JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  November 2012

PHD-DESIGN November 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 26 Nov 2012 to 27 Nov 2012 (#2012-294)

From:

Victor Margolin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:25:13 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (2977 lines)

Colleagues;
In response to Cameron's question it would be helpful to distinguish between an external examiner and an external member of an examination committee. In my university, University of Illinois, Chicago, it is possible to have external members of a committee. In fact, recently my department of art history graduated a student who wrote about design in Turkey. One of the committee members was in Istanbul and another was in Austin. When we had the final meeting they were connected by Skype and speaker phone. However, they read earlier drafts of the dissertation and had an opportunity to make comments to improve the final draft and then vote as members of the committee to approve, which they did, or not the dissertation. By comparison, I have had several experiences where I was invited to be an external examiner of a PhD thesis from another university but what I received was the final document as approved by an internal advisor. Hence, I had no opportunity to make a contribution to that document. I was then faced with the situation of approving it as is or not. In one instance, there was a lot of good material in the thesis and had I seen it earlier I could have made suggestions to improve the final version. Without that opportunity, my only option was to recommend pass, fail, or revise, a rather harsh set of choices. Perhaps one of the problems with using examiners or committee members outside the host university is payments. With the tiny amounts that are offered for reading a dissertation or thesis once, its hard to ask the committee member to do any more work. I strongly support the model where a professor is an external member of a committee with the opportunity to comment on the student's work at various stages. I also support paying that person more than the pittances usually offered because more work is required. To be an examiner who only deals with the completed thesis is something of a waste of energy, while also putting the examiner in an unfair position to have to make a judgment about the student's future.
Victor

Victor Margolin
Professor Emeritus of Design History
Department of Art History
University of Illinois, Chicago







On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:00 PM, PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system wrote:

> There are 33 messages totaling 3405 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
>  1. The Love-Friedman Conversation
>  2. "The World's Best 25 Design Schools" (3)
>  3. ³The World¹s Best 25 Design Schools² (3)
>  4. Role of references in research (11)
>  5. Emotional resonnance
>  6. Call for PAPERS, POSTERS and DEMONSTRATIONS: ACM Creativity and Cognition
>     2013
>  7. Should Identity Be Revealed?
>  8. External Examination of US PhDs (7)
>  9. Design maxims (5)
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:32:50 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The Love-Friedman Conversation
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> Good post but the details seem  a little off.
> 
> <snip> '... Terry¹s radically empirical position depends on the discovery of
> an ³executive function² (Chuck Burnette) in cognitive neuro-science. ' <end>
> 
> Nope.
> 
> One of the essential differences that new findings of neuroscience bring is
> there is  no need for an executive function in explaining phenomena or human
> action, thought and feelings.
> 
> The idea that an executive function is needed  is a throwback to the
> subjectivist view of phenomenology based on the reification of the idea
> there is a 'me' that is doing the looking. Ditto the idea of looking through
> the window  to see if one is there.
> 
> Regarding sense of self  as an illusion IS the phenomenological position  -
> so far usurped by subjective pseudo-phenomenology.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:55:22 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: "The World's Best 25 Design Schools"
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the validity
> of theory should be independent of subjective judgement, particularly about
> the author.
> 
> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove
> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and judgements
> about the quality of theory.
> 
> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric and its
> trappings (status of speaker etc).
> 
> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of validating
> theory  is the basis  of contemporary academic theory-making
> 
> I feel its of  concern on this list  if we start to judge validity of theory
> in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
> 
> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is writing
> has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and testing of design
> theory (already a serious problem in design research due to misplaced use of
> rhetoric). It discourages participation by those with less status. Perhaps
> worse, it necessarily results in conservative theory making aligned to the
> agreed views of a  high status group. This latter is a particular problem in
> the current situation where there is a need for significant radical change
> in design theory because much of  the existing design theory is out-date and
> doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
> 
> I suggest insisting  on accuracy  of reasoning and sound evidence is a
> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the number of
> the author's prefect badges  (unless of course one is 'blackboard monitor').
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Evans
> 
> <snip>I am sorry to hear that you are not prepared to be transparent about
> your current professional position. That is not only unusual within an
> academic community but it will also make it impossible for myself and others
> to make an informed judgement about the credibility of your postings.<end>
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:24:29 +0300
> From:    Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: "The World's Best 25 Design Schools"
> 
> Hi Terry,
> 
> I can see your point, in part, related to the author. The closest connection I make is to the peer review.
> 
> But if I understand you correctly—" for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric and its trappings (status of speaker etc)."—I have to take exception to your perspective on rhetoric and its place in theory making. Yes, references to ethos might be the lowest form of proof. But unless I've missed something, Aristotle does tell us that rhetoric is present when the facts are not decided. In theory building, the facts are not decided. Rhetoric plays an important role in the long tradition of debate and discussion not only in the areas of the law, the courts, and the church, but also, as the literature concerning the rhetoric of science points out, in the world of cold hard fact.
> 
> The background of the speaker might not be germaine here. I leave that to others to decide, but "the good man (or woman) speaking" does play a role in argument (peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference list), even as we rightly remove the author's name when the paper goes to review.
> 
> Back to reading student papers.
> 
> Susan (a black box)
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the validity
>> of theory should be independent of subjective judgement, particularly about
>> the author.
>> 
>> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove
>> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and judgements
>> about the quality of theory.
>> 
>> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric and its
>> trappings (status of speaker etc).
>> 
>> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of validating
>> theory  is the basis  of contemporary academic theory-making
>> 
>> I feel its of  concern on this list  if we start to judge validity of theory
>> in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
>> 
>> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is writing
>> has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and testing of design
>> theory (already a serious problem in design research due to misplaced use of
>> rhetoric). It discourages participation by those with less status. Perhaps
>> worse, it necessarily results in conservative theory making aligned to the
>> agreed views of a  high status group. This latter is a particular problem in
>> the current situation where there is a need for significant radical change
>> in design theory because much of  the existing design theory is out-date and
>> doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
>> 
>> I suggest insisting  on accuracy  of reasoning and sound evidence is a
>> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the number of
>> the author's prefect badges  (unless of course one is 'blackboard monitor').
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Evans
>> 
>> <snip>I am sorry to hear that you are not prepared to be transparent about
>> your current professional position. That is not only unusual within an
>> academic community but it will also make it impossible for myself and others
>> to make an informed judgement about the credibility of your postings.<end>
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:42:15 +0000
> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: ³The World¹s Best 25 Design Schools²
> 
> Hi, Karen,
> 
> If I understand this correctly, you seem to be offended because you believe that some of the jokes posted to the list were aimed at you personally or at Singapore as a nation. This is not so.
> 
> Rob poked fun at the method used to compile the rankings. He suggested that the method used to compile this ranking was so unreliable that one might just as well have bribed the journalists or bought them coffee to influence their opinions. No one suggested that you would do such a thing. This was about the rankings, not about you.
> 
> Chris responded by pointing out that the rankings are even more foolish than this. They don’t seem to recognize that they have ranked the same school twice under slightly different names. Chris’s joke responded to Rob’s comments on the methodological inadequacies of the rankings. She said nothing about you or Singapore, either.
> 
> None of these comments slight the Republic of Singapore as a nation. Singapore has achieved economic miracles linked with one of the world’s best education systems. Singapore’s design network is second to none. The use of design in Singaporean business and industry is widely respected among those who follow these issues.
> 
> The rankings cover schools, not nations. The list is narrow and parochial. The method was inadequate for getting information about the world’s best design schools. Rather than using a broad global survey or an expert panel, the magazine surveyed a self-selected list of readers from one nation. The resulting list covers the US schools where self-selected respondents graduated rather than covering all US design schools. With respect to ranking the world’s best design schools, therefore, the notions of sample size and statistical significance is silly. That’s what Rob and Chris were talking about.
> 
> After your reply, below, I reviewed the entire thread again. No one insulted you or Singapore. The list is about schools, not nations. And no one suggested that you would ever bribe a journalist. (And a cup of coffee would not be much of a bribe.)
> 
> Singapore has a strong reputation in education, industry, manufacturing, and design. No onewould bribe a journalist to write what nearly everyone already knows. The entire world recognizes what the Republic of Singapore has achieved.
> 
> Any list of well-educated people such as you find here will include many who respect and admire Singapore. I am one of them, and I’d guess the same of Chris and Rob. Rather than misinterpreting a modest joke, it would have been helpful if you had simply asked them what they meant. My guess is that they’d have been happy to explain it – and that there was no intention of insulting you or Singapore.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> —snip—
> 
> I personally have little regard to anyone who is distinguished or not, if I genuinely feel offended. I simply make my point through sharp and clear. I was and am taking this joke as serious. Not the ranking, as I have written earlier that I would *laugh* at it. The ranking was the laughable part, not the remarks thereafter.
> 
> So who is the number 5, if I buy the journalists coffee? That was the the thought. Then came someone’s else’s remark they were at number 19 and 25. Not very nice, isn’t it?
> 
> For the flat response, I don’t buy anyone coffee for anything. I believe in only one thing: if you buy off someone for a deal, chances are you will not be respected. I can be small and tiny but I will never buy coffee, lunch or expensive dinner to get where I want to be or where my tiny country wants to be. To me, buying coffee to be placed at number 5 (after the list of 4 countries that I have stated) is insult to the core. And I must speak up.
> 
> This is no small joke as it implies my country needs to buy coffee to be placed after the four countries in the best design countries in the world.
> 
> —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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:23:56 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi Susan,
> 
> Thanks for your message. I've changed the subject line to reflect the change
> in direction in your post.
> 
> You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference
> list<end>;  and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
> understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not the role
> of references.
> 
> The four Greek models of proof  are:
> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
> agreed axioms
> Deontic - self-evident proof
> Casuistic  - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
> Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
> 
> Usually academic research (following Socrates) depends only on logic and
> deontic proof and requires casuistic and rhetorical proof are eschewed.
> 
> My understanding of the role of references in academic papers  is they are
> solely abbreviation in a logical proof. In effect, the author is saying,
> 'There is part of the reasoning and evidence that I could write here but
> instead I will point you to a place where it is already available.' or ' I
> have used the reasoning or evidence from someone else. It is here. Please
> check the reasoning  and evidence in the original' 
> 
> Mistakenly, some academics think the purpose of a reference is somehow
> 'convey and attach to an authority to try to persuade the reader the author
> is correct' (using casuism or rhetoric), or that it is purely a matter of
> ethics (not stealing ideas). These misunderstandings of the role of
> references are often characteristic of Masters and PhD students  who carry
> them as a mistaken approach from school and undergraduate teaching.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> -----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 Susan
> Hagan
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 11:24 AM
> To: Dr Terence Love
> Subject: Re: "The World's Best 25 Design Schools"
> 
> Hi Terry,
> 
> I can see your point, in part, related to the author. The closest connection
> I make is to the peer review.
> 
> But if I understand you correctly-" for sound theory making avoid any taint
> of rhetoric and its trappings (status of speaker etc)."-I have to take
> exception to your perspective on rhetoric and its place in theory making.
> Yes, references to ethos might be the lowest form of proof. But unless I've
> missed something, Aristotle does tell us that rhetoric is present when the
> facts are not decided. In theory building, the facts are not decided.
> Rhetoric plays an important role in the long tradition of debate and
> discussion not only in the areas of the law, the courts, and the church, but
> also, as the literature concerning the rhetoric of science points out, in
> the world of cold hard fact.
> 
> The background of the speaker might not be germaine here. I leave that to
> others to decide, but "the good man (or woman) speaking" does play a role in
> argument (peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference list), even as
> we rightly remove the author's name when the paper goes to review.
> 
> Back to reading student papers.
> 
> Susan (a black box)
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the 
>> validity of theory should be independent of subjective judgement, 
>> particularly about the author.
>> 
>> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove 
>> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and 
>> judgements about the quality of theory.
>> 
>> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric 
>> and its trappings (status of speaker etc).
>> 
>> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of 
>> validating theory  is the basis  of contemporary academic 
>> theory-making
>> 
>> I feel its of  concern on this list  if we start to judge validity of 
>> theory in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
>> 
>> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is 
>> writing has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and 
>> testing of design theory (already a serious problem in design research 
>> due to misplaced use of rhetoric). It discourages participation by 
>> those with less status. Perhaps worse, it necessarily results in 
>> conservative theory making aligned to the agreed views of a  high 
>> status group. This latter is a particular problem in the current 
>> situation where there is a need for significant radical change in 
>> design theory because much of  the existing design theory is out-date and
> doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
>> 
>> I suggest insisting  on accuracy  of reasoning and sound evidence is a 
>> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the 
>> number of the author's prefect badges  (unless of course one is
> 'blackboard monitor').
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Evans
>> 
>> <snip>I am sorry to hear that you are not prepared to be transparent 
>> about your current professional position. That is not only unusual 
>> within an academic community but it will also make it impossible for 
>> myself and others to make an informed judgement about the credibility 
>> of your postings.<end>
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:04:48 +0300
> From:    Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi Terry,
> 
> I would take more time to write this, but I'm having student conferences—grammar caveats apply. Thanks for giving me a chance to reply.
> 
> The first part:
> 
>> You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference
>> list<end>;  and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
>> understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not the role
>> of references.
> 
> I didn't mean that rhetoric is the role of references, although references are a rhetorical move in argument that help to build ethos or credibility (the good man/woman speaking). The part of my reply having to do with references was related to Mark's request for credentials, which began our thread. My position was neutral concerning credentials in this thread. He might not have a point. For example, scholarly work from authors does not include the author's name before it goes out for review. But Mark might have a point. For example, peer reviewers see the reference list, which helps create an argument for credibility especially when the writer cites authors who have been cited repeatedly (Kaufer & Carley, 1993) In that case, ethos increases for the anonymous author through a relationship to well-known sources/authors. 
> 
> But I was more interested in the placement of rhetoric within the conversation. And that relates to:
> 
> <Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion>
> 
> I'm not a scholar of Socrates, but he was not a fan of rhetoric. I'm not surprised that you would have a negative view of rhetoric from his perspective. Aristotle's point of view is the one that I follow. It relates to problems where there is not certain answer. Theory building is such a problem area. 
> 
> Aristotle created the 5-part canon (invention, arrangement, style, delivery, memory). Within the canon, we argue for our position using three different methods. One is logic. What are the facts of the case? One is ethos. How credible is the speaker, and how do you judge credibility? The last is pathos. How do you encourage your audience to care about the problem and your solution. Here, emotion is not about manipulation, but about making the audience care about a real problem. I'm here in Doha. Doha is hosting COP 18. The question is how do you help people both understand and care about this topic.
> 
> Manipulation is something else. Some might call that persuasion rather than argument (the author here eludes me). Others might call it used car sales (=
> 
> Best,
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> 
>> Hi Susan,
>> 
>> Thanks for your message. I've changed the subject line to reflect the change
>> in direction in your post.
>> 
>> You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference
>> list<end>;  and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
>> understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not the role
>> of references.
>> 
>> The four Greek models of proof  are:
>> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
>> agreed axioms
>> Deontic - self-evident proof
>> Casuistic  - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
>> Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
>> 
>> Usually academic research (following Socrates) depends only on logic and
>> deontic proof and requires casuistic and rhetorical proof are eschewed.
>> 
>> My understanding of the role of references in academic papers  is they are
>> solely abbreviation in a logical proof. In effect, the author is saying,
>> 'There is part of the reasoning and evidence that I could write here but
>> instead I will point you to a place where it is already available.' or ' I
>> have used the reasoning or evidence from someone else. It is here. Please
>> check the reasoning  and evidence in the original' 
>> 
>> Mistakenly, some academics think the purpose of a reference is somehow
>> 'convey and attach to an authority to try to persuade the reader the author
>> is correct' (using casuism or rhetoric), or that it is purely a matter of
>> ethics (not stealing ideas). These misunderstandings of the role of
>> references are often characteristic of Masters and PhD students  who carry
>> them as a mistaken approach from school and undergraduate teaching.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> 
>> -----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 Susan
>> Hagan
>> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 11:24 AM
>> To: Dr Terence Love
>> Subject: Re: "The World's Best 25 Design Schools"
>> 
>> Hi Terry,
>> 
>> I can see your point, in part, related to the author. The closest connection
>> I make is to the peer review.
>> 
>> But if I understand you correctly-" for sound theory making avoid any taint
>> of rhetoric and its trappings (status of speaker etc)."-I have to take
>> exception to your perspective on rhetoric and its place in theory making.
>> Yes, references to ethos might be the lowest form of proof. But unless I've
>> missed something, Aristotle does tell us that rhetoric is present when the
>> facts are not decided. In theory building, the facts are not decided.
>> Rhetoric plays an important role in the long tradition of debate and
>> discussion not only in the areas of the law, the courts, and the church, but
>> also, as the literature concerning the rhetoric of science points out, in
>> the world of cold hard fact.
>> 
>> The background of the speaker might not be germaine here. I leave that to
>> others to decide, but "the good man (or woman) speaking" does play a role in
>> argument (peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference list), even as
>> we rightly remove the author's name when the paper goes to review.
>> 
>> Back to reading student papers.
>> 
>> Susan (a black box)
>> 
>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Terence Love wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> 
>>> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the 
>>> validity of theory should be independent of subjective judgement, 
>>> particularly about the author.
>>> 
>>> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove 
>>> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and 
>>> judgements about the quality of theory.
>>> 
>>> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric 
>>> and its trappings (status of speaker etc).
>>> 
>>> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of 
>>> validating theory  is the basis  of contemporary academic 
>>> theory-making
>>> 
>>> I feel its of  concern on this list  if we start to judge validity of 
>>> theory in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
>>> 
>>> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is 
>>> writing has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and 
>>> testing of design theory (already a serious problem in design research 
>>> due to misplaced use of rhetoric). It discourages participation by 
>>> those with less status. Perhaps worse, it necessarily results in 
>>> conservative theory making aligned to the agreed views of a  high 
>>> status group. This latter is a particular problem in the current 
>>> situation where there is a need for significant radical change in 
>>> design theory because much of  the existing design theory is out-date and
>> doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
>>> 
>>> I suggest insisting  on accuracy  of reasoning and sound evidence is a 
>>> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the 
>>> number of the author's prefect badges  (unless of course one is
>> 'blackboard monitor').
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Terry
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mark Evans
>>> 
>>> <snip>I am sorry to hear that you are not prepared to be transparent 
>>> about your current professional position. That is not only unusual 
>>> within an academic community but it will also make it impossible for 
>>> myself and others to make an informed judgement about the credibility 
>>> of your postings.<end>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:05:41 +0000
> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi, Terry,
> 
> Your note to Susan Hagan on the Greek models of proof is incorrect. You described four terms:
> 
> —snip—
> 
> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
> agreed axioms
> Deontic - self-evident proof
> Casuistic  - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
> Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
> 
> —snip—
> 
> The last three terms in this list are not Greek models of proof.
> 
> Deontic arguments do not involve “self-evident proof.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word deontic as “of or relating to duty, obligation, etc.”
> 
> Your misunderstanding of the term “deontic” explains the odd comment you made in an earlier post. After telling a story rather than answer a question, you suggested that you would explain the story to me if I did not find it “deontically obvious.” While this specific comment puzzled me, I found the entire post so odd that I never answered.
> 
> At any rate, deontology is a branch of ethics. Deontic logic is a specialized logic involving entailments and the distinctions between what is permissible, optional, andimpermissible or necessary, contingent, and impossible. The word deontic comes from the Greek word “deon,” meaning “duty.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines deontology as “The science of duty; that branch of knowledge which deals with moral obligations; ethics.” Deontology examines how ethical systems require, permit, or forbid certain choices.
> 
> Casuistry is not a model of proof. The Greeks would have used the term sophistry for what wedescribe as casuistry. While a casuist may offer argument from authority orproof from the Bible, there are many form of casuist reasoning. By definition, casuistry involves specious reasoning. The OED defines casuistry as: “The science, art, or reasoning of the casuist; that part of Ethics which resolves cases of conscience, applying the general rules of religion and morality toparticular instances in which ‘circumstances alter cases’, or in which there appears to be a conflict of duties. Often (and perhaps originally) applied to a quibbling or evasive way of dealing with difficult cases of duty; sophistry.”
> 
> Rhetoric is not “proof by manipulation of belief and emotion.” In fact, rhetoric was never a model of proof in classical Greek thinking.
> 
> The OED defines rhetoric as, “The art of using language effectively so as to persuade or influence others, esp. the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques to this end; the study of principles and rules to be followed by a speaker or writer striving for eloquence, esp. as formulated by ancient Greek and Roman writers.” Rhetoric is an art of invention andpersuasion, but it is not a mode of logical proof. Rather, rhetoricians mayemploy logic among other means in their deployment of language to persuade.
> 
> Experts in classical rhetoric would be horrified by the notion that rhetoric is “proof by manipulation of belief and emotion.” The entire point of rhetorical studies in classical Greece was to adduce sound argument from evidence, and then to present it persuasively.
> 
> Susan has to be kidding when she describes herself as a “black box.” She earned her PhD at Carnegie Mellon University with a thesis on rhetoric. She also holds the NCTE Award for Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication. When it comes to this aspect of philosophy and scientific communication, her expertise exceeds that of most folks on this list. She is a serious thinker and a skilled professional designer.
> 
> You’ll have to rise early in the day if you want to catch Susan Hagan napping. In this case, your corrections are incorrect.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Ken
> 
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:26:55 +0100
> From:    Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: "The World's Best 25 Design Schools"
> 
> Dear Terry,
> 
> As you know, I often don't agree with your PhD-Design posts,
> nor like them.
> 
> But this one I do agree with, and like!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tim
> (A person)
> 
> ===============================================
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 01:55 , Terence Love wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the validity
>> of theory should be independent of subjective judgement, particularly about
>> the author.
>> 
>> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove
>> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and judgements
>> about the quality of theory.
>> 
>> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric and its
>> trappings (status of speaker etc).
>> 
>> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of validating
>> theory  is the basis  of contemporary academic theory-making
>> 
>> I feel its of  concern on this list  if we start to judge validity of theory
>> in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
>> 
>> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is writing
>> has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and testing of design
>> theory (already a serious problem in design research due to misplaced use of
>> rhetoric). It discourages participation by those with less status. Perhaps
>> worse, it necessarily results in conservative theory making aligned to the
>> agreed views of a  high status group. This latter is a particular problem in
>> the current situation where there is a need for significant radical change
>> in design theory because much of  the existing design theory is out-date and
>> doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
>> 
>> I suggest insisting  on accuracy  of reasoning and sound evidence is a
>> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the number of
>> the author's prefect badges  (unless of course one is 'blackboard monitor').
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:36:05 +0100
> From:    Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Dear Terry,
> 
> And I like and agree with what you say here about the use and 
> role of cited work, ie references.
> 
> I'm in the middle of reviewing some 50 or so publications to
> help with the REF-2014 preparations of a University Department
> in the UK, and I can say that the misunderstanding you point
> to is on display in many of these, including those written by
> more senior researchers.  Also on display is the failure to
> cite needed pieces of reason, argument, evidence, and
> previously published results.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tim
> 
> ===============================================
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 05:23 , Terence Love wrote:
> 
>> Hi Susan,
>> 
>> Thanks for your message. I've changed the subject line to reflect the change
>> in direction in your post.
>> 
>> You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their reference
>> list<end>;  and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
>> understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not the role
>> of references.
>> 
>> The four Greek models of proof  are:
>> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
>> agreed axioms
>> Deontic - self-evident proof
>> Casuistic  - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
>> Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
>> 
>> Usually academic research (following Socrates) depends only on logic and
>> deontic proof and requires casuistic and rhetorical proof are eschewed.
>> 
>> My understanding of the role of references in academic papers  is they are
>> solely abbreviation in a logical proof. In effect, the author is saying,
>> 'There is part of the reasoning and evidence that I could write here but
>> instead I will point you to a place where it is already available.' or ' I
>> have used the reasoning or evidence from someone else. It is here. Please
>> check the reasoning  and evidence in the original' 
>> 
>> Mistakenly, some academics think the purpose of a reference is somehow
>> 'convey and attach to an authority to try to persuade the reader the author
>> is correct' (using casuism or rhetoric), or that it is purely a matter of
>> ethics (not stealing ideas). These misunderstandings of the role of
>> references are often characteristic of Masters and PhD students  who carry
>> them as a mistaken approach from school and undergraduate teaching.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:31:57 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Thanks for your detailed reply to my hurried note.  
> 
> Brain freeze  on deontic - should have been 'deictic' - in both cases.
> (Though deontic logic (Kripke) is really useful as a basis for resolving
> pseudo 'wicked' problems, design rationale and design space analysis if one
> ignores its original meaning).
> 
> My understanding of the commonality of the multiple definitions of 'proof'
> is as the establishment of something via testing.  I suspect in your case,
> this view on proof would translate to something  equivalent to the activity
> of 'formal argument' intended to establish a preferred position.
> 
> In what I wrote, I apologise for having just discovered a hidden (to me)
> tautology of defining proof as 'logically-derived proof' - and hence
> excluding rhetoric and deictic by definition. 
> 
> My understanding (pre your quoting of OED) of  'casuism' is of it being
> argument by reference to authority and case, primarily in relation to
> religious authority.  This seems to stand ok with the literature, with and
> without OED. You have somehow, however,  converted my words 'casuism as a
> basis for proof'  to 'model of proof'  which is rather different and I
> suspect reflects differences in how we see 'proof'.
> 
> As to me defining rhetoric in terms of 'manipulation of belief and
> emotion', That seems to me a reasonably close (if hurried) explanation of
> rhetoric in its meaning (Greek and nowadays) as 'persuasion', whether the
> persuasion is aimed at 'truth' or not (or knowledge vs opinion). 'Rhetoric'
> in whatever its form differs from logic, and it is logic (valid reasoning
> and avoiding fallacious reasoning) that is usually considered as the essence
> of proof (testing)  in research and theory making rather than the rhetorical
> ability to persuade. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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 Ken
> Friedman
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 3:06 PM
> To: Dr Terence Love
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi, Terry,
> 
> Your note to Susan Hagan on the Greek models of proof is incorrect. You
> described four terms:
> 
> -snip-
> 
> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
> agreed axioms Deontic - self-evident proof Casuistic  - proof on the basis
> of authority (proof from the bible) Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of
> belief and emotion
> 
> -snip-
> 
> The last three terms in this list are not Greek models of proof.
> 
> Deontic arguments do not involve "self-evident proof." The Oxford English
> Dictionary defines the word deontic as "of or relating to duty, obligation,
> etc."
> 
> Your misunderstanding of the term "deontic" explains the odd comment you
> made in an earlier post. After telling a story rather than answer a
> question, you suggested that you would explain the story to me if I did not
> find it "deontically obvious." While this specific comment puzzled me, I
> found the entire post so odd that I never answered.
> 
> At any rate, deontology is a branch of ethics. Deontic logic is a
> specialized logic involving entailments and the distinctions between what is
> permissible, optional, andimpermissible or necessary, contingent, and
> impossible. The word deontic comes from the Greek word "deon," meaning
> "duty." The Oxford English Dictionary defines deontology as "The science of
> duty; that branch of knowledge which deals with moral obligations; ethics."
> Deontology examines how ethical systems require, permit, or forbid certain
> choices.
> 
> Casuistry is not a model of proof. The Greeks would have used the term
> sophistry for what wedescribe as casuistry. While a casuist may offer
> argument from authority orproof from the Bible, there are many form of
> casuist reasoning. By definition, casuistry involves specious reasoning. The
> OED defines casuistry as: "The science, art, or reasoning of the casuist;
> that part of Ethics which resolves cases of conscience, applying the general
> rules of religion and morality toparticular instances in which
> 'circumstances alter cases', or in which there appears to be a conflict of
> duties. Often (and perhaps originally) applied to a quibbling or evasive way
> of dealing with difficult cases of duty; sophistry."
> 
> Rhetoric is not "proof by manipulation of belief and emotion." In fact,
> rhetoric was never a model of proof in classical Greek thinking.
> 
> The OED defines rhetoric as, "The art of using language effectively so as to
> persuade or influence others, esp. the exploitation of figures of speech and
> other compositional techniques to this end; the study of principles and
> rules to be followed by a speaker or writer striving for eloquence, esp. as
> formulated by ancient Greek and Roman writers." Rhetoric is an art of
> invention andpersuasion, but it is not a mode of logical proof. Rather,
> rhetoricians mayemploy logic among other means in their deployment of
> language to persuade.
> 
> Experts in classical rhetoric would be horrified by the notion that rhetoric
> is "proof by manipulation of belief and emotion." The entire point of
> rhetorical studies in classical Greece was to adduce sound argument from
> evidence, and then to present it persuasively.
> 
> Susan has to be kidding when she describes herself as a "black box." She
> earned her PhD at Carnegie Mellon University with a thesis on rhetoric. She
> also holds the NCTE Award for Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of
> Technical or Scientific Communication. When it comes to this aspect of
> philosophy and scientific communication, her expertise exceeds that of most
> folks on this list. She is a serious thinker and a skilled professional
> designer.
> 
> You'll have to rise early in the day if you want to catch Susan Hagan
> napping. In this case, your corrections are incorrect.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Ken
> 
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214
> 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:38:20 -0000
> From:    Ranulph Glanville <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Don't let's forget that references are also a way of saying
> 
> 
> "I join and intend to remain a member of a community with a long
> history"
> 
> "Thank you to..."
> 
> 
> 
> Ranulph
> 
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:36:05 +0100
> 
>> Dear Terry,
>> 
>> And I like and agree with what you say here about the use and 
>> role of cited work, ie references.
>> 
>> I'm in the middle of reviewing some 50 or so publications to
>> help with the REF-2014 preparations of a University Department
>> in the UK, and I can say that the misunderstanding you point
>> to is on display in many of these, including those written by
>> more senior researchers.  Also on display is the failure to
>> cite needed pieces of reason, argument, evidence, and
>> previously published results.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> ===============================================
>> 
>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 05:23 , Terence Love wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Susan,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your message. I've changed the subject line to reflect
>> the change
>>> in direction in your post.
>>> 
>>> You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their
>> reference
>>> list<end>;  and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
>>> understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not
>> the role
>>> of references.
>>> 
>>> The four Greek models of proof  are:
>>> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from
>> previously
>>> agreed axioms
>>> Deontic - self-evident proof
>>> Casuistic  - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
>>> Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
>>> 
>>> Usually academic research (following Socrates) depends only on
>> logic and
>>> deontic proof and requires casuistic and rhetorical proof are
>> eschewed.
>>> 
>>> My understanding of the role of references in academic papers  is
>> they are
>>> solely abbreviation in a logical proof. In effect, the author is
>> saying,
>>> 'There is part of the reasoning and evidence that I could write
>> here but
>>> instead I will point you to a place where it is already available.'
>> or ' I
>>> have used the reasoning or evidence from someone else. It is here.
>> Please
>>> check the reasoning  and evidence in the original' 
>>> 
>>> Mistakenly, some academics think the purpose of a reference is
>> somehow
>>> 'convey and attach to an authority to try to persuade the reader
>> the author
>>> is correct' (using casuism or rhetoric), or that it is purely a
>> matter of
>>> ethics (not stealing ideas). These misunderstandings of the role of
>>> references are often characteristic of Masters and PhD students 
>> who carry
>>> them as a mistaken approach from school and undergraduate teaching.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Terry
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:25:13 +0000
> From:    Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi, Terry,
> 
> You are also mistaken on the term “deictic.”
> 
> Your wrote: "Brain freeze ondeontic - should have been ‘deictic’ - in both cases. (Though deontic logic (Kripke) is really useful as a basis for resolving pseudo ‘wicked’ problems, design rationale and design space analysis if one ignores its original meaning)."
> 
> This is not quite right, either. Deictic proof does not refer to self-evident proof. Rather, it points to demonstrative logic – reasoning that proves directly, rather than indirectly. For something to be self-evident is somewhat different.
> 
> This post may have been hurried, but you've used deontic and deontically in earlier posts, criticizing my position against your own position, a position that you represented as "deontically obvious."
> 
> Your next comment is simply puzzling. You wrote, "My understanding of the commonality of the multiple definitions of ‘proof’ is as the establishment of something via testing. I suspect in your case, this view on proof would translate to something equivalent to the activity of ‘formal argument’ intended to establish a preferred position."
> 
> While you continually refer to neuro-science, you have not offered evidence based on testing to support your preferred position. You have repeatedly referred to your own research, but I haven't found any papers that you have published in the field of neuroscience. Your only papers on neuroscience seem to be presentations to design conferences where you offer your views about neuroscience.
> 
> In what way does your position differ from that of anyone who offers opinions on research in a field where he doesn’t do research?
> 
> If it seems like I'm a bit grumpy here, I am. You've spent a lot of time explaining how ignorant the rest of us are without demonstrating a reasonable case for your position.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:06:41 +0300
> From:    Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Just to clarify, I'd agree that references provide evidence, and that evidence can be stronger or weaker depending on the source. But along with the evidence that references provide to, for example, give weight to a new theoretical perspective, they also, as Ranulph points out, help to show that the author is a member of a community. Becoming a member of that community increases credibility. In that way, references act to build logos... and ethos.  Both logos and ethos are basic interests in rhetoric.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Ranulph Glanville wrote:
> 
>> Don't let's forget that references are also a way of saying
>> 
>> 
>> "I join and intend to remain a member of a community with a long
>> history"
>> 
>> "Thank you to..."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ranulph
>> 
>> ---- Original Message ----
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
>> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:36:05 +0100
>> 
>>> Dear Terry,
>>> 
>>> And I like and agree with what you say here about the use and 
>>> role of cited work, ie references.
>>> 
>>> I'm in the middle of reviewing some 50 or so publications to
>>> help with the REF-2014 preparations of a University Department
>>> in the UK, and I can say that the misunderstanding you point
>>> to is on display in many of these, including those written by
>>> more senior researchers.  Also on display is the failure to
>>> cite needed pieces of reason, argument, evidence, and
>>> previously published results.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> ===============================================
>>> 
>>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 05:23 , Terence Love wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your message. I've changed the subject line to reflect
>>> the change
>>>> in direction in your post.
>>>> 
>>>> You wrote <snip> 'Peer reviewed papers do not remove their
>>> reference
>>>> list<end>;  and suggested rhetoric was the role of references. As I
>>>> understand it, the situation is different and that is very much not
>>> the role
>>>> of references.
>>>> 
>>>> The four Greek models of proof  are:
>>>> Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from
>>> previously
>>>> agreed axioms
>>>> Deontic - self-evident proof
>>>> Casuistic  - proof on the basis of authority (proof from the bible)
>>>> Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of belief and emotion
>>>> 
>>>> Usually academic research (following Socrates) depends only on
>>> logic and
>>>> deontic proof and requires casuistic and rhetorical proof are
>>> eschewed.
>>>> 
>>>> My understanding of the role of references in academic papers  is
>>> they are
>>>> solely abbreviation in a logical proof. In effect, the author is
>>> saying,
>>>> 'There is part of the reasoning and evidence that I could write
>>> here but
>>>> instead I will point you to a place where it is already available.'
>>> or ' I
>>>> have used the reasoning or evidence from someone else. It is here.
>>> Please
>>>> check the reasoning  and evidence in the original' 
>>>> 
>>>> Mistakenly, some academics think the purpose of a reference is
>>> somehow
>>>> 'convey and attach to an authority to try to persuade the reader
>>> the author
>>>> is correct' (using casuism or rhetoric), or that it is purely a
>>> matter of
>>>> ethics (not stealing ideas). These misunderstandings of the role of
>>>> references are often characteristic of Masters and PhD students 
>>> who carry
>>>> them as a mistaken approach from school and undergraduate teaching.
>>>> 
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Terry
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:19:38 +0100
> From:    Vincent RIEUF <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Emotional resonnance
> 
> Dear all,
> I am presently studying the emotional activity of the designer during the
> early phases of design: "Early" being inspiration and first sketches.
> I am wondering if any one of you know about studies on mirror neurones,
> empathy and emotional resonances' implication in design.
> I know a lot of studies have been mad on intra-species neuronal activation
> human to human interaction.
> how about human / product and human / inspiration material?
> Best regards
> 
> -- 
> *Vincent RIEUF*
> Doctorant Design&Réalité-Virtuelle
> *Laboratoire de Conception de Produit et Innovation *
> *Arts et Métiers ParisTech*
> 
> tel: *0682398241*
> *
> *
> *"  A designer knows he has achieved perfection *
> *not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to
> take away. "*
> 
> *         Antoine de Saint-Exupery*
> **
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:50:26 +0100
> From:    Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 09:38 , Ranulph Glanville wrote:
> 
>> Don't let's forget that references are also a way of saying
>> 
>> "I join and intend to remain a member of a community with a long
>> history"
>> 
>> "Thank you to..."
>> 
>> Ranulph
> 
> 
> Dear Ranulph,
> 
> I agree, but I'd humbly like to suggest that we better
> understand these as intended implications of who and what we
> cite.
> 
> I think reference lists can say quite a lot about a research
> communication, ie a publication.  As I read a paper--that I am
> to review--I often mark the references at the end as cited in
> favour of, cited in contrast to, or cited as a neutral source.
> 
> After reading I look to see how many references are unmarked
> as one of these three kinds.  If there are lots of these, it
> suggests weaknesses in how the communication is built upon
> existing published work.  I also check that the cited in
> favour and cited in contrast form (what I understand to be)
> coherent sets, ie, that the in favour citations can fit
> happily together, and the same for the in contrast to
> citations, and that there are not obviously contradictory in
> favour and in contrast citations.  This helps to identify that
> the author(s) do place them selves well in a camp, and that
> the camp can indeed be identified.  If there are few or no in
> contrast to citations, it suggests that the critical state of
> the art is not well presented.  Similarly, if there are few or
> no in favour citations, it suggests that what is presented is
> not properly connected to existing relevant work.  Research
> contributions are made in a friendly camp, not in the
> opposition's camp, and not in "no-man's land" in between.  And
> most research contributions should be usefully incremental,
> even if funding agencies these days don't seem to think this
> kind of research is worth funding.
> 
> I don't want to say that this is a completely robust and
> reliable form of analysis.  It isn't!  Sometimes it cannot be
> sensibly applied.  And sometimes it doesn't work.
> Nonetheless, I do find it useful in understanding how a
> research communication has been built and how it works, or
> doesn't.
> 
> I've used this for many years now.  I learned it when I was
> doing my PhD, from a senior research manager at a (UK)
> government funded industrial research lab.  He told me he used
> it to help him tell the difference between (what he called)
> academic hand waving, that wasn't worth trying to understand,
> and substantial research results that it'd be worth trying to
> understand.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:54:54 +0900
> From:    Yukari Nagai <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Call for PAPERS, POSTERS and DEMONSTRATIONS: ACM Creativity and Cognition 2013
> 
> *** 2nd Call for PAPERS, POSTERS and DEMONSTRATIONS ***
> 
> 
> 
> *** Call for GRADUATE STUDENT SYMPOSIUM ***
> 
> 
> 
> ACM Creativity and Cognition 2013 
> 
> 17th-20th June, 2013, Sydney, Australia. 
> 
> University of Technology, Sydney
> 
> 
> 
> http://cc13.creativityandcognition.com
> 
> 
> 
> *** Deadlines Approaching *** 
> 
> 17th December 2012 for Papers and Posters
> 
> 1st March 2013 for Demos and Graduate Student Symposium
> 
> 
> 
> The University of Technology, Sydney will host the International
> Conference on Creativity and Cognition from the 17th to the 20th of June
> 2013. The organising committee would like to invite you to join us in
> Sydney for another conference in this very successful series.
> 
> 
> 
> For 2013 the conference theme will be 'Intersections and Interactions',
> due to the inter-disciplinarity that is inherent in the study of
> creativity and cognition. June 2013 will be an exciting time for Sydney,
> as the International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA 2013) will run from
> the 7th to 16th, as well as theVivid Festival of Arts from the 24th of May
> until the 10th of June. Also, the International Conference on
> Computational Creativity has been recently announced for the dates 12-14
> June, 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> *** UPDATED Submission System *** NOW OPEN
> 
> Details on submission by easychair and links to the SIGCHI template for
> submissions are available at: 
> 
> http://cc13.creativityandcognition.com/?page_id=179 
> 
> 
> 
> *** CALL FOR PAPERS, POSTERS and DEMONSTRATIONS ***
> 
> 
> 
> Deadline for submission: 17th December, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> Submission Method: Easychair - see Submission page for details. All papers
> and posters will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers and posters will be
> published in the proceedings and will be included in the ACM Digital
> Library.
> 
> 
> 
> General topics may include, but are not limited to:
> 
> 
> 
> * Descriptions or case study reports of musical, artistic, literary or
> other forms of successful creative expression or collaboration.
> 
> * Reflections or analyses of design, artistic thinking or creative thought
> in general or analysis of the creative process in any medium of
> expression.
> 
> * Visual, auditory, tactile or multi-modal representations for creative
> work, e.g., technology for graphics, visualization, virtual reality and
> other forms of computing.
> 
> * Materials for creativity, e.g., tangible interaction for creative
> expression, e.g., sticky notes, electronic textiles, physical computing,
> new materials for creativity.
> 
> * Creation, implementation, evaluation and practical use of digital tools
> to support creative cognition or visualization.
> 
> * Empirical reports of design, development and deployment of platforms,
> tools and toolkits to support creative work in any domain.
> 
> * Models and theories of creative thinking from any perspective, e.g.,
> cognitive, cognitive neuroscience, information-processing and
> computational.
> 
> * Studies of bringing creative ideas to mind: e.g., open-ended reports and
> explorations of idea generation, divergent thinking, and other ways of
> breaking up habitual modes of thought, creative problem solving or
> decision making.
> 
> * Empirical studies of creativity or creative cognition: e.g., cognitive
> study of artistic work and/or creative design methods
> 
> * Evaluation methods and/or criteria for assessing creative work by an
> individual, small group, or community.
> 
> * Creative information design to support communication.
> 
> * Understanding the 'audience' experience and reactions to creative works,
> e.g., evaluation criteria, methods and tools, empirical reports on
> development and production of creative work by and for target audiences.
> 
> * Inter-disciplinary methods and models for creative collaboration, e.g.,
> reports of inter-disciplinary interactions and collaboration for
> creativity, including discussion of what worked and what didn't.
> 
> * Collective creativity and creative communities, e.g., collaborative
> cognition, the nature and role of analogies used in groups, conceptual
> synergy and combination, when and how group processes may actually inhibit
> or limit creative collaboration.
> 
> * Empirical studies of social media and computing in creativity.
> 
> * Creativity in the wild: e.g., reports of everyday personal creativity,
> group creativity, or the workings of online creative communities.
> 
> 
> 
> Creativity is sometimes thought of as being a human cognitive capacity to
> solve problems.  Creativity is sometimes thought of as a process that
> occurs in the intersections between individuals, domains and fields.
> Creativity is sometimes viewed as a characteristic of an artifact, such as
> an artwork, or of a concept, such as a new scientific theory, that is both
> novel and valuable.
> 
> 
> 
> The Creativity and Cognition Conference Series aims to be a common meeting
> ground where individuals can interact with others from different domains
> and fields to explore and share a variety of information, observations,
> insights and ideas about the human capacity to creatively solve problems
> and produce novel and valuable artifacts in their context and culture.
> 
> 
> 
> As a single track conference the Creativity and Cognition conference
> series establishes a forum where people can 'rub minds' with and hear
> about the work of others from a variety of domains and perspectives as
> they report and describe their engagement with that most complex of
> intersections-creativity and cognition.
> 
> 
> 
> To this end, Creativity and Cognition 2013 seeks papers, posters and
> demonstrations from individuals and teams of people working in any of a
> variety of domains who seek to improve our understanding of this
> multifaceted domain that engages the interest and attention of people from
> so many different fields.
> 
> 
> 
> All submissions are to be anonymised and presented in SIGCHI format, for
> which templates can be found on the Submission page of the conference
> website (http://cc13.creativityandcognition.com). 
> 
> 
> 
> Papers are to be a maximum of 10 pages, while poster submissions are to be
> a maximum of 4 pages in length. Papers and posters are to be submitted by
> 17 Dec 2012 through the paper submission system linked to above.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrations are also invited, with a maximum of 2 pages in length, will
> be due on the 1st of March 2013. 
> 
> 
> 
> *** Call for GRADUATE STUDENT SYMPOSIUM SUBMISSIONS ****
> 
> 
> 
> Important Dates for GRADUATE STUDENT SYMPOSIUM SUBMISSIONS
> 
> Submissions due: 1st March, 2013
> 
> Notifications: 1st April, 2013
> 
> Graduate Student Symposium: 17th June 2013
> 
> 
> 
> The Graduate Student Symposium is a forum in which postgraduate students
> meet and discuss their work with each other and a panel of experienced
> researchers and practitioners. The Symposium itself will be held on the
> 17th of June, with a table for the participants to be reserved during the
> conference dinner. We welcome applications in any of the disciplines and
> approaches concerned with Creativity and Cognition (see the Call for
> Papers for further details on topics).
> 
> 
> 
> Applicants should be Ph.D. students with an already well-established
> direction of research relevant to Creativity and Cognition, but whose
> research would benefit from guidance provided by peers and senior
> colleagues at the Graduate Student Symposium. Each application should
> provide:
> 
> 
> 
> *  A short written paper (no more than TWO pages in SIGCHI format) 
> 
> *  A brief letter of support from the student's principal adviser
> 
> *  A brief 2-3 paragraph biographical sketch on a separate page together
> with a list of any relevant publications
> 
> 
> 
> The paper should describe ongoing work and summarize the student's thesis,
> or highlight a particular aspect - therefore it should be first-authored
> by the student. Advisors' or supervisors' letters of support should
> indicate that the work has reached the appropriate level of maturity for
> presentation in this venue. The letter of support  and biographical sketch
> should be submitted together with the paper on the conference submission
> site. Please note that Graduate Student Symposium submission, unlike paper
> submission, is not anonymous. For templates, please see the conference
> website under Submission. 
> 
> 
> 
> Participants will be selected based on their anticipated contributions to
> the breadth and depth of the intellectual discussions of the symposium.
> Selected students will be expected to give a short presentation of their
> work, followed by discussion with the panel and the other student
> participants. 
> 
> 
> 
> *** Deadlines Approaching *** 
> 
> 17th December 2012 for Papers and Posters
> 
> 1st March 2013 for Demos and Graduate Student Symposium
> 
> 
> 
> *** Organising Committee ***
> 
> Conference Co-Chairs: Yukari Nagai, Sam Ferguson
> 
> Program Chair: Tom Hewett
> 
> Program Committee Co-chairs: Steven Dow, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Jack Ox , Steve
> Smith
> 
> Treasurer: Andrew Johnston
> 
> Poster and Demos Co-Chairs: Kazushi Nishimoto, Chek Tien Tan 
> 
> Art Program Chair: Ian Gwilt 
> 
> Curatorial Advisor: Deborah Turnbull 
> 
> Music Program Chair: Kirsty Beilharz
> 
> Workshops Chair: David A. Shamma
> 
> Graduate Student Symposium Chair: Barbara Adkins 
> 
> Publicity  Chair: Kazunori Miyata
> 
> Website Chair: Deny Willy
> 
> 
> 
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:16:20 +0000
> From:    Mark Evans <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Should Identity Be Revealed?
> 
> Terry (and Person)
> 
> Ah Socrates Papastathopoulos. The best defender ever to play for the Greek national soccer team.......
> 
> This discussion has moved on from “The World’s Best 25 Design Schools” so a new heading is required but I have copied your message to which I am responding at bottom of this posting.
> 
> I have never considered JISCMail PhD Design as a place for academic theory making. It could be argued as advancing the level of understanding in the field; but academic theory making?
> 
> My interpretation is more in-line with the aim of all JISCMail forums which is to:
> 
> •	Share experiences
> •	Enhance collaboration
> •	Keep in touch with peers
> •	Aid research
> •	Make new contacts
> •	Keep up to date with advancements in your field
> •	Announce events
> 
> (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/about/whatisjiscmail.html)
> 
> Both you and I know that some of the messages on the List can be somewhat whimsical and the ability to submit posts with professional anonymity only serves to promote this. 
> 
> Within the scope of JISCMail, I can see no reason whatsoever as to why a subscriber should want to withhold their professional identity. This does not have to be overtly identified; but there should be sufficient information to trace the member if required by the reader.  A name and the use of a corporate/academic email address is normally all that is required but some members also include information at the bottom of their postings.
> 
> An identity enables readers to more fully understand the context in which a comment is made and this adds richness to the contribution.
> 
> As previously mentioned, I am a firm believer in the transparency and openness that is central to academia. And, although I was not fortunate to have known him on a personal level, I am pretty confident that, had the other Socrates been a subscriber to the List, he would have signed-off his messages as:
> 
> -	Socrates
> -	The Lyceum
> -	Athens
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mark
> Loughborough Design School
> Loughborough
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
> Hi Mark,
> 
> One of the premises of academia from Socrates onwards is that the validity
> of theory should be independent of subjective judgement, particularly about
> the author.
> 
> The main thrust of theory making from the Greek school was to remove
> rhetoric and rhetorically-based judgement from theory making and judgements
> about the quality of theory.
> 
> In other words, for sound theory making avoid any taint of rhetoric and its
> trappings (status of speaker etc).
> 
> This Greek originated endeavour to ensure rhetoric is not part of validating
> theory  is the basis  of contemporary academic theory-making
> 
> I feel its of  concern on this list  if we start to judge validity of theory
> in terms of the status and background of who is writing.
> 
> Judging the validity of theory on the basis of the status of who is writing
> has three adverse effects. It compromises the validity and testing of design
> theory (already a serious problem in design research due to misplaced use of
> rhetoric). It discourages participation by those with less status. Perhaps
> worse, it necessarily results in conservative theory making aligned to the
> agreed views of a  high status group. This latter is a particular problem in
> the current situation where there is a need for significant radical change
> in design theory because much of  the existing design theory is out-date and
> doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
> 
> I suggest insisting  on accuracy  of reasoning and sound evidence is a
> better way forward for identifying credibility than counting the number of
> the author's prefect badges  (unless of course one is 'blackboard monitor').
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:29:22 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Um, exactly how does it work this using references for status and
> credibility?
> 
> So, if a person writes a paper that has faulty and fallacious reasoning, and
> reports flawed findings, it's a good paper provided the person includes lots
> of references to show they are a member of a community with a long history,
> or are saying thanks to someone, or the references are cited only to improve
> credibility or are well known etc. On that basis it should be accepted by
> any relevant journal.
> 
> Or, if a person writes a correctly  reasoned paper that correctly reports
> important and useful findings, it's  a bad paper  if they   didn't include
> lots of references to show they are a member of a community with a long
> history, or are saying thanks to someone, or the references are cited only
> to improve credibility or are well known etc. On that basis it should be
> rejected by any relevant journal?
> 
> Or perhaps there is some formally-defined middle ground with a sort of score
> chart? Something like (say)  3 apparently relevant citations  to researcher
> in  a well-established  research community  gets one off the hook for one
> bit of incorrect reasoning, one  fallacious conclusion, or perhaps a couple
> of  false findings?
> 
> How does it go with the stuff at the other end? I mean, for a researcher
> reporting a research finding that when people use it results in deaths or
> people lose lots of money. Perhaps it can be fully offset by a half a dozen
> random citations of publications to  researchers with the higher levels of
> status like Ken or Don?
> 
> Or perhaps, 'Don't worry about the faulty reactor design. If it has a
> meltdown everything will be fine - the researchers had a couple references
> to Einstein, he's got a big enough name hasn't he?'
> 
> One perspective on references is personal isn't the same as important. 
> 
> What happens to a field if accurate reasoning and avoidance of fallacies
> reasoning is replaced by using references as personal influence?
> 
> Um, how does that work?
> 
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
> Ranulph Glanville:<Snip>Don't let's forget that references are also a way of
> saying "I join and intend to remain a member of a community with a long
> history" "Thank you to..."
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:05:43 +0530
> From:    Jha Santosh <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: ³The World¹s Best 25 Design Schools²
> 
> Dear List Members,
> 
> A primary question came in my mind while reading this great research
> based article ”The World's 25 Best Design Schools” at
> (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-25-best-design-schools-2012-11?op=1)-
> which is focused over institutions, geographically located in European
> and USA only.
> 
> If I am not wrong, the term-“World” includes all five major continents
> of our earth. So, Asia, Australia, South America, Africa like other
> great continents are still-unexplored by the writer. I am wishing him
> to suggest,- please don’t ignore these zones. These are also equally
> important for the existence of Design with regional equality.
> 
> There are several Design Schools with their strong presence in these
> continents, like-
> 1. Asia: Indian Institute of Crafts and Design, India; National
> Institute of Design, India; Indian Institute of Technology, India;
> Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design, Pakistan; and School of
> Design & Environment of NUS, Singapore.
> 2. Australia: Australian Academy of Design; Faculty of Design of
> Swinburne University of Technology; The Australian Institute of
> Creative Design and Whitehouse Institute of Design, Australia.
> 3. Latin America: Instituto Profesional DuocUC de la Pontificia
> Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile; Universidad de los Andes,
> Colombia; Universidad El Bosque, Colombia and Universidad Jorge Tadeo
> Lozano, Colombia.
> 4. Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa and
> University of Botswana, Botswana.
> 
> What is the opinion of yours...?
> 
> On 11/27/12, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi, Karen,
>> 
>> If I understand this correctly, you seem to be offended because you believe
>> that some of the jokes posted to the list were aimed at you personally or at
>> Singapore as a nation. This is not so.
>> 
>> Rob poked fun at the method used to compile the rankings. He suggested that
>> the method used to compile this ranking was so unreliable that one might
>> just as well have bribed the journalists or bought them coffee to influence
>> their opinions. No one suggested that you would do such a thing. This was
>> about the rankings, not about you.
>> 
>> Chris responded by pointing out that the rankings are even more foolish than
>> this. They don’t seem to recognize that they have ranked the same school
>> twice under slightly different names. Chris’s joke responded to Rob’s
>> comments on the methodological inadequacies of the rankings. She said
>> nothing about you or Singapore, either.
>> 
>> None of these comments slight the Republic of Singapore as a nation.
>> Singapore has achieved economic miracles linked with one of the world’s best
>> education systems. Singapore’s design network is second to none. The use of
>> design in Singaporean business and industry is widely respected among those
>> who follow these issues.
>> 
>> The rankings cover schools, not nations. The list is narrow and parochial.
>> The method was inadequate for getting information about the world’s best
>> design schools. Rather than using a broad global survey or an expert panel,
>> the magazine surveyed a self-selected list of readers from one nation. The
>> resulting list covers the US schools where self-selected respondents
>> graduated rather than covering all US design schools. With respect to
>> ranking the world’s best design schools, therefore, the notions of sample
>> size and statistical significance is silly. That’s what Rob and Chris were
>> talking about.
>> 
>> After your reply, below, I reviewed the entire thread again. No one insulted
>> you or Singapore. The list is about schools, not nations. And no one
>> suggested that you would ever bribe a journalist. (And a cup of coffee would
>> not be much of a bribe.)
>> 
>> Singapore has a strong reputation in education, industry, manufacturing, and
>> design. No onewould bribe a journalist to write what nearly everyone already
>> knows. The entire world recognizes what the Republic of Singapore has
>> achieved.
>> 
>> Any list of well-educated people such as you find here will include many who
>> respect and admire Singapore. I am one of them, and I’d guess the same of
>> Chris and Rob. Rather than misinterpreting a modest joke, it would have been
>> helpful if you had simply asked them what they meant. My guess is that
>> they’d have been happy to explain it – and that there was no intention of
>> insulting you or Singapore.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> —snip—
>> 
>> I personally have little regard to anyone who is distinguished or not, if I
>> genuinely feel offended. I simply make my point through sharp and clear. I
>> was and am taking this joke as serious. Not the ranking, as I have written
>> earlier that I would *laugh* at it. The ranking was the laughable part, not
>> the remarks thereafter.
>> 
>> So who is the number 5, if I buy the journalists coffee? That was the the
>> thought. Then came someone’s else’s remark they were at number 19 and 25.
>> Not very nice, isn’t it?
>> 
>> For the flat response, I don’t buy anyone coffee for anything. I believe in
>> only one thing: if you buy off someone for a deal, chances are you will not
>> be respected. I can be small and tiny but I will never buy coffee, lunch or
>> expensive dinner to get where I want to be or where my tiny country wants to
>> be. To me, buying coffee to be placed at number 5 (after the list of 4
>> countries that I have stated) is insult to the core. And I must speak up.
>> 
>> This is no small joke as it implies my country needs to buy coffee to be
>> placed after the four countries in the best design countries in the world.
>> 
>> —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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> संतोष झा | Santosh Jha
> Senior Designer,
> Department of Leather Goods & Accessory Design
> Footwear Design & Development Institute
> (Ministry of Commerce & Industries, Government of India)
> __________________________________
> Master in Design 2012' CMJU Meghalaya
> PGD in Crafts Product Design (Hard Goods) 2004' IICD Jaipur
> MBA Marketing 2009' Pondicherry Central University
> BCA (H) 1998' BNM University
> __________________________________
> Portfolio URL: http://www.coroflot.com/jsantosh
> __________________________________
> Scholarly Articles:
> 1. Strengths of Indian Crafts Industry:
> http://strengthsofindiancraftsindustry.blogspot.com
> 2. Green Life- Craft Products:
> http://www.evolver.net/user/santoshjha/blog/way_green_life_craft_product_design
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:13:46 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Role of references in research
> 
> Dear Ken,
> 
> Relax. The role of the list seems to be  batting ideas backwards and
> forwards trying to improve  reasoning?
> 
> I'm thankful to you for of your precision with definitions. Many of us feel
> very short of knowledge (ignorant even) compared to Honoris Causa Profs like
> yourself.
> 
> Man  embarrassing. I've just realised I've been misremembering and making
> that deontic/deictic error for several years.  Ah well.
> 
> Anyways...
> 
> I'm interested in how you see the difference between 'deictic proof' and
> 'self-evident proof'?
> 
> The words and origins seem very similar:
> 
> 'Deictic' - showing or pointing out from deikitos meaning  'able to show'
> 'Demonstrative'  (as in demonstrative logic) and  'demonstration'  from de
> and monstrare ' able  to show'
> Self-evident - from 'able to show'.
> 
> I welcome your thoughts.
> 
> All the best,
> Terry
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:35:28 -0500
> From:    Constanza Miranda <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: ³The World¹s Best 25 Design Schools²
> 
> Dear Jha,
> 
> I am sorry, but I had to jump in AGAIN in this discussion. And I had to do
> it to clarify at least one of my domains, the Latin American Institutions.I
> am attaching my earlier response later, but again, from a scientific basis,
> you can't compare schools like "Instituto Profesional DuocUC de la
> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile <http://www.duoc.cl>, Chile "
> which is an institute [technical institute] with other schools in Chile
> which are the real Universidad Pontificia Universidad
> Católica<http://www.uc.cl>or Universidad
> de Chile <http://www.uchile.cl/>, nor the Javeriana in Colombia with the
> Andes, etc.
> 
> Just as an example: The Chilean ones are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and are NOT
> COMPARABLE institutions. Again, not nested in other higher education
> centers, technical institutes like DUOC provide a 3 year degree [compared
> to a BA in the States] and the other professional universities provide a 5
> year diploma compared to the German Diplom or to a BA and MA in Design at
> any major university. The latter, provide an extensive curricula that
> allows you to jump into other schools like in the basic sciences,
> management or the humanities. The technical institution doesn't.
> 
> On the other hand, again, the ranking is not representative of a universal
> population. It has too many "blind spots" [kind of degrees, length of
> studies, multidisciplinary platform, research grants, type of faculty,
> relation with the companies, success of graduated students, being design or
> engineering? or even art, Accredited, etc.) . But, again, a bunch of Latin
> American institutions would never fall in a ranking like this [and I am
> saying this being part of one of them]. First, there about 10 big design
> schools from Europe and the States that are obviously missing.
> 
> I suggest to everybody to be a bit more careful when presenting their
> feelings through names and "statements" that you're putting forward. *The
> best universities are not just the ones "we know" or we are familiar with.
> The best universities depend on the parameters we establish for the ranking
> we are providing. And that becomes the bias of the researcher.* In my case,
> researching these matters, I am not a friend of rankings. Please read my
> letter below.
> 
> "*First, most programs are not comparable [because of the sub-disciplines
> they involve, the distinction of their training, the facilities, the
> tuition, the orientation, etc]. A bunch of them not even accredited or they
> don't even give "degrees"! Second, the amount of scholars with PhD, or with
> outstanding practice is not even taken in consideration. Not even the
> amount of programs accredited, the multidisciplinary overall platform of
> the school they are nested in or the amount of grants....
> 
> As an individual studying these matters, I feel that mass media is selling
> an obvious a "lie" or a partial truth. Nothing scientific in this [not that
> they claim it to be] but I believe that it is our duty as a discipline to
> come forward and give a* * reality check on things like this. This is not
> far from buying whatever "Reality TV sells: opium for the people*".
> *
> Constanza Miranda-Mendoza*
> PhD (c) NCSU Design-Anthropology
> Instructor Design Engineering at PUC Chile
> VR@Stanford CDR (designXLab)
> www.innovacionsocial.cl
> @designforsocial <http://www.facebook.com/designforsocialinnovation>
> *
> **"Develop Design, Design to Develop"*
> 
> On 27 November 2012 09:35, Jha Santosh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dear List Members,
>> 
>> A primary question came in my mind while reading this great research
>> based article ”The World's 25 Best Design Schools” at
>> (
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-25-best-design-schools-2012-11?op=1)-
>> which is focused over institutions, geographically located in European
>> and USA only.
>> 
>> If I am not wrong, the term-“World” includes all five major continents
>> of our earth. So, Asia, Australia, South America, Africa like other
>> great continents are still-unexplored by the writer. I am wishing him
>> to suggest,- please don’t ignore these zones. These are also equally
>> important for the existence of Design with regional equality.
>> 
>> There are several Design Schools with their strong presence in these
>> continents, like-
>> 1. Asia: Indian Institute of Crafts and Design, India; National
>> Institute of Design, India; Indian Institute of Technology, India;
>> Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Design, Pakistan; and School of
>> Design & Environment of NUS, Singapore.
>> 2. Australia: Australian Academy of Design; Faculty of Design of
>> Swinburne University of Technology; The Australian Institute of
>> Creative Design and Whitehouse Institute of Design, Australia.
>> 3. Latin America: Instituto Profesional DuocUC de la Pontificia
>> Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile; Universidad de los Andes,
>> Colombia; Universidad El Bosque, Colombia and Universidad Jorge Tadeo
>> Lozano, Colombia.
>> 4. Africa: Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa and
>> University of Botswana, Botswana.
>> 
>> What is the opinion of yours...?
>> 
>> On 11/27/12, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi, Karen,
>>> 
>>> If I understand this correctly, you seem to be offended because you
>> believe
>>> that some of the jokes posted to the list were aimed at you personally
>> or at
>>> Singapore as a nation. This is not so.
>>> 
>>> Rob poked fun at the method used to compile the rankings. He suggested
>> that
>>> the method used to compile this ranking was so unreliable that one might
>>> just as well have bribed the journalists or bought them coffee to
>> influence
>>> their opinions. No one suggested that you would do such a thing. This was
>>> about the rankings, not about you.
>>> 
>>> Chris responded by pointing out that the rankings are even more foolish
>> than
>>> this. They don’t seem to recognize that they have ranked the same school
>>> twice under slightly different names. Chris’s joke responded to Rob’s
>>> comments on the methodological inadequacies of the rankings. She said
>>> nothing about you or Singapore, either.
>>> 
>>> None of these comments slight the Republic of Singapore as a nation.
>>> Singapore has achieved economic miracles linked with one of the world’s
>> best
>>> education systems. Singapore’s design network is second to none. The use
>> of
>>> design in Singaporean business and industry is widely respected among
>> those
>>> who follow these issues.
>>> 
>>> The rankings cover schools, not nations. The list is narrow and
>> parochial.
>>> The method was inadequate for getting information about the world’s best
>>> design schools. Rather than using a broad global survey or an expert
>> panel,
>>> the magazine surveyed a self-selected list of readers from one nation.
>> The
>>> resulting list covers the US schools where self-selected respondents
>>> graduated rather than covering all US design schools. With respect to
>>> ranking the world’s best design schools, therefore, the notions of sample
>>> size and statistical significance is silly. That’s what Rob and Chris
>> were
>>> talking about.
>>> 
>>> After your reply, below, I reviewed the entire thread again. No one
>> insulted
>>> you or Singapore. The list is about schools, not nations. And no one
>>> suggested that you would ever bribe a journalist. (And a cup of coffee
>> would
>>> not be much of a bribe.)
>>> 
>>> Singapore has a strong reputation in education, industry, manufacturing,
>> and
>>> design. No onewould bribe a journalist to write what nearly everyone
>> already
>>> knows. The entire world recognizes what the Republic of Singapore has
>>> achieved.
>>> 
>>> Any list of well-educated people such as you find here will include many
>> who
>>> respect and admire Singapore. I am one of them, and I’d guess the same of
>>> Chris and Rob. Rather than misinterpreting a modest joke, it would have
>> been
>>> helpful if you had simply asked them what they meant. My guess is that
>>> they’d have been happy to explain it – and that there was no intention of
>>> insulting you or Singapore.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> —snip—
>>> 
>>> I personally have little regard to anyone who is distinguished or not,
>> if I
>>> genuinely feel offended. I simply make my point through sharp and clear.
>> I
>>> was and am taking this joke as serious. Not the ranking, as I have
>> written
>>> earlier that I would *laugh* at it. The ranking was the laughable part,
>> not
>>> the remarks thereafter.
>>> 
>>> So who is the number 5, if I buy the journalists coffee? That was the the
>>> thought. Then came someone’s else’s remark they were at number 19 and 25.
>>> Not very nice, isn’t it?
>>> 
>>> For the flat response, I don’t buy anyone coffee for anything. I believe
>> in
>>> only one thing: if you buy off someone for a deal, chances are you will
>> not
>>> be respected. I can be small and tiny but I will never buy coffee, lunch
>> or
>>> expensive dinner to get where I want to be or where my tiny country
>> wants to
>>> be. To me, buying coffee to be placed at number 5 (after the list of 4
>>> countries that I have stated) is insult to the core. And I must speak up.
>>> 
>>> This is no small joke as it implies my country needs to buy coffee to be
>>> placed after the four countries in the best design countries in the
>> world.
>>> 
>>> —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
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> संतोष झा | Santosh Jha
>> Senior Designer,
>> Department of Leather Goods & Accessory Design
>> Footwear Design & Development Institute
>> (Ministry of Commerce & Industries, Government of India)
>> __________________________________
>> Master in Design 2012' CMJU Meghalaya
>> PGD in Crafts Product Design (Hard Goods) 2004' IICD Jaipur
>> MBA Marketing 2009' Pondicherry Central University
>> BCA (H) 1998' BNM University
>> __________________________________
>> Portfolio URL: http://www.coroflot.com/jsantosh
>> __________________________________
>> Scholarly Articles:
>> 1. Strengths of Indian Crafts Industry:
>> http://strengthsofindiancraftsindustry.blogspot.com
>> 2. Green Life- Craft Products:
>> 
>> http://www.evolver.net/user/santoshjha/blog/way_green_life_craft_product_design
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Constanza S. Miranda M.
> PhD(c) NCSU Design.Anthro
> Instructor D-Engineering INGPUC Chile
> VR @ Stanford CDR
> <http://me.stanford.edu/research/centers/cdr/index.html>[DesignXLab]
> www.innovacionsocial.cl
> @designforsocial <http://www.facebook.com/designforsocialinnovation>
> *
> **"Develop Design, Design to Develop"*
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:25:36 -0500
> From:    CAMERON TONKINWISE <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Dear All,
> I am looking for precedents of US PhD Dissertations being examined
> by externals (people who have had no extensive contact with the 
> candidate in relation to their research - which normally means people 
> outside of the candidate's Department, if not Institution).
> 
> As you may be aware, US PhD candidates have their Dissertations
> essentially evaluated by their Committee of Advisors, people who
> have been overseeing the research if not involved in its production.
> There is usually a public defense at which people outside of the 
> Committee may raise questions and offer critique, but the formal
> 'signing-off' of the research as having been of PhD standard is by
> that Committee.
> 
> By contrast Anglo-European PhDs insist on 3 external reviewers
> of the Dissertation, with at least 2 in institutions different from the
> candidate's. 
> 
> I am interested in bringing external examination to the US PhD
> model, especially in situations where the epistemology of the 
> research process may require more rigorous validation, such
> as practice-based research.
> 
> If you know of external examination in US institutions of PhDs in
> design or allied disciplines, or if you know of articles concerning 
> this issue, please let me know.
> 
> I will collate and report back deploying the full authority of my tribe
> as below.
> Cameron
> ___________________________________
> Assoc.Prof. Cameron Tonkinwise
> Director of Design Studies
> School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
> MMCH 202A, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
> ph (+1) 412 268 6937
> email: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:39:31 +0100
> From:    Derek Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Cameron,
> 
> At US universities, external examiners are required to be on the panel during the defense in almost every subject I know, including political science, communication, IR and anthropology. I don't know about design, but your description does not fit the wider American academic community.
> 
> Perhaps -- if this is the cae for US design PhDs -- you could start with other disciplines. In NYC, I imagine your opportunities are limitless and within a Stone's throw.
> 
> likewise in Europe, it is FAR more common for schools to "hire their own" whereas it is virtually unheard of in the US. And there are good reasons . . .
> 
> Derek
> 
> - Quick note from the road
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 17:25, CAMERON TONKINWISE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> I am looking for precedents of US PhD Dissertations being examined
>> by externals (people who have had no extensive contact with the 
>> candidate in relation to their research - which normally means people 
>> outside of the candidate's Department, if not Institution).
>> 
>> As you may be aware, US PhD candidates have their Dissertations
>> essentially evaluated by their Committee of Advisors, people who
>> have been overseeing the research if not involved in its production.
>> There is usually a public defense at which people outside of the 
>> Committee may raise questions and offer critique, but the formal
>> 'signing-off' of the research as having been of PhD standard is by
>> that Committee.
>> 
>> By contrast Anglo-European PhDs insist on 3 external reviewers
>> of the Dissertation, with at least 2 in institutions different from the
>> candidate's. 
>> 
>> I am interested in bringing external examination to the US PhD
>> model, especially in situations where the epistemology of the 
>> research process may require more rigorous validation, such
>> as practice-based research.
>> 
>> If you know of external examination in US institutions of PhDs in
>> design or allied disciplines, or if you know of articles concerning 
>> this issue, please let me know.
>> 
>> I will collate and report back deploying the full authority of my tribe
>> as below.
>> Cameron
>> ___________________________________
>> Assoc.Prof. Cameron Tonkinwise
>> Director of Design Studies
>> School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
>> MMCH 202A, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
>> ph (+1) 412 268 6937
>> email: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:40:01 -0500
> From:    Constanza Miranda <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Dear Professor Tonkwise,
> 
> At NCSU (North Carolina State University) the PhD committee can have
> externals. Nonetheless, 3 internals to the department have to be from the
> College of Design PhD Faculty [which is just a restricted amount of
> individuals).
> 
> In my case, I have an external co-chair to my department, an applied
> anthropologist, because I am co-majoring in both degrees. In other cases,
> we have had individuals from engineering, IT, education and Cognitive
> Psychology, which are departments that at NCSU, do not have anything to do
> with our core curriculum. Nonetheless the free credits (outside of design)
> that we are allowed to take foster those inter-departmental relationships
> and future appearances of those individuals in the committees. So most of
> us take those credits in disciplines like the ones pointed out. The
> downside of it, is that the committees may stumble on contested
> terminologies and other epistemological fights concerning their academic
> training. This last point I have taken in consideration during a Fulbright
> seminar, as maybe the process of defense needs to have a rethought
> considering disciplinary boundaries are changing.
> 
> I hope this information is useful,
> Best,
> 
> Constanza S. Miranda M.
> PhD(c) NCSU Design.Anthro
> Instructor D-Engineering INGPUC Chile
> VR @ Stanford CDR
> <http://me.stanford.edu/research/centers/cdr/index.html>[DesignXLab]
> www.innovacionsocial.cl
> @designforsocial <http://www.facebook.com/designforsocialinnovation>
> *
> **"Develop Design, Design to Develop"*
> 
> 
> On 27 November 2012 11:25, CAMERON TONKINWISE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> I am looking for precedents of US PhD Dissertations being examined
>> by externals (people who have had no extensive contact with the
>> candidate in relation to their research - which normally means people
>> outside of the candidate's Department, if not Institution).
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Constanza S. Miranda M.
> PhD(c) NCSU Design.Anthro
> Instructor D-Engineering INGPUC Chile
> VR @ Stanford CDR
> <http://me.stanford.edu/research/centers/cdr/index.html>[DesignXLab]
> www.innovacionsocial.cl
> @designforsocial <http://www.facebook.com/designforsocialinnovation>
> *
> **"Develop Design, Design to Develop"*
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:49:20 -0500
> From:    JURIS M MILESTONE <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Cameron, I assume you're primarily referencing dissertations in or
> related directly to design, because there is a tradition of outside
> reviewers in disciplines like anthropology that is far spread and
> quite well established.  Of course, many of those reviewers are from
> within the discipline, and simply from other institutions, but there
> are many cases in my experience where reviewers come from other
> departments/disciplines, and even from the research
> site/population/subjects/collaborators themselves.  Perhaps it would
> be worth looking to other disciplines for suggestions?  I think your
> goal is excellent, and challenging!
> 
> Best,
> Juris Milestone
> Anthropology
> Temple Univ.
> Philadelphia, PA
> USA
> 
> On 11/27/12, CAMERON TONKINWISE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> I am looking for precedents of US PhD Dissertations being examined
>> by externals (people who have had no extensive contact with the
>> candidate in relation to their research - which normally means people
>> outside of the candidate's Department, if not Institution).
>> 
>> As you may be aware, US PhD candidates have their Dissertations
>> essentially evaluated by their Committee of Advisors, people who
>> have been overseeing the research if not involved in its production.
>> There is usually a public defense at which people outside of the
>> Committee may raise questions and offer critique, but the formal
>> 'signing-off' of the research as having been of PhD standard is by
>> that Committee.
>> 
>> By contrast Anglo-European PhDs insist on 3 external reviewers
>> of the Dissertation, with at least 2 in institutions different from the
>> candidate's.
>> 
>> I am interested in bringing external examination to the US PhD
>> model, especially in situations where the epistemology of the
>> research process may require more rigorous validation, such
>> as practice-based research.
>> 
>> If you know of external examination in US institutions of PhDs in
>> design or allied disciplines, or if you know of articles concerning
>> this issue, please let me know.
>> 
>> I will collate and report back deploying the full authority of my tribe
>> as below.
>> Cameron
>> ___________________________________
>> Assoc.Prof. Cameron Tonkinwise
>> Director of Design Studies
>> School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
>> MMCH 202A, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
>> ph (+1) 412 268 6937
>> email: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Juris Milestone, Ph.D.
> Dept. of Anthropology
> Temple University
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:04 +0000
> From:    Jacques Giard <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Cameron,
> 
> In principle, universities in Canada also use the external-reviewer model,
> not only at the PhD level but also at the master's level. I once taught at
> Carleton University and got to know the model well. I have also been an
> external reviewer for PhD dissertations at universities elsewhere in
> Canada.
> 
> Since coming to the US, I have had to conform to a model that I consider
> less rigorous academically. It appears that the external-reviewer model is
> either unknown or unappreciated, at least to many of my ASU colleagues. I
> look forward to reading your findings.
> 
> Jacques Giard PhD
> 
> Professor of Design
> The Design School
> 
> 480.965.1373
> http://jrgiard.macmate.me/jrgiard/Welcome.htmlGo Green!  Please do not
> print this e-mail unless it is completely necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/27/12 9:25 AM, "CAMERON TONKINWISE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> I am looking for precedents of US PhD Dissertations being examined
>> by externals (people who have had no extensive contact with the
>> candidate in relation to their research - which normally means people
>> outside of the candidate's Department, if not Institution).
>> 
>> As you may be aware, US PhD candidates have their Dissertations
>> essentially evaluated by their Committee of Advisors, people who
>> have been overseeing the research if not involved in its production.
>> There is usually a public defense at which people outside of the
>> Committee may raise questions and offer critique, but the formal
>> 'signing-off' of the research as having been of PhD standard is by
>> that Committee.
>> 
>> By contrast Anglo-European PhDs insist on 3 external reviewers
>> of the Dissertation, with at least 2 in institutions different from the
>> candidate's. 
>> 
>> I am interested in bringing external examination to the US PhD
>> model, especially in situations where the epistemology of the
>> research process may require more rigorous validation, such
>> as practice-based research.
>> 
>> If you know of external examination in US institutions of PhDs in
>> design or allied disciplines, or if you know of articles concerning
>> this issue, please let me know.
>> 
>> I will collate and report back deploying the full authority of my tribe
>> as below.
>> Cameron
>> ___________________________________
>> Assoc.Prof. Cameron Tonkinwise
>> Director of Design Studies
>> School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
>> MMCH 202A, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
>> ph (+1) 412 268 6937
>> email: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:49:22 -0500
> From:    CAMERON TONKINWISE <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Thanks for the feedback so far.
> 
> For clarification, I understand that most US PhDs allow if not encourage
> externals on the Advisory Committee. I am specifically interested in
> situations in design and related areas where the final assessment of
> the dissertation requires someone to read and evaluate the disser-
> ration who has not encountered the research or the researcher 
> throughout the process of the production of the research - so an
> external final examiner rather than an external advisor from the 
> beginning.
> 
> Cameron 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:58:18 +0000
> From:    Jacques Giard <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: External Examination of US PhDs
> 
> Derek,
> 
> I am relieved to read what you say about external examiners at American
> universities. That said and based on my fifteen years experience at
> Arizona State University in PhDs in design, architecture and planning, we
> have never used an external examiner nor are we required to.
> 
> Jacques Giard PhD
> 
> Professor of Design
> The Design School
> 
> 480.965.1373
> http://jrgiard.macmate.me/jrgiard/Welcome.htmlGo Green!  Please do not
> print this e-mail unless it is completely necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/27/12 9:39 AM, "Derek Miller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Cameron,
>> 
>> At US universities, external examiners are required to be on the panel
>> during the defense in almost every subject I know, including political
>> science, communication, IR and anthropology. I don't know about design,
>> but your description does not fit the wider American academic community.
>> 
>> Perhaps -- if this is the cae for US design PhDs -- you could start with
>> other disciplines. In NYC, I imagine your opportunities are limitless and
>> within a Stone's throw.
>> 
>> likewise in Europe, it is FAR more common for schools to "hire their own"
>> whereas it is virtually unheard of in the US. And there are good reasons
>> . . .
>> 
>> Derek
>> 
>> - Quick note from the road
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:53:20 -0500
> From:    Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Design maxims
> 
> Alfredo,
> 
> I don't know if it's sufficiently maximish, sufficiently designoid, or sufficiently separate from "less is more" but my sophomores and juniors are both working on trademark designs right now and a few of them keep trying to, as the old saying goes, "put ten pounds of sugar in a five pound bag." Their struggles reminded me of a needlepoint that an old girlfriend of mine had framed on her kitchen wall. It said:
> 
> "Cookie Tip: Do not over bake."
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:11:26 -0800
> From:    Jerry Diethelm <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Design maxims
> 
> Probably the advice by Eliel Saarinen to his son Eero to "always think in
> the next larger and smaller scale." - to which I'd add, "in both space and
> time."
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> On 11/25/12 5:23 PM, "Alfredo Gutiérrez Borrero" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear list members
>> 
>> Although perhaps no maxim, axiom or principle has universal validity, or
>> can even be generally accepted by all designers in all specialties, I would
>> like to know what aphorism or design principle (if there any), of your
>> authorship, or by others, has been in your opinion more meaningful and
>> useful through your academic careers and professional experiences; and, of
>> course, why? (e. g., "Less is more", etc.).
>> 
>> What are your insights on the subject?
>> 
>> Alfredo Gutierrez Borrero
>> Associate Professor
>> Industrial Design Program
>> Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano
>> Bogota, Colombia
>> 
>> Just in case my institutional email is alfredo.gutierrez @ utadeo.edu.co
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> Jerry Diethelm
> Architect - Landscape Architect
> Planning & Urban Design Consultant
> 
>    Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
>           and Community Service € University of Oregon
>    2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
>    €   e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>    €   web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
> 
>    €   541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
>    €   541-206-2947 work/cell
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:18:44 +0000
> From:    Amy Twigger Holroyd <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Design maxims
> 
> As a BA student of Fashion Design with Technology, I was taught to 'design for manufacture'. That is, don't draw a garment that can't be made, and work with the capabilities of the machinery and techniques available.
> 
> My current incarnation of this (applicable to my current research in hand knitting) is 'be knitterly'. (If anyone's intrigued, there's a blog post about what I think knitterly means here: http://keepandshare.co.uk/blog/2012-04-04-000000/what-does-knitterly-mean)
> 
> Definitely not universally valid, but I'm sure it has equivalents!
> 
> Amy
> 
> PhD candidate
> Birmingham Institute of Art & Design
> Birmingham City University
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:06:55 -0500
> From:    Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Design maxims
> 
> Again, I don't know if this is specifically a design maxim but it's important enough that I make my students repeat it after me:
> 
> "Its always better to look stupid than to be stupid."
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:12:13 -0500
> From:    Punya Mishra <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Design maxims
> 
> This reminds me of one of Piet Hein's best grooks:
> 
> Meeting the eye
> 
> You'll probably find
>      that it suits your book
> to be a bit cleverer
>      than you look.
> 
> Observe that the easiest
>      method by far
> is to look a bit stupider
>     than you are.
> 
> More grooks (some may even be relevant to design but almost all are 
> worth reading) can be found here
> http://www.leptonica.com/cachedpages/grooks/grooks.html
> 
> ********
> Also, on my door is the following note:
> 
> Punya's first law of writing: Simply, give complexity its due.
> 
> ... the idea(s) being, (a) Good writing is very simple, all you have to 
> do is respect the richness of what you are trying to write about; AND 
> (b) Good writing is about respecting complexity but doing so in as 
> simple a manner as possible. I use this with my students all the time 
> (though I am not sure I have made them repeat it!).
> 
> I do think this (simply, give complexity its due) may work as a maxim, 
> broadly, for design as well.
> 
> ~ punya
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Punya Mishra
> Web: http://punyamishra.com
> Blog: http://punya.educ.msu.edu/blog/
> 
> 
> On 11/27/12 3:06 PM, Gunnar Swanson wrote:
>> Again, I don't know if this is specifically a design maxim but it's important enough that I make my students repeat it after me:
>> 
>> "Its always better to look stupid than to be stupid."
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 26 Nov 2012 to 27 Nov 2012 (#2012-294)
> *****************************************************************
> 



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager