Gosh, Rosan,
Since I am one of the professors who endorses Humantific and I am the professor who publishers quirky publishers, I'll take the liberty of responding to your troubled thoughts.
Should we seriously discuss this? Of course we should. What we should be discussing is the nature of Humantific's presentations, what more we wish to know, and what we might have to learn from Humantific's approach. There are differences between consulting practice in the working design industry and the often contested territory of debate, inquiry, and rigorous evidence that we expect at university-based research centers. Nothing new in that. GK and I have been debating this for years -- in his interview series, on PhD-Design, and here at Swinburne.
Your post is silly. Some of the many requests that GK gets from PhD students come from students here at Swinburne -- as well as from staff members who already have a PhD. A couple of posts to the list said the same. I can't see why you call GK's statement into question as a "claim."
As for cultic practice, I think you need to brush up on the social science courses you drifted through at university. The one useful aspect of your post was to alert me to Andrew King's commentary. If I'd have noticed it when it went by, I'd have said that there is no cultic language in GK's comments. There is a strong pitch, but that's the nature of the consulting industry. That's also why several of us felt motivated to clarify our debates with GK while stating that our experience is that Humantific delivers a serious and effective program.
Can you learn everything you need to know in one workshop? No, and no one said you can. For that matter, I learned something new this week that has reshaped much of what I think about design management and design research in a 20-minute talk. Not from a cult leader, either, but from the chairman of a major research institute (3,000 employees in 5 divisions, nearly all with PhDs, and many working closely with industry). This suggests to me that one can learn something in short courses and workshops as well lengthy programs, and it suggests that there is something to be said for people who work at the applied interface. The people who stated their experience with GK were simply saying that however he puts the material forward, real value is the foundation of the pitch.
The fact that the leader of Humantific has close contacts with universities and university professors has to do with the fact that we find real value in what Humantific does. Do we debate with GK? Yes. Does he respond and offer valuable answers? Absolutely, even when we don't agree. The basis of my endorsement is the experience of valuable programs and resources. Unless you think GK has managed to make me the victim of a sinister cult by brainwashing me in a way that no one else in the university community has noticed, you can take my endorsement for what it is.
That's it for now, Rosan. Hope this relieves your troubled mind.
Ken Friedman
Sent from my iPad
Rosan Chow wrote:
> This thought troubled me very much because the leader of
> Humantific seemed to have close contacts with and received endorsement from
> some university professors; and claimed to have received 'a lot of
> requests from PhD students'.
>
> Should we not seriously discuss about this? Should we not give as
> much attention to this as to some quirky publishers?
Gunnar Swanson wrote:
> What constitutes "actual cultic practice"? The term "cult" is usually used to mean "Any group that believes or acts differently than mine" and is often defined as a religious or quasi-religious group that venerates an object or person.
>
> How does having support, contact, or interest become somehow sinister?
>
|