Hi Fil,
The issue should not be about whether my argument makes sense or how it relates to the nature of the previous argument. It is about a different perspective on the discussion as it started several days ago. If we approach the discussion in the way I suggest, the subsequent debate would have been very different. That was my intent.
Best,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Innovation and Design Research
Lubomir,
While your arguments might make sense (I sincerely do not know) in
some contexts, I think they don't apply here because we know enough
about "writing" and "research" that Terry's arguments are sound. I
myself have heard many authors describe "writing" as a process that
includes a great deal of thinking. "Writer's block", for instance,
isn't an affliction of the hand or the pen, but rather of the thinking
that precedes the act of writing. In the same way as "The car is
red", I suggest we must consider carefully what is meant by an
utterance (written or otherwise).
Cheers.
Fil
On 19 June 2011 11:23, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
> I would suggest a different approach to discussing writing as research. Let's look from paradigmatic point of view and consider disciplinary traditions. Also, let's consider the metaphorical use of words that very often overgrows its initial intent and then starts functioning on its own for itself and by itself. All of these and other influences contaminate the picture and present us with seemingly paradoxical situations.
>
> What Laurel Richardson and Carolyn Ellis have said refers to their field and is true in their field and method -- autoethnography. It is a scholarship of its own kind. Its roots are in philosophy and literary theory. The Humanities. In these fields people feel as if they do research when they write. Actually, this if one of their ways to research the world.
>
> If we transfer this approach to other disciplinary areas and paradigmatic realms, we will get into the debate we have already started. This debate is legitimate because there are a number of logical/methodological errors in the process of transfer and adoption. This methodological situation and the debate are further tinted by the contaminating circumstances that I mentioned above.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lubomir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 10:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Innovation and Design Research
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks everyone for their comments on the distinction between research and
> writing.
>
> I realised later I could have said things much simpler.
>
> The path I was going down was basic predicate first order logic. One reason
> being that if that isn't used then it's pretty impossible to have
> discussions about anything else in any way.
>
> From this perspective, the issue is simply ontological in terms of
> categories - think venn diagrams of concepts ('research' is a concept in
> circle A, and 'writing' is a concept in circle B)
>
> The use of the word 'is' is an identity operator and defines an ontological
> state that can be tested.
>
> For example, contrast the statements " A shoe is a piece of footwear" and
> "A shoe is a bottle of liquid paper". The term 'is' defines the
> relationships between the properties of the concepts.
>
> Notice the qualifier 'piece of'. This in effect states that the concept of
> 'shoe' is some kind of subset of the concept of 'footwear'. In venn diagram
> terms, the circle that contains 'shoes' is completely inside the circle that
> refers to 'footwear' . I.e. all the properties that define what it is to be
> a shoe are a sub-set of the properties that define what it is for something
> to be footwear.
>
> This is a test for the proper use of the 'is' operator - are all of the
> properties that define concept A totally and completely contained within the
> list of properties that define concept B
>
> Simply, a falsification test is whether there are any items of 'A' that
> are not members of 'B' and simultaneously items of 'B' that are not members
> of 'A'. If both occur then 'A' is not a 'B' nor is 'B' one of 'A'
>
> If 'research' is to be defined as writing then one would expect either:
>
> 1. All instances and examples of 'research' (A)to be fully and completely
> defined by the defining characteristics of 'the concept of 'writing' (B), OR
>
> 2. All instances and examples of 'writing'(B) to be fully and completely
> defined by the defining characteristics of the concept of 'research'(A)
>
> I suggest that there are some activities of writing that are not research
> and some activities of research that are not writing.
>
> This implies that using the identity operator 'is' gives a false
> relationship between the concepts of 'research' and 'writing' and is
> inappropriate to describe the relationship between them.
>
> In turn, it implies that it requires some other mechanism to justify being
> able to infer anything about research from what we know about the activity
> of writing and vice versa. It is not obvious that this is there or that
> anyone has suggested that it exists - hence the use of 'is' seems
> inappropriate in describing the relationship between 'writing' and
> 'research'.
>
> The standard of reasoning expected in a PhD differs, however, from
> everyday loose talk.
>
> For example it is perfectly reasonable pub talk to say 'the car is red'.
> This use of 'is' fails, however as soon as someone (a sharp thinking PhD
> student?) probes further for example asking 'Ah - so it uses red oil does
> it? An red steel and red glass for the windows, red electricity in the
> wires, red transistors - everything is red and all the way through?
> The reveals how the 'is' identity statement is inappropriate and the
> intended meaning could have been better conferred by a more accurate phrase
> such as 'red painted car'.
>
> In the case of research and writing, it seems a more appropriate phrasing
> might be 'using writing in research' rather than 'research is writing' or
> 'writing is research'.
>
> If one doesn't use predicate first order logic as the basis for reasoning,
> then the above doesn't apply - but I suspect most PhD examiners would be
> concerned about the quality of candidates' reasoning and ability to infer
> findings from their research if they don't use this kind of reasoning.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Terence
>
> ==
> Dr Terence Love FDRS,AMIMechE, PMACM MISI
> Love Design and Research
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Mob: 0434 975 848
> Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> ===
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
