Ken and everyone else on the list
Ken tells us:
> This list is NOT "a list about PhDs in design." It is a list about
> doctoral education in design AMONG OTHER TOPICS.
Mea culpa. I will take this into account in future.
> You write, "As this is a list about PhDs in design, I will try and
> frame the issue as if I was advising a student."
>
> You are not advising students here. You are a member of a forum in
> which the majority of list members are scholars, researchers, and
> professors at a wide range of universities, design schools,
> professional schools, and research institutions.
Mea culpa. Again
>
> It is boorish to lecture a group of distinguished colleagues as
> though you were their doctoral advisor.
Not guilty. Note my use of 'as if' above, and your use of 'imaginary' below.
>
> You have posted imaginary advice to doctoral students before. It did
> not seem worth offering a response. When you state that a thread on
> creativity and creativity research is fruitless, you implicitly
> suggest the thread should end. This time, I want to respond.
Not guilty. 'fruitless' is your word, not mine. I make no 'implicit'
suggestions. You make unwarranted assumptions
>
> PhD-Design has a few, simple ground rules. Any member is free to
> introduce any topic that he or she deems appropriate. Every member is
> free to debate at great length or short, over a few hours or several
> months. Anyone may challenge, respond, or argue. No one is permitted
> to curtail the debate or call for any debate to close.
Not guilty. Where did I 'call for any debate to close' EXPLICITLY.
>
> This is not the first time you have suggested that a thread be
> closed. This time, I want to state explicitly that this is your view.
> Others do not share your view. If you feel that the thread is too
> abstract, difficult, or problematic, don't participate.
Not guilty. I have expressed a view saying that I didn't think particular
threads were going anywhere productive. But I have never 'suggested that a
thread be closed' That is a silly idea. I have no such power, even of
suggestion.
>
> If you want to say, "I believe this is a silly debate on an
> impossible topic," go ahead and say why.
I thought what I said was that I believed there were some deep and
unresolved contradictions in theories of creativity. I also outlined the
arguments why I think this is the case. That is far from suggesting 'a silly
debate on an impossible topic'.
> Do not suggest that others
> stop posting on a topic of interest. The last time you did this, it
> seems to me that your complaints about the "spiral of abstraction"
> killed a perfectly viable discussion. I should have taken a stronger
> stand. This time, I will. You have the right to speak for yourself in
> stating that you see this thread as fruitless or overly abstract.
> Other subscribers may not share your view.
Ken, I only ever speak for myself. You, on the other hand
But I did not say that 'I see this thread as fruitless or overly abstract'.
On the contrary, and for the record, I think the thread could benefit from
some rigorous abstraction. I think I used the term conceptual analysis, but
no matter.
>
> This thread began when David Durling, Rosan Chow, Klaus Krippendorff,
> and others chose to develop it. The notes of the past few days from
> Dick Buchanan, John Feland, Susan Hagan, and Birgit Jevnaker have
> been profound and interesting. The point is not to reach agreement or
> a conclusion. Sometimes people want to know something simply because
> they are curious, eager, or passionate about the questions they ask.
> The point is to examine the topic in a serious and intelligent way.
Then why are we not doing so, instead of engaging in personal attacks?
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought I was 'examining the topic in a serious
and intelligent way'.
>
> Before long, I will offer a few thoughts on this intriguing and
> useful thread.
I look forward to them.
> I value the contributions to this thread. I hope that
> those who have taken the time to share their thoughts will continue.
So do I.
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
phone UK: + 44 (0) 24 7688 7832 during UK office hours.
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|
