SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Academics and IA (was RE: SIGIA-L: Antid
Academics and IA (was RE: SIGIA-L: Antidisestablishmentarianism)
From: B. K. Belton (bkbelton_at_mailer.fsu.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 09:57:28 EST
I don't know Mr. Rogerson, and I don't the the details of your other recent
exchange with an academic, but currently being one myself, I will respond.
To answer your question - I have been enlightened by this "drivel" re
Bourdieu, especially the posts by Jonathan Broad and Eric Scheid.
I find it ironic that your learning to appreciate the problems faced by
tobacco companies comes in the same breath as your lumping academics into
their traditional stereotype as people who've "never experienced." But
enough already . . .
>From my perspective as someone who is trying to develop a curriculum in IA
based on design principles and practice (which I do, BTW, have experience
in), the questions I have to answer from administrators are:
1. What is this field, and what is its significance, both intellectual and
2. What are its theories, methodologies, pedagogical foundations?
3. Why should it be a part of this school's offerings?
4. Please justify each of the above to a group of people whose theoretical,
methodological, pedagogical, and ideas about significance are substantially
different than yours, if not at odds with them, yet who will ultimately
decide whether this is something this school will support.
Hence my disturbance at flippant rejection of one of the great minds of the
century, and my disagreement with Tim about description of what IA's do
being sufficient, even right now. Remember the parable of the blind mem and
the elephant? Through their partial descriptions, they never get to the
elephant, yet academic curricula committees want the whole elephant before
they will sign off.
Perhaps these are not your concerns, but I feel strongly enough that theory
and education should be closely related to practice that they should inform
one another, and this list is one way to do that right now.
If, in some far future, IA takes the path of other design professions that
affect their clients' bottom lines, and there is licensing, accreditation,
and all the other bugaboos of professions that affect other peoples
investments, I assume that most of you would be grandfathered (or -mothered)
in, based on your expertise and experience. But the people you hire will
come from somewhere, and will have gotten their education from an
institution with with a specific orientation to design and practice, and
that will include having at least addressed those questions above.
IMO, both practice and theory informed by practice are necessary for that
process. It doesn't help for educators and practitioners (inasmuch as they
can be distinguished) to dismiss one another's concerns.
From: owner-sigia-l_at_asis.org [mailto:owner-sigia-l_at_asis.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:40 PM
Subject: SIGIA-L: Antidisestablishmentarianism
Per Mr. Rogerson's recent posts, the tone and obvious prejudice against
anything 'business' or 'corporate', sounded quite the same as comments I
received from another recent dialog.
Just as I suspected...they're both academics. Those who 'distain' things
they've never experienced (or gotten to understand from a first-hand
perspective...just as I learned to appreciate the tremendous burdens placed
on tobacco companies to conduct any semblance of 'normal business
practices'...and I'm fairly anti-smoking...while working within the walls of
R.J. Reynolds for several months) are generally not good educators either.
Was anyone enlightened by this drivel? (We're all entitled to opinions and
this is mine...I own it.) I know "I" didn't learn anything more than
pompousness, combined with unsubstantiated attacks is a fairly good
indication of an individual who needs a hug (or a mother).
Interaction Design Strategist
~ Putting people and process before technology to deliver solutions ~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:55:01 EST