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  March 2013

PHD-DESIGN March 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: design research and design practice

From:

Kommonen Kari-Hans <[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:

Fri, 1 Mar 2013 00:43:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Dear Tim,

I guess that you are then talking about the definition of the word 'definition', aren't you?

You'd like to get everyone to agree with the way you understand that word, but many (as you say) use it differently. Sounds a lot like the earlier discussion about the word 'design' to me.


Maybe this is a recursive problem. 

Should it be solved by accepting that people will never fully and completely agree on definitions, or fighting to the bloody end, I tend to vote for the former. 

However, I do like your working characterization of a 'working characterization' as well very much :) and propose that instead of the 'fight to bloody end' we can continue these illuminating and respectful debates/discussions that clarify the reasons why these differences exist, and thus deepen our mutual understandings. Agora at its best!

Cheers, Kari-Hans

----
On Feb 28, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Tim Smithers wrote:

> Dear Would be Definers of Design,
> 
> A meta post.
> 
> I am fussy about the use of words, I know, but it is worth
> being so, I think, for doing good research.
> 
> So, definition is a word I like to use carefully; very
> carefully, because it's an important word in the knowledge and
> understanding business, in doing research.
> 
> I like to use the word definition to mean a clear, concise,
> and complete statement of the necessary and sufficient of the
> thing being defined.  It's a formal use, I know, but I think
> it's important to use it this way, and only this way, because
> if we start to use the word definition for other kinds of
> statements, then we lose it as a word for this formal and
> needed kind of statement, and we don't have any other.  In
> doing research, we should take care not to lose or erode the
> words we need, to work on, think about, talk about, discuss,
> communicate our research, especially important words, like
> definition.
> 
> Everything that has been called a definition here, in the
> recent PhD-Design posts about designing and designs, from all
> the people who have posted, are not definitions; not in the
> way I want to use this word.  They are what I prefer to call
> characterisations, or, better, working characterisations.
> 
> Working characterisations are our current best attempts at
> capturing the important, needed, supposedly sufficient
> aspects, properties, qualities, dimensions, etc, of the thing
> or things we are working on; the things we want to better
> understand.
> 
> If definitions are what I want the word to mean, then
> different definitions of the same thing must compete.  So, we
> get into fights.  It cannot be otherwise.  With working
> characterisations, on the other hand, we can each have our
> own, and perfectly properly so.  Indeed it is often productive
> for there to be different people with their own different
> working characterisations working on the same thing.  They and
> others can compare, contrast, build from, adapt, modify, start
> out different from, these different working characterisations.
> And I think this is a much better, more useful way of
> discussing and arguing about things.  And, I think this is
> what we really have in design research, and can see we have
> from the recent posts here, as well as many others posts over
> the many years now of PhD-Design list.
> 
> Definitions must be abandoned or fought for to the death.
> It's often bloody.  Working characterisations can be changed,
> corrected, improved, and nobody minds, or shouldn't.  This is
> what should happen to them.  Some of them, one day, may become
> so well worked out, stable, widely accepted and agreed upon to
> take on the status of definition, even if they turn out to be
> wrong.
> 
> So, definitions are things that can sometimes be arrive at,
> after plenty of good research.  But not necessarily.  We don't
> have to arrive at definitions to do good research.  We do,
> however, need good working characterisations, living ones,
> ones that have productive roles in our on-going research
> efforts.  We should not start out attempting to set down
> definitions.  That's the way to start fights.  It's not the
> way do good research.
> 
> In my humble opinion.
> 
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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