Thanks Gunnar, my response was intended to reveal that there may be more
going on with NextD than a single document on the list may have suggested. I
didn't imply how dare you, I revealed explicitly that there's a body of work
that this fits into - and that body of work may answer the specific
criticism - I'm not going to cite 'where' it does, but the piece GK shared
was not a one-off.
So I also didn't know what you, Fil or others knew about other works from
NextD. I'd hate to share a summary document or whitepaper and be criticized
for all the things I left out of it, or didn't define specifically enough.
Not every document type needs to meet that standard - especially if the
purpose is not for scholarly publication. That's my second point, that this
document genre has its place.
And thirdly, what was the purpose in sharing a document on the list? I
revealed my stake - as having been a moderator on a very active list of
design professionals for a few years. So you know why I care - not about
that document, but about the role of such moderated lists. I've gained a lot
from the PhD Design list over the years - especially since Transforming
wound down in 2009 or so. But there is a tendency and a culture of intensive
critique which is well beyond the tenor of critique I know from peer review.
If contributions shared on this list are met with reflexive critique - when
not asked for - personally I would stop sharing anything. I wouldn't feel
inclined to share any ideas or contributions that were not already
peer-reviewed and therefore less vulnerable.
If I want a scholarly critique, I have peers and other faculty. If I'm
sharing a practitioner whitepaper, there may be better places than
PhD-Design. But there is a role for gray literature and as well for
promotion of some private seminars. And there is perhaps a need for other
types of discussion lists which have an appreciative and constructive
culture.
Best, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunnar Swanson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 9:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Teaching CoCreation Now
Ken and Peter,
I have to be very brief right now but I want to point out that neither Fil
nor I stated or even implied that NextD does not do valuable work. I find it
bizarre that specific criticism of the content and nature of a post is
answered by an inverted ad hominem: These guys are good guys so how
dareanyone respond negatively to anything they do or say?
Really? You can do better than that. It seems to me that the people who
claim to stand for logical inquiry shouldn't be so damned clubby. Just
because you or your school has worked with someone, that doesn't mean that
they can do or say no wrong. Ken, you've pulled this a couple of times with
me in the last few weeks. I suggest that you think about that.
My students will be doing a project with NextD this coming week. I hardly
rejected them entirely. I commented on a post (which, by the way, is part of
an unfortunate pattern in GK's public communication on this list and at
conference talks.) Much of my second post was not even directed at GK or his
original post.
If this is uncharitable, so be it.
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|
