Hi Paul,
Maybe your question is wrong? If you don't read any bokks you certainly
cannot claim to have earned a research degree. But reading is in itelf
never enough for earning a research degree either. It is a prerequisite.
What book (and other reading material) is more complex. If I had been your
advisor I would have thought along these lines:
Given a doctoral research theme I would expect you to clarify what
knowledge areas are relevant for your investigation, and show me exactly
where the knowledge borders are in each of those spesific theory and
practice areas, who constitutes mainstream thinking and practice, and who
disagree and how. Also I would expect you to reason through how the
knowledge areas relate, and come up with some integrated understanding and
previous attempts by others. Only then can you show exactly what you
contribution to the field is in your dissertation.
To be able to pick the right weapons of thought you have to know something
about the field before picking the tools. Some of those weapons will
invariably be found in the mainstream theories in design if your
dissertation is in that field. If you haven't gained this insight in lower
level studies you simply would have to read the stuff you missed.
Mainstream theories are often found in books referred to by many other
scholars. However, divergant theoreticians are not necessarily found in
books. Even if you have read all the classics it isn't necessarily
sufficient to earn a doctorate - it depends on your spesific investigation.
Normally, if your investigation involves many areas of knowledge the
expected depth of your knowledge in each area may be lessened, but your
knowledge of previous attempts to integrate the same knowledge areas, and
the quality of your own integration has to be sufficiently high. I would
also test you on balancing breadth of knowledge use versus depth in each
candidate area to find the best mix possible for getting the most out of
our dissertation for the least effort.
This is all said assuming of course that you actually had lower level
course work that qualified you for the doctoral studies chosen. Other
advisors might think differently from this. Some only advice students who
are interesed in doing work in connection with their own on-going research.
Brynjulf Tellefsen
Assoc. Professor
Institute of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
"Paul M. Gutherson" <[log in to unmask]>@mailbase.ac.uk on
08.09.2000 10:02:05
Please respond to [log in to unmask]
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject: If I don't read the books do I deserve a PhD in Design?
Hello all,
The discussion on a ÔcanonÕ or core texts for design PhD students is an
interesting one. As a current PhD student I thought I would throw my
hat into the ring. I have to say that I am, depending on my mood, in
turn uneasy about the idea or extremely excited by the idea. After the
original message from Dick I sat waiting with tremendous anticipation
for peopleÕs suggestions but I was also filled with trepidation - what
if I havenÕt read these texts (or even worse never heard of them) does
this make my research less valuable? will I not be accepted into the
community? am I some kind of fraud - an interloper into the world of
design?
As you may gather I like the idea that there could be a small set of
texts that provide a starting point from which students can set out on
their journey but I am at the same time disturbed by the possibility
that this would lead to a narrow conception of design, of suitable
areas for research, of acceptable methods for research, and of
acceptable ÔtypesÕ of people who are allowed to conduct this research.
Please let me explain further. I am currently in the process of
preparing a paper for a conference on interdisciplinary research. My
basic argument is that as design (as a practice) is interdisciplinary
design research ( or the ÔdisciplineÕ - Ôthe study ofÕ as Terry
helpfully defines it - of design) is also interdisciplinary.
I am using brief case studies from 4 PhD students in the design area to
support this idea. In terms of the subject matter that these students
have had to develop an expertise in only one student identified
specific areas of design specialism, two mentioned design in a generic
sense and the other did not mention design at all. I do not want to
make too much of this, as I said the case studies were not particularly
Ôin depthÕ, however it started me thinking.
I began to consider a number of things. I have an understanding of
design as being a core human activity that impinges on most aspects of
human life. If this is so then ÔdesignÕ can be studied from the
perspective of these aspects of human life, not just from the
perspective of design. In other words I see design research as context
specific. It is perfectly legitimate to investigate design as an
educator, an ergonomist, an economist, a sociologist or whatever.
What I am saying is this. Is it really necessary for a PhD student (as
opposed to an undergraduate) to read certain texts on design - sure
they need to have some appreciation of what design is and where it has
come from but would you have allowed them to start a PhD if you thought
they did not already have some understanding in this area? - AND - if
they do not read those books do they still deserve a PhD in Design?
Surely in a PhD it is the 'philosophy' that is tested not the 'design'.
The real moments of discovery will come from what the student brings
from outside of design - that is their understandings of other subject
areas (and life) that they apply to the study of design. I look at
myself and my background, I think about a number of contributors to
this discussion and I wonder is it their understanding of design that
informs their critiques and analyses of design or is it their knowledge
and understanding, their critical application of things ÔoutsideÕ of
design?
I guess if I try and sum all this up what I am really saying is - I
believe in pluralism and diversity, inclusivity, serendipitous
discovery and cross fertilisation. So by all means come up with a list
of texts ( a handful or an intricate web) but beware the idea that
alongside a list comes an expectation that they should all be read by
every PhD student (besides that would mean that all the supervisors
would have to go and read them too!).
Cheers, Paul
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
P.M. Gutherson
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 01782 294669
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
__
Advanced Research Institute / \ | | )
School of Art & Design ____ \ __ /
Staffordshire University / \ | \ |
Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK _/ _\ _| _\ _|
tel +44(0)1782 294602 fax +44(0)1782 294873 [log in to unmask]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|