Dear Gunner, Ken and Carlos,
Thank you for your clarifications, and the insights!
Carlos, I did not write "Move along", and with "No, you're wrong" I was
referring to discussions along the lines of Monty Python's argument
sketch, where instead of providing a founded counter argument, some
says "no it isn't" and turns the attention to how qualified is their
counterpart is in making their statements.
I hope that now you can understand my intentions of that response
better, and that now we can move along - both satisfied with our
acknowledgment.
Sincerely,
*Yoad David Luxembourg *
BA (DAE <http://www.designacademy.nl/>,2004), MA (MAHKU
<http://www.mahku.nl/>,2006)
Ph.D student at University of Porto <http://www.up.pt/>, Portugal
Creative Direction at Elementum by Daniela Pais
<http://www.luxuryistohavesimplethings.com/>
LinkedIn <http://nl.linkedin.com/pub/yoad-david-luxembourg/5b/95a/69a>
Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/YoDaLux-Studio-for-Design-and-Design-Thinking/154785477914113>
On 2-9-2015 6:31, Carlos Pires wrote:
> On 2015-09-01 23:39, Yoad David Luxembourg wrote:
>> Dear Gunner, everyone (who cares for this list)
>>
>> Yet again it seems we are heading towards that familiar heated fight
>> on this list.
>>
> ... ...
>>
>> But please everyone support academic debate in this forum, don't let
>> become a place for trolling, or "No you are wrong!"sort of fights. It
>> would be nice if we can build on each other arguments and contribution
>> rather than reject them as "unworthy".
>>
>
>
> OK, so "move along" should be considered better than "No you are wrong"?
> I don't think so.
> But let's move along anyway.
>
> Let's see: Terry is talking about 5% of
>
> "(...) fields in which design activity is undertaken or people call
> themselves designers."
>
> The problem here is in "design activity is undertaken." The logic that
> supports Terry's argument is the same as the logic that would support
> an argument calling for all academic activity to be considered
> literature, or typography, for instance, given that all include
> "literary activity" and "typographic activity", etc., etc., ad infinitum.
>
> This is silly. I'm not making a straw man here. "Algorithm designers"?
> Seriously, Terry?..
> I passed a street sign in my town the other day that said "Eyebrow
> design" among other such activities as "Brazilian wax". Chalk one more
> "design activity" on your list of more than 1600 activities. Perhaps
> "Art and Design" is now just 4%.
>
>
> Back to the original question:
> The root of the problem, IMHO, is money.
> Big academia has the resources to support research, small academia
> doesn't.
> Big companies that have research departments see research as assets,
> and protect their assets.
> There are some independent researchers. These still have to eat and
> pay their bills, so they either have another job or have to somehow
> "monetize" their research. Independent researchers who do this are
> seen as mercenaries by some of those who hold tenure at big academia,
> and that doesn't help.
> Researchers in small academia, peripheral geographies and
> underdeveloped countries can only succeed if they move to central
> geographies and big academia.
> Money makes the world go around. Like it or not.
> There are no alternatives.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|