Abstract
In Italian, there are two words for “to know” – Sapere – to know, to inform about, let know, be familiar with. Conoscere – “to know”, well known. (Conoscitore) – Connoisseur – one who has expert knowledge and keen discrimination in some field. The notion that the familiar everyday acknowledgment differs from the deeper understanding that is gained from experiential defines expertise from generic experience. When does critical knowledge from the experiential become that of connoisseurship? In all PhD and post doctorial research, expertise is a pre-requisite. Often it is in the experiential research method that how knowledge is gained can truly make a contribution and change Design. As Sevaldson points out “Knowledge production in practice has far greater potential than being a curious sidetrack in academic research” (2010 p30). While practice-based/experiential methods are “accepted” in academia as valid approaches to advance research, these varied principles and practices are hugely open to interpretation, often diluting the contributions to new knowledge or indeed from gaining connoisseurship acknowledgment. If practice-based is not to be classed as merely illustration to a critical text or demonstrative of the process, then what results is a body of physically made outcomes that locate and validate research. This paper will focus on this researcher as a case study whereby knowledge gained, utilitized practice–based methodology through textile processes in order to answer a critical philosophical question. Research exacted artefacts that had to be made because they did not exist. The outcomes were not prescriptive, but were a result of philosophical preponderances that had to be made to answer the question. The philosophical stance, as opposed to a scientific model of inquiry, meant that the engaging and understanding of the process would elicit the critical answers. Equally the methods embraced the interdisciplinary nature of varied subject domains and research methods that were needed to resolve the enquiry. What becomes less clear for the often interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary nature of practice- based research is how validation of the varied expertises and the “connoisseurial” can be recognised. Connoisseurship has clearer associations with Fine Art, but for Design what does the term mean? Therefore can this title, a term that was born out of formal research methods, have resonances for design with its wide remit and ever changing morphing aims and objectives? “Design begins and ends in the domain of experience... Thus the experiential knowledge, thinking and knowing are the heart of Design” (Stockerson, 2009, p.1). This case study will unpack the insider expertise and argue that the experiential “making” process can be the heart of critical Design research.
Keywords
knowledge; insider knowing; connoisseurship; interdisciplinary; experiential practices; making methodology
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/eksig2013.116
Citation
McAllister, H.(2013) Knowing: Inside/Insider Knowledge, Outside/Outsider Knowledge, in Nimkulrat, N., Niedderer, K., Evans, M. (eds.), EKSIG 2013: Knowing Inside Out – Experiential Knowledge, Expertise and Connoisseurship, 4–5 July 2013, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/eksig2013.116
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Knowing: Inside/Insider Knowledge, Outside/Outsider Knowledge
In Italian, there are two words for “to know” – Sapere – to know, to inform about, let know, be familiar with. Conoscere – “to know”, well known. (Conoscitore) – Connoisseur – one who has expert knowledge and keen discrimination in some field. The notion that the familiar everyday acknowledgment differs from the deeper understanding that is gained from experiential defines expertise from generic experience. When does critical knowledge from the experiential become that of connoisseurship? In all PhD and post doctorial research, expertise is a pre-requisite. Often it is in the experiential research method that how knowledge is gained can truly make a contribution and change Design. As Sevaldson points out “Knowledge production in practice has far greater potential than being a curious sidetrack in academic research” (2010 p30). While practice-based/experiential methods are “accepted” in academia as valid approaches to advance research, these varied principles and practices are hugely open to interpretation, often diluting the contributions to new knowledge or indeed from gaining connoisseurship acknowledgment. If practice-based is not to be classed as merely illustration to a critical text or demonstrative of the process, then what results is a body of physically made outcomes that locate and validate research. This paper will focus on this researcher as a case study whereby knowledge gained, utilitized practice–based methodology through textile processes in order to answer a critical philosophical question. Research exacted artefacts that had to be made because they did not exist. The outcomes were not prescriptive, but were a result of philosophical preponderances that had to be made to answer the question. The philosophical stance, as opposed to a scientific model of inquiry, meant that the engaging and understanding of the process would elicit the critical answers. Equally the methods embraced the interdisciplinary nature of varied subject domains and research methods that were needed to resolve the enquiry. What becomes less clear for the often interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary nature of practice- based research is how validation of the varied expertises and the “connoisseurial” can be recognised. Connoisseurship has clearer associations with Fine Art, but for Design what does the term mean? Therefore can this title, a term that was born out of formal research methods, have resonances for design with its wide remit and ever changing morphing aims and objectives? “Design begins and ends in the domain of experience... Thus the experiential knowledge, thinking and knowing are the heart of Design” (Stockerson, 2009, p.1). This case study will unpack the insider expertise and argue that the experiential “making” process can be the heart of critical Design research.