Abstract
What does the Common Ground metaphor mean: solid rock, fertile soil, or swampy lowlands? Are we mapping the terrain or are we just constructing it because it would be comfortable to have one? We are in a historical moment, 40 years after the first conference on design methods, initiating the short “design science decade”, when other disciplines realize the fragile, fluid, historical character of their “grounds”. On the lists and in conferences there are fierce debates, yet mainly concerning details of the respective positions. On the other hand ambitious perspectives are proclaimed, without being rooted in the community. Contributions reveal little reference to each other. Researchers rarely seem to take into account positions outside the material that supports their own views. Struggles for definition power seem to be going on, somewhere between evidence and eloquence. Maybe this is due to the imperative: “publish or perish”; at least here we have university level. The paper presents a 4-step sequence of debate in a theory building process. This sample is then reframed twice, describing it as an evolutionary process and integrating it in a wider perspective of changing modes of knowledge production. Implications for design are discussed. My further intention is to initiate a novel form of debate, which might contribute to the communicative creation of Common Ground. The project “the basic PARADOX” poses the most fundamental question: are there foundations of design? The new imperative in academic design culture might be: “participate or perish”.
Citation
Jonas, W. (2002) Common ground - a product or a process?, in Durling, D. and Shackleton, J. (eds.), Common Ground - DRS International Conference 2002, 5-7 September, London, United Kingdom. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2002/researchpapers/37
Common ground - a product or a process?
What does the Common Ground metaphor mean: solid rock, fertile soil, or swampy lowlands? Are we mapping the terrain or are we just constructing it because it would be comfortable to have one? We are in a historical moment, 40 years after the first conference on design methods, initiating the short “design science decade”, when other disciplines realize the fragile, fluid, historical character of their “grounds”. On the lists and in conferences there are fierce debates, yet mainly concerning details of the respective positions. On the other hand ambitious perspectives are proclaimed, without being rooted in the community. Contributions reveal little reference to each other. Researchers rarely seem to take into account positions outside the material that supports their own views. Struggles for definition power seem to be going on, somewhere between evidence and eloquence. Maybe this is due to the imperative: “publish or perish”; at least here we have university level. The paper presents a 4-step sequence of debate in a theory building process. This sample is then reframed twice, describing it as an evolutionary process and integrating it in a wider perspective of changing modes of knowledge production. Implications for design are discussed. My further intention is to initiate a novel form of debate, which might contribute to the communicative creation of Common Ground. The project “the basic PARADOX” poses the most fundamental question: are there foundations of design? The new imperative in academic design culture might be: “participate or perish”.