On 20/09/2008, at 9:14 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
> Thanks for this note. I agree.
>
> I’d add that many scientists and university-based scholars agree
> with you as
> well, and many practice research in relation to the principles you
> suggest.
There is a risk here in thinking that we are in complete agreement and
that we are all doing good work in the best of all possible worlds.
I think, however, lived experience suggests otherwise. While there are
many people who share our view, there are equally many who do not.
Consider recent discussions on this list about journals. In part that
discussion arises because of a narrow procrustean administrative
approach to defining research, and to what constitutes legitimate
output. I could also point to reviewers comments in peer reviewed
journals, grant application requirements, and requirements for phd
students on submitting proposals for approval. etc etc.
And I think the case for design knowledge of the type I describe has
to be made continuously in ways that are not required in other
domains. These are some of the social ways in which the agreement of
which you speak remains elusive.
There is also a way in which apparent agreement is not reflected in
practice. In my post I used the phrase:
> non-predictable realm of human action
I deliberately used the term 'non-predictable' rather than
'unpredictable'. A long and detailed argument sits behind this
difference in usage which would take us down another path probably
best pursued in another type of forum. In this context, I would simply
suggest that there is a long way to go before such a distinction is
acceptable by many.
Otherwise, we are probably in furious agreement.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|