Dear Terry, and Eduardo,
This is a minor footnote on language.
The word “methodoxy” is a neologism. I’ve never seen it used anywhere other than this list.
“Methodoxy” is not a common English noun, and it has no documented English-language usage in lexicographical sources. Neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster’s has the word.
A Google search finds only 3,420 results for the word “methodoxy.” Many of these hits are brand names or split words. Other Google hits refer back to this list. This is a sharp contrast to widely used words such as “method” (1,320,000,000 hits), “methodology” (116,000,000 hits), or words with the “doxa” root such as “orthodox” (68,200,000 hits) or “orthodoxy” (12,300,000).
The “doxa” root does not refer to teaching. The Greek root “doxa” refers to opinions. For example, the word “orthodoxy” comes from Greek root words meaning “right opinion.” According to the OED, the word “orthodoxy” means “1. The quality or character of being orthodox; belief in or agreement with doctrines, opinions, or practices currently held to be right or correct, esp. in religious matters. 2. a. The body of opinions, doctrines, or beliefs held to be orthodox by a particular religion, society, or group. b. An orthodox opinion or belief.” Another word, “doxastic” means “Of or pertaining to opinion; depending on or exercising opinion.”
Without going deep, I suspect that the common mistake that the root “doxa” has to do with teaching is that orthodoxies use education and indoctrination to shape and reinforceorthodoxy: what they see as right opinion and belief.
Eduardo uses the word in a way close what the OED approach would be if the word had a recognized place in the English corpus: “I think that it is more useful to understand the set of methods in which some ‘societies’ of design namely schools and professional practitioners believe or believed in.” He emphasizes belief or opinion.
In the case of this thread, however, the word doesn’t apply. The question of research methodology in the field of design is not a question of what designers or design teachers believe about their professional practice – it is a question of comparative understanding and analysis of research methods.
Kari raised the question of methodology and a methodological program to understand valid approaches to research involving and incorporating the design process.
This is not an extension of “design methods” or the design methods approach, though design methods might be an object of inquiry.
It involves the question of research methodology, the comparative study of research methods.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:
--snip--
As for research through design that Kari brought out, it depends more in what I called years ago methodoxies. I still feel that a methodology on design or of design is useless as a science. I think that it is more useful to understand the set of methods in which some “societies” of design namely schools and professional practitioners believe or believed in. Obviously that the Design Methods Movement defined a methodoxy and not a methodology, for instance.
--snip--
Terry Love wrote:
--snip--
It seems the ‘doxy’ in ‘methodoxy’ means teaching (from the greek ‘doxa’). As I understand it, ‘a methodoxy’ is a particular body of methods that were taught together.
--snip--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
