Dear David,
Thank you for peacekeeping and managing the fire hose in an entertaining manner. I trust you also enjoyed your lasagne and brandy!
What follows should possibly be in its own thread but as it is so tightly linked to this thread I'll leave it as is.
One of the difficulties in any discussion is incompleteness. This occurs when something central gets left out because of politeness or a host of other reasons. An example of this is the 'elephant in the room' phenomenon.
A challenge is to put such an issue on the table in a way that brings it into the light with minimal adverse consequences from the reasons it wasn't being included.
Discussion on this list is always political in some way and this can shape how concepts, and the discussion itself, are framed. This presents a problem when this political dimension my be central yet is being excised from debate.
As Ken is one of the most experienced and politically robust participants, putting the political question in a reply to him is one of the most straightforward ways of putting the issue on the table publicly.
I asked him the straightforward question, whether the issue was being phrased
'to conjure a broad-brush, superficial, naïve picture of evidence in design that could be used in political and funding negotiations in academia.'
There were many possible replies Ken could have made, such as:
'Nope'
'Nope, but some might find it useful - especially engineers'
'Yes. As always it is necessary to simplify these issues for political and institutional purposes'
'Yes. Making it broad brush and superficial is intentional, but not naive, and the reason is to gather the broadest range of responses'
'Yes. This is a crucial part of some deliberations we are having with stakeholders about funding a research project, and evidence of a generic, not too specific, debate amongst design research experts is needed.'
Ken's actual response was typically robust and useful. Instead of any of the above, and knowing that I'm pretty thick skinned and offering me advice to be more emotionally sensitive in communication, he commented humorously
'My goodness. I’d say that you are making a heavy-handed, obtuse, inflammatory accusation in the form of a question. But that is not what you are doing. Is it?'
Together this means the issue is on the table, and a host of other things addressed.
Benefits all round.
Best wishes,
Terry
--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Sless
Sent: Saturday, 8 November 2014 7:23 PM
To: phd-design
Subject: Re: What is evidence in design and design research?
Pots and kettles,
Hey guys, it’s late at night here in Melbourne. Hot day, cool change. Enjoy the cool change with me. Having done the washing up after a miraculous Dr Shrensky Lasagna, I’m going to have a cigar and a brandy. Evidence /Shmesidence!. Time to cool down.
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/blog/ <http://communication.org.au/blog/>
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute • • helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
