Talk:Ranulph Glanville

Anything notable?

Is there anything notable about this person that merits a Wikipedia entry? Not from the evidence presented. Abbott42 (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is written in a gushing, personal resumé style, drawing on unreliable sources such as the subject's own CV. It requires substantial cutting and editing to make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Abbott42 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Abbott42:, your concerns about this article go way back, but I am concerned that your edits move in only one direction. If you look at the Google Scholar profile it is clear, that he has inspired lot's of scientists with his thoughts.

In my opinion there was a full article two months ago, and now little is left of it. It might have been written in a "gushing" way, but that alone is no reason to demolish it all. I would appreciate if you could tell me if you have any intention of creating a more solid version of the article?

As to you critics, the subject's own CV is not an unreliable sources by definition. It is only not-independent. It would be nice if we could come to some understanding to where this can go to. It might be possible to export an earlier version to Wikibooks for example, if there is an interest in the people involved. -- Mdd (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at all the changes that Abbott42 made, but completely cutting the publications list is not an improvement. There should be a selection of his publications listed. One way to select from his publications list is to search for author:"Ranulph Glanville" on Google Scholar and include the most-cited publications. His citation counts aren't super impressive, but there are five publications there that are close to or over 100 citations that may be worth listing here. Biogeographist (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mdd: I have worked in good faith on this article to bring it into Wikipedia style and norms, including researching and adding relevant citations. I think it is now something reasonable and proportionate; to the extent that the issues tags on citations, original research and POV could now be removed. Although greatly reduced in length, I believe the article does convey the key points of those of the subject's achievements that satisfy notability criteria, and it conforms to Wikipedia style for similar individuals. Perhaps I have cut it a little too close to the bones, and I could attempt to flesh it out, or solidify it a little more.

I do think a subject's own CV, on its own, is an unreliable source for citations - some personal CVs can be very imaginative presentations - in this case he seems to have obsessively recorded every minor element of his life, as though they are all of significance. However, I have left the link to the CV in the article, for other readers to refer to. Abbott42 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I cut the publications list because it was quite a random collection, with several errors. I corrected the errors and inserted some of the key publications as in-line citations where there were previously none to support the claims made. Your suggestion of a limited list of most-cited publications is a reasonable one, and I will attempt that. Abbott42 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Obituary, 21.12.2014

Ranulph Glanville

It is with profound sadness that the American Society for Cybernetics announces the untimely passing of our president, Ranulph Glanville six months prior to his 70th birthday on June 13, 2015.

Ranulph Glanville was Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Cybernetics at University College London, also Research Senior Tutor and Professor in Innovation Design Engineering at Royal College of Art in London. In addition, he was Professor of Architecture at the University of Newcastle in Australia and Senior Professor of Research Design at KU Leuven—LUCA in Belgium. He published in excess of 350 academic publications. He was an architect, composer and artist as well as a cybernetician. He rebuilt the ASC from a struggling organization with fewer than 40 members to a thriving intellectual conversation involving upwards of 300.

Ranulph Glanville gained a Diploma in Architecture from the Architectural Association School, London (working in the area of experimental electro-acoustic music). This was followed by a PhD in Cybernetics with a thesis entitled "A Cybernetic Development of Epistemology and Observation, Applied to objects in Space and time (as Seen in Architecture)” which tackled the question of what structure might sustain the belief that we all see differently, yet believe we see the same thing. He called this his theory of objects. His supervisor was Gordon Pask and his examiner was Heinz von Foerster. His second PhD was in human learning and dealt with how we understand architectural space. In 2006, he was awarded a DSc in Cybernetics and Design by Brunel University.

Professor Glanville for many years worked as a freelance, itinerant professor, mainly commuting between the UK, Belgium, Hong Kong and Australia. In the UK he most recently was the research professor in Innovation Design Engineering at the Royal College of Art, Imperial College of Science and Technology. In Australia, he had a major part in the Invitational Masters through Practice and the Doctorate through Practice at RMIT University. He was emeritus professor of architecture and cybernetics at the Bartlett, University College London.He has written on Design Research for over quarter of a century, early on introducing concepts such as research as design and the importance of finding appropriate theory for design within design, rather than unquestioningly importing theories from other subjects. To this end it is only right that we quote from Ranulph himself:

If you slow things down then you see nuances that you wouldn’t normally see. That is revealing — slowness has a particular quality of its own. It is difficult to slow things down and to simultaneously keep alert. Being caught in between, being a bit lost, is good for a human being. Things have their own time, and we should learn to enjoy this, rather than imposing our own, usually rushed time. A little slowness, living in the now, and a reduction of the significance of the nation state might really help us.

A lot of my cybernetics is philosophical in nature, a lot of it goes against conventional cybernetics, which is in general focused on purposeful systems — systems with goals. I’m just as interested in systems that don’t have goals. So I am better at keeping my eyes open for opportunities than in taking them. If I leave myself open to see possibilities and if I leave space for people to offer “gifts” to me, then I often get some extraordinary opportunities which I could never have hoped for. That’s the opposite of the cybernetic goal-oriented system. In cybernetics, I’m interested in the transcendental questions or frameworks within which cybernetics happens, which we tend to assume in order to be able to act. I’m interested in what those assumptions are: what they imply. In that sense I’m someone who looks at the foundations and questions them — someone interested in the relationship between “freedom” and the “machine”. The most remarkable characteristic of human beings is that we create patterns. Without the ability to create patterns we wouldn’t be able to think. That’s what I do: generally at a rather abstract level.

I’m interested in a society that minimises the impact of society and maximises the space for the individual. I will argue against control. Not all control, but against our assumption of the universal possibility and desirability of control. We are aware that our attempts to control are often inadequate. We usually excuse this as due to exceptional circumstances, or an inadequate description (one without enough variety) But I would like to suggest an alternative to always making excuses. We can ask ourselves what happens if, when there’s a serious variety imbalance, we give up trying to control? If we don’t try to force the system we had thought to control into having as little variety as we have? Then we are left with a vastness of variety (and hence possibilities) that goes way beyond our limits. We can be flooded, not by water inundating us, but by possibilities we had never dreamt of.

He leaves his wife the Dutch physiotherapist, Aartje Hulstein, and his son Severi. We miss him already. 73.38.211.12 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Michael Lissack President-Elect American Society for Cybernetics