact
> >> that a few others on this list suffer from the same irritation. Thank you
> >> for your kind supporting words. Perhaps we should set up an abstraction
> >> allergy support group. We are obviously victims of a serious chronic
> >> condition.)
> >>
> >> On this occasion I am dismayed by the endless strings of generalisations
> >> WITHOUT A SINGLE COCRETE EXAMPLE OR CASE. Most of the time, I just ignore
> >> it. But every now and then, I cannot. Some recent comments by John 
> Broadbent
> >> just crossed the line once too often.
> >>
> >> John, I'm not singling you out for any personal reason, there is clearly a
> >> community of scholars on this list who seem to thrive on this type of 
> stuff
> >> and you just happen to be the one that finally prompted me to say 
> something.
> >>
> >> I quote from your recent comments?
> >>> most design professions have only known an intellectual world
> >>> dominated by reductionist science.
> >> Can you please list them and give concrete examples? Could you also 
> tell us
> >> which are the 'minority' non-reductionists, also with examples. You see, I
> >> can point specifically at both tendencies in the areas of design I 
> work in.
> >> For example, research conducted by Miles Tinker on legibility of print in
> >> the 1960s was highly reductionist. But many practicing designers and
> >> researchers of the time took a much more holistic view of legibility and
> >> roundly criticised Tinker's work for being reductionist.  Today, the
> >> mainstream of information designers would probably claim to be working
> >> 'holistically'. As a member of that community I don't feel I am part of an
> >> 'intellectual world dominated by reductionist science'. I cannot speak 
> about
> >> architecture, industrial design etc, but during my research in the 
> 1960s and
> >> 70s into the history of design and design methods I came across many
> >> examples--intellectual and practical-- that were not reductionist. A 
> quote I
> >> often use, because it was one of my early sources of inspiration came from
> >> Moholy Nagy writing in the late 1930s:
> >> --------
> >>     Design has many connotations. It is the organisation of materials and
> >>     processes in the most productive, economic way, in a harmonious 
> balance
> >>     of all elements necessary for a certain function. It is not a 
> matter of
> >>     facade, of mere external appearance; rather it is the essence of
> >>     products and institutions, penetrating and comprehensive. 
> Designing is a
> >>     complex and intricate task. It is the integration of technological,
> >>     social and economic requirements, biological necessities, and the
> >>     psychophysical effects of materials, shape, colour, volume, and space:
> >>     thinking in relationships (Moholy-Nagy 1938).
> >> --------
> >> Is this a view that only knows 'an intellectual world dominated by
> >> reductionist science'? I think not. Yet this is a view from one of 
> founders
> >> of contemporary design. One could mention others like Christopher 
> Alexander,
> >> Papanek etc. It would be helpful to those of us who have a limited 
> tolerance
> >> for abstraction, if those of you who love the stuff gave us concrete
> >> examples so that we can understand what you are talking about. I would ask
> >> the same of any PhD student I was supervising.
> >>
> >> And again:
> >>> Yet many in the design community seem strangely unaware of
> >>> the 'sciences of complexity', or unwilling to engage with them in any
> >>> real sense.
> >> Who are these 'many' 'strangely unaware' people in our community?
> >>
> >> I could go on, but life is short.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> --
> >> Professor David Sless
> >> BA MSc FRSA
> >> Co-Chair Information Design Association
> >> Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
> >> Director
> >> Communication Research Institute of Australia
> >> ** helping people communicate with people **
> >>
> >> PO Box 398 Hawker
> >> ACT 2614 Australia
> >>
> >> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> >>
> >> phone:  +61 (0)2 6259 8671
> >> fax:    +61 (0)2 6259 8672
> >> web:    http://www.communication.org.au
>
>
>----
>Peter Storkerson M.F.A. Ph.D.
>Communication Cognition
>http://home.tiac.net/~pstork
>[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager