Thankyou for your reply, Lubomir and Owain. I would like to respond also to
Lubomir's comment below about the distinction between PhD and DDesign.
Owain has suggested that PhD is not a coursework based program (unlike
DDesign) and the programme is largely determined by the student, and
success not guaranteed! I very much fit into this category, particularly
with such a heavy global debate on what may or may not constitute PhD! But
ultimately my aim is not to produce a design, not a piece of art, but a
theoretical and methodological contribution to architectural education.
Accordingly, I spend my days not on making art but on developing
methodology and subsumed in reading / philosophical and practical
literature reviews - in this sense, the art / design is something that fits
between this as a way of visualising / giving form to the theory....

I must apologise if this seems to personal and therefor irrelevant to
others on the list but hopefully you can benefit from the debate!

I thought I might explain further what I am doing, particularly as I sense
I am actually not a DDesign (aside from the fact that I am doing a
PhD!)...again this may seem self-indulgent for others on the list but I
hope it may be of interest to others...perhaps I do not fit into the
DDesign because my intention is not to design and because of the specific
methodologies I am using - embedded in hermeneutic philosophy, ethnography,
feminist theory, and in particular through the endless scrutiny of
practice. My thesis therefore seems to be about developing this theory
(in-between practice) through a @ 'grounded theory' approach and through
which I happen to be the 'case' if you like....it certainly overcomes the
postmodern critique of the distinction between researcher and researched -
through my issues is of course the lack of distinction between self-other
as researcher from some critical perspectives.

I often have the problem within the design / architecture camps that I am
not doing a PhD as I am not analysing other's practice and am considering
my own practice as as example...though I do find when I explain what I am
doing further this overcomes this problem. This seems to happen because of
the PhD traditionally being severed from the actual practice of what you
are doing (ie. a critique, post-occupancy evaluation, measurements, social
study)...so I find that as soon as I mention that I am doing any kind of
self-reflective practice I am isolated from this discourse...unless I speak
to empathetic arts academics that is! Due to this I spend endless hours
exploring methodology and theory, and I think that because of this I have a
more explicit methodology than others at this point in time at least.
Certainly there is a social science postmodern / feminist tradition that
validates self-reflection, stemming from the interpretative, narrative,
hermeneutic or even existentialist paradigm that argues that reality is
interpreted and we can only weave other's perspectives together in ways
that may be shared.

I always have problems when I mention existentialism publicly, appearing
that I am on my own personal ego trip research degree! Philosophically, I
cannot separate my interpretations of reality fully from others, though I
can be highly critical of my reflections. I also do not take for granted
the value of what I am doing to others for this reason - the development of
a theory of practice through my own reflections - which is why how the
self-other relation is primary and explicit in this kind of research. I
think the value in what I am doing is that I do not assume a lot of the
things that others do, but more importantly I think the debate we are
having stems from the fundamental philosophical paradigm shifts that are
questions how and why we go about our lives, in particular our research
frames. The notion of research methodology and rigour is again perhaps what
may separate one kind of postgraduate degree from another, though it seems
the actual distinctions may be highly contested between universities!

Anyway, I shall raise the following points with my supervisors who are
associated with the research policies of my university as see what they
have to say! Thankyou again for your insights and I appreciate your positions.

Cathy Smith.

At 04:40 PM 8/08/00 -0400, you wrote:

>What you intend to do (to develop a method for practice and describe using
>self-reflection) is clearly in the realm of a D.D. degree, although many
>coleagues would prefered that they are awarded a Ph.D. degree. Their
>implicit reason is that the University administrators, who often come from
>the sciences, are not at ease with degrees other than the degrees they know
>about. This in turn might reflect on the opportunities for promotion.
>That's the world.
>
>Lubomir Popov
>
>
>At 04:14 PM 8/8/2000 +1000, you wrote:
> >Hi Rosan and others on the list,
> >
> >I would like to expand Rosan's helpful question to ask not only what
> >separates a PhD from a Masters but what differentiates a Doctor of
> >Philosophy from a Doctor of Design. This may have been extensively argued
> >at the La Cluaz conference, which I did not attend from far-away Australia,
> >but I would like the list members, if possible, to clarify the debate on
> >this as well as the distinction asked by Rosan.
> >
> >I am an architect and interior designer, and currently embarking on the PhD
> >journey - my research is to develop a theory / methodology of a hybrid
> >installation art / architecture practice through examining my own practice.
> >In my university, there is a growing tradition of obtaining a Doctor of
> >Philosophy by artists analysing their own practice. The requirement is a
> >minimum 50 000word exegesis (v. 100 000) and an artwork, though I am unsure
> >if I will be doing this...I could not contemplate doing this without
> >supervisor's beyond the architecture school, as there appears no tradition
> >in Australia of a Doctor of Philosophy which involves the production of art
> >/ design.
> >
> >However I am still unsure of the ACTUAL distinctions between PhD and
> >Doctor's of Design, perhaps even the master and PhD (beyond the time frame,
> >and beyond the reality that many people can convert to PhDs anyway during
> >Masters) and would really appreciate entering into this discourse on this
>list.
> >
> >Thankyou all, Cathy Smith.
> >
> >



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%