Dear Jean,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I am going to beg off on answering.
As I said to Keith, I will say nothing further on this until
September. I am delighted to read whatever anyone else wants to say.
Before returning to lurk mode, let me clarify two points on which I
may have been misunderstood.

You write (in part) "about the textual format : e.g.: the relevance
to research of the metanarrative(s) that is likely to constitute the
substance of the points '2.Discussing the knowledge in the field to
date' and '3. Discussing past attempts to examine or solve the
problem' -KF- and which hermeneutical approach(es) is(are) valid -to
state an important issue- when reporting about text, descriptions or
artifacts."

There seems to be some confusion here. You seem to feel that I have
argued for hermeneutical approaches to research. I have not.

On April 4, Kevin Connaire asked someone to explain hermeneutics. I
did. Please do not confuse an explanation ABOUT hermeneutics with an
argument FOR hermeneutics as a model for all research.

Thousands of research methods are applicable to different forms of
design research. I am engaged in methodology, the descriptive and
comparative study of research methods. My discussion of hermeneutics
was an analytical description, not an argument for hermeneutics or a
statements that hermeneutics ought to be used.

Hermeneutics ought to be used only to address research problem that
are suited to hermeneutical inquiry. That may be close to a
tautological statement. It is nevertheless reasonable.

There are many varieties and flavors of hermeneutics. Each of these
is appropriate to certain kinds of research questions. I have adapted
some techniques and perspectives from hermeneutics to more general
forms of naturalistic and historically rooted inquiry. I do not
practice any of the major forms of hermeneutical research.

The post on hermeneutics was an answer to a specific question. In my
view, it has nothing to do with the issue of the self-explanatory
artifact.

Because your paragraph juxtaposes your own phrases close to material
quoted from my notes, there may be some confusion here. I did not
discuss hermeneutics in my response to Keith. I have not discussed
hermeneutics in any of my notes on the issue of self-explanatory
objects. The only time I recall discussing hermeneutics on this list
since an interesting exchange with Cathy Smith involved Kevin
Connaire's question.

On the issue of criteria, you write, "Are you sure that those who
made the claim were using the same set of criteria as those you have
listed?"

No one is required to use the criteria that I use. The Design
Thinking Prize is an opportunity for people to state their own
criteria. No one has yet done so.

There are four parts involved in challenge for the Design Thinking Prize.

To win the Design Thinking Prize, an entry must:

1) State the general criteria of a complete and valid research
result. 2) Distinguish the concept of a research result as research
from the practical or applied outcome of the research. 3) State the
basis on which a self-explanatory artifact would meet the criteria of
a complete and valid research result as distinct from the practical
or applied outcome of the research. 4) State criteria on which such a
research result would be accepted as valid and state the criteria
that would invalidate such an effort.

My argument has never yet had to rise to the level of challenging
criteria or distinguishing among them. No one has yet stated criteria.

All arguments for self-explanatory artifacts to date have been
statements that a self-explanatory artifact is possible WITHOUT a
supporting demonstration, description, or list of criteria to show
what such an artifact might be.

These arguments state that 1) the self-explanatory artifact exists,
2) it ought to be accepted as a research result or a PhD
dissertation, and 3) those of us who don't agree with the are simply
old-fashioned "hardliners," to quote one scholar who seems unable to
get his criteria in order. These arguments have been based on
assertion, intuition, personal privilege, or authority.

I am asking for a direct, clear statement of what such a
self-explanatory artifact is. I am not limiting the statement in any
way. So far, everyone has been querying my criteria without stating
their own. I have not stated the criteria for a self-explanatory
artifact. I have stated MY criteria for research results. My criteria
are irrelevant to the competition, and I will not be judging entries.

The Design Thinking Prize offers an opportunity for someone - anyone
- to state THEIR criteria and make THEIR argument.

Some of the issues you raise are genuinely interesting, but I will
not be debating substantive issues until after the competition. I
would be delighted if you were to put a challenge forward. Despite my
skepticism, I would welcome a winning entry. I am ready to hand out
as many copies of Petroski's book as it takes to move the debate past
the current fruitless argument by assertion.

Some seem to argue that my criteria are inadequate. It is time to
move beyond my criteria to state THEIR criteria. I have stated my
criteria. They may be incomplete or mistaken. They may well be
irrelevant to the criteria of a self-explanatory artifact. Until now,
this remains an irrelevant issue. Thos who seem to believe in the
possibility of a self-explanatory artifact have argued against my
criteria without stating their own.

It is time for someone to step up and say, "These are the criteria
for a self-explanatory artifact."

Best regards,

Ken

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University