Hi Ken,
One thing I feel gets forgotten is the crowd of PhD students milling around
with no idea about process.
In general, this list needs to remember the noobs. I agree with your intent
overall, and just want to reinforce the idea that this list supposedly
exists to serve PhD candidates in their process of coming to know scholarly
practice as much as the scholarly community already engaged in such
practice.
If you are going to pull apart the Mendeley collection Rosan suggested
(rightly, I agree), could you please identify the analysis tools with which
you did this, rather than simply mention that "There are tools you can use
for such a search"? Can you also please identify the bibliographies you
would recommend, and possibly any apparent holes in the discipline's formal
literature review body that a student might chase up?
This is not to criticise you, but rather to remind you that there are first
time readers here who are wondering what tools you use, what sources you
have, and who are looking for guidance as to what real problems exist in the
field.
I'd also appreciate it myself, as any insight into advanced practice is
always welcome in a community that focuses on pragmatic activity.
Cheers,
Adam
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Ken Friedman <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Rosan,
>
> Your post struck me. I went to the web site. Alas, this web site does
> not
> live up to its claim as a collection of "basic literature in the field
> of design
> theory and research."
>
> Some of the material is not basic, and large amounts have nothing to do
>
> either with design theory or with research. While this may be "some of
> the
> most popular references in design research," one would have to do a
> citation analysis to make that claim. There are tools you can use for
> such
> a search. I looked up the citation pattern for some of the items in the
>
> collection and I'd hardly call them popular. But popularity is not the
> criterion
> by which one measures the value of such a compilation.
>
> There are two objections I'd make to the site. First, these are not the
> "texts
> that should give orientation on theories, approaches and methods to
> newcomers in the field, like beginning PhD students." Most of the texts
> here
> would not serve that purpose at all. Of course, you can argue that this
> is only
> my opinion. Perhaps so, but I'd argue that this precisely the the kind
> of
> information that requires an informed opinion by skilled supervisors
> and
> scholars -- once they are qualified as doctoral supervisors. That's
> also why
> many universities now run supervisor training. The second objection is
> that
> this material does not show much dedication. The most recent entries
> were
> posted in December of 2009. This looks more like a social network site
>
> than a research compilation.
>
> If you wanted useful reading lists and bibliographies, you wouldn't
> look here.
> You could, however, seek purposefully organized bibliographies compiled
> by
> subject experts on the specific topics that interest you.
>
> The real bibliographic need in our field is to see some serious
> literature
> reviews, not an empty series of titles -- some of varying quality --
> assembled
> without focus or apparent reason,
>
> If you really want to follow up on Victor's post, why don't you choose
> a topic
> and write a literature review article? Our journals have far too few of
> them.
> Depending on the topic, I'm sure that a serious literature review
> article would
> find a welcome in such journals as Design Issues, Design Studies, the
> International Journal of Design, the Journal of Design Research, Design
> and
> Culture or others. Serious literature review articles are considered to
> be core
> contributions in most fields, and they would make a similar
> contribution to the
> fields of design and design research.
>
> Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson (2002) wrote an excellent article in
>
> Management Information Science Quarterly on writing a literature
> review. It’s
> short, but it covers the key issues and gives good how-to-advice. See:
>
> Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to
> Prepare for
> the Future: Writing a Literature Review.” Management Information
> Science
> Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, (June), xiii-xxiii.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
>
> Rosan Chow wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> As you know, there have been some attempts/efforts to build a
> bibilography of
> design literatures. We can start one more time, but perhaps in a
> different way:
>
> My young dedicated colleagues (yes I adore them) have introduced me to
> Mendeley
> and they own a group called
>
> Design Theory Basics,
>
> http://www.mendeley.com/groups/483191/design-theory-basics/
>
> I would like to invite you and others to join the group and add your
> reading list.
> Perhaps through this channel, we can achieve something organically,
> openly and
> collectively.
>
> --snip--
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor
> Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology |
> Melbourne, Australia
>
> [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078
> Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>
--
Adam Parker
Senior Lecturer, Games Design
Qantm College
Qantm College Melbourne Campus
235 Normanby Rd
South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia
+61 (0) 3 8632 3400 | Phone
+61 (0) 3 8632 3401 | Fax
www.sae.edu | Web
www.qantm.com.au | Web
www.saeshortcourses.com | Web
SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F. SAE
Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973
This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with any
copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes saving,
printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and may result
in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you wish to
unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic messages
from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send an email
this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
|