Mike,

I find several things odd about your post.

On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Paul Mike Zender <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I realize that as soon as one defines something as broad as research one defines some people OUT and it does not feel nice to have some one define OUT what you do or aspire to do. I use the third person "one" because I did not create the definition, as I noted from the start.

You seem to think I am worried about my personal position and/or feelings. None of this directly affects my life and anyone who wants to hurt my feelings will have to try a lot harder. I started my participation in this thread by saying that I don't have a dog in this fight. (I do, however, have serious worries about how the views stated here might affect design in academia in the long term. I won't try to address that in this post.)

> My defense that I did not want to define anyone OUT is that I did not do the defining!

Oh, come on. Yes you did. By taking your IRB's definition and putting it forward as the definition, you have, indeed, done the defining. Own it. Don't hide behind institutions. 

Furthermore, I am pretty sure that your IRB does NOT define research as you state. I am willing to wager that they define research THAT IS IN THEIR PURVIEW that way. The idea that your IRB made a positive statement indicating that the research of a large portion of your university is not research seems highly unlikely. The idea that they did that and there was no backlash from the rest of the university seems even yet more unlikely.

> As I said, I think it's a reasonable definition or I would not have shared it, but it's not perfect. And you're right, it is medically oriented. But as I have said here before, I see several clear parallels between the disciplines of design and medicine so you can see why I'm comfortable working under our IRB's definition (not that I have a choice).

I never said that you should not work under that definition. You stated that those not working under that definition were not doing research. (And, of course, you DO have a choice about the nature of your research, thus whether it fits under your IRB's definition.)

You previously wrote:
>>> Because design often works in a global context I suggest it needs to be built upon research claims that are to a great extent generalizable regarding things and humans. Design is more science than art or history. 

and I replied :
>> I don't have time to even start unpacking the assumptions there but much of the rhetoric on this list regarding PhDs and research seem to make the same assumptions. Oddly, many of the same people who make those assumptions also claim a commonality for design fields, thus forcing work that is demonstrably less "science than art or history" into an ill-fitting container. We seem to be the blind men describing the elephant. I can't help but be reminded of the description as "Like a rope hanging from the sky and when it's pulled, it rains. . ."


to which you replied:
> I'm conscious of the foundations of my thought. I've thought about them and picked then deliberately and aligned them with my epistemology, thus they are not assumptions as you assume them to be.


Huh? Are you kidding? Even if the assumptions are correct, they are still assumptions. The statement contained the assumption that "design" is one thing. The statement contained the assumption that the way "design often works" means that design research always needs to respond in a particular way. The statement contained the assumption that a description of the "needs" of design should be singular--that its needs for a basis in one thing excludes possible needs of other natures. The statement contained the assumption that the best (and perhaps only) way to understand things and humans is through science-like activity rather than art-like or history-like activity. (It actually goes well beyond that by making a claim about *design* rather than one about design research.) Buried in there are several assumptions about what makes something science-like vs, say history-like. . .

> I'm open-minded about various forms and definitions of research. 


Maybe I misread your statements but, in reply to my question about the definition of and reason for the use of "generalizable" to modify "knowledge," you seemed to state very clearly that generalizability defines whether something is, indeed, research. You used your IRB as the authority for that and then claimed that they were right because design is like medicine and not like other non-medcine stuff. 

You may be open minded but your rhetoric does not reflect that.

> But when it comes to things a community of scholars in a discipline accepts as knowledge, I want those who propose the "everything else" kind of research to be clear about defining what it is they do and to provide evidence we can all see and examine of what the research produces.

Note that I have never advocated "the 'everything else' kind of" anything. I questioned a specific narrow definition of research and noted that, combined with Ken and others' claim that the PhD is a "research degree," acceptance of those definitions means that we have effectively claimed that a large portion of university faculty with PhD degrees are not researchers thus their claim their degrees constitutes fraud. This strikes me as a bold claim with broad repercussions and it should not go unexamined.

Note that I have raised no objection to asking anyone to be "clear about defining what it is they do and to provide evidence we can all see and examine of what the research produces." Note also that I still have no idea of the nature or extent of the generalizability demanded, thus cannot begin to understand the utility of that demand.

> In that regard the definition I offered has proven to be very productive. 

I would ask you to be "clear" regarding the productivity of your definitions "and to provide evidence we can all see and examine." I am NOT asking about the productivity of anyone working under that definition. It is the claim that the DEFINITION is productive that confuses me.


Gunnar

Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University 
graphic design program

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]

Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006


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