Mark and Robin
Earlier this year I saw a presentation by a recently qualified PhD
candidate with a background in Fine Art, who chose to use what I would
best describe as the process of Graphic Design to produce a
predominantly text based artifact to accompany their 15000 word thesis.
As a piece of 'graphic design', in my view, it was very poor, and
after questioning, it appeared the originator of the work had not
incorporated in their method any accountable investigation into the
conventions of practice in some core areas (typography, for example),
beyond what they could achieve with access to decent page layout
software.
I have therefore seen what you describe below from another
disciplinary perspective.
But one thing strikes me. As these PhDs surface, good and bad, the
opportunity will arise to compare and contrast different approaches,
and build a better understanding of how we account for reasonable
standards in 'design practice' as part of the research methodology,
and to what extent someone should master the conventions of design
practice if they choose a cross-disciplinary approach.
In the case I mention above, it meant understanding the difference
between an apostrophe and a prime (hatch) mark, amongst other things.
I speak as a practitioner turned PhD candidate.
Robert.
Robert Harland Lecturer Loughborough University School of Art
and Design +44 (0)1509 228980 [log in to unmask]
www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/mainpages/Research/staffpages/harland/harland.htm
On 10 Nov 2009, at 16:19, Dr Mark Evans wrote:
> I have seen examples of poor practice that has contributed to PhD's in
> industrial/product design and have no problems articulating the
> deficiencies
> and impact this has on the research method. Unfortunately, their
> supervisors
> were unable to see this. I therefore have concerns that this may be a
> significant issue in the field of industrial/product design. It may
> also be an
> issue for other disciplines but have no evidence to substantiate this.
|