--Summary begins--
Offlist correspondence suggests that some studio colleagues misunderstand
this debate. It was called to raise and examine thoroughly issues that had
been left to drift and evaporate in earlier threads on the same topic.
Rather than recognizing it as a formal debate called on a specific theme,
those who oppose the debate see it as a sometimes hard and arrogant
statement of position.
It does state positions. These are based on foundations of fact, history,
knowledge, and experience. The purpose of this formal debate is to bring
forward all the issues implicit in earlier debates, rendering them clear
and explicit. This should make it possible to develop the field further and
open the way to new dialogue.
The current debate concerns the Ph.D. The lack of knowledge about the Ph.D.
makes it difficult to develop new models of the Ph.D. for design. When
every occasion for examining new models of a Ph.D. becomes an occasion to
call for a studio Ph.D., it is difficult to move forward.
Developing clear definitions and correcting mistakes of fact and history
make it possible to shape a platform for considering new forms of doctoral
education. This requires knowing what a Ph.D. is and has been, and it
requires understanding how - and why - some people may not know what a
Ph.D. is.
Five kinds of doctorate ultimately require consideration. Three have not
been considered here. Two have been debated here. These are the studio
Ph.D. and the practice-based Ph.D. These other three kinds of doctorates -
the "old" Ph.D. in relation to design, the "new" Ph.D. developed for design
and the professional doctorate - require consideration outside the frame of
this debate. There may also be a reason to discuss a studio doctorate that
is not confused with a Ph.D.
--Summary ends--
Contents:
(41) A thesis on the formal properties of a debate
(42) A thesis on the specific content of the current debate
(43) How is it possible not to know what a Ph.D. is?
(44) The core elements in the debate
(45) Issues to be discussed elsewhere
(41) A thesis on the formal properties of a debate
Offlist communication from a colleague in England informs me that some
studio colleagues seem to find my communication in the debate hard and
arrogant. They argue that I am merely stating a position.
The nature of debate is that one states a thesis or a series of theses. One
adduces evidence to support these theses. The subject of this debate has
gone around on DRS several times. The last time was in the fall of 1999. As
has happened each time, the debate went on a while, expanded as people
brought in new threads, drifted off in multiple directions, and finally
went silent. This has happened each time the issue has come up. This time,
I decided to call for structured debated to develop a sense of clarity ands
keep the thread alive while all examining all aspects of the subject.
I state a position. This is what scholars do. There is a difference between
a grounded statement of position and what Jan Verwijnen calls "position
without discourse."
In a statement at the Ohio State University conference on "Doctoral
Education in Design," Jan implicitly distinguished between two kinds of
position.
One is based on a foundation of fact, history, knowledge, and experience.
The other is based on ignorance, incorrect fact, or simple volition.
The positions presented here develop arguments based on fact and history. A
fact is different from the interpretation of a fact. That the Ph.D. is
defined in university policies or statements by various bodies involves
facts. What these facts mean is open to interpretation. That something
happened or that historical practice once took a specific form is fact.
What a fact of history means to us today is open to interpretation.
Our interpretations of fact always involve views and values. Even so, there
do exist facts as distinct from interpretation.
Knowledge and experience are different than fact and history. Knowledge
embraces agency and existential engagement. Knowledge is a human quality
distinct from the information and facts that it may incorporate. Experience
represents the tacit dimension of knowledge, and it arises from the lived
world within we act.
The purpose of this formal debate is to bring forward all the issues
implicit in earlier debates, rendering them clear and explicit. This should
make it possible to develop the field further and open the way to new
dialogue.
Is the style of a clear debate arrogant? Some may think it so. Those who
are ignorant of the facts and history surrounding the Ph.D. degree may feel
statements of facts and position argued from fact to arrogant.
This is their feeling. It's impossible to argue with feelings.
(42) A thesis on the specific content of the current debate
There is an evident lack of knowledge concerning the Ph.D. in general among
some participants in this debate. There is also a lack of clarity
concerning the issues implicit in the studio Ph.D.
These make it difficult to develop new models of the Ph.D. for design.
When every occasion for examining new models of a Ph.D. becomes an occasion
to call, for a studio Ph.D., it is difficult to move forward.
Feelings that arise from ignorance do not contribute to constructive
debate. The right of any individual to feel what he will is incontestable.
To privilege feeling over significant contribution to debate is another
matter. In this debate, feelings often give rise to "position without
discourse."
The content of this debate involves making definitions clear, debating
propositions based on clear definitions, bringing historical facts to light
and examining the consequence these propositions and facts have for a Ph.D.
in design.
Some of the participants in this debate simply don't seem to know what a
Ph.D. is. Engaging in fruitful debate therefore requires establishing
definitions and correcting mistakes of fact as a prelude to constructive
debate. It also involves arguing the consequences of propositions arising
from different interpretations of fact. Technically, one can say that the
debate itself involves arguing these propositions and their consequences.
Developing clear definitions, and correcting mistakes of fact and history
in clear terms seem to be what some of our studio colleagues perceive as
"hard and arrogant."
An analogy to fine art will make the difference clear. That a painting
exists is a fact. That a painting was created in a specific year is a fact.
That a painting is made of oil paints on primed canvas is a fact. That a
painting depicts a specific figure in a specific posture surrounded by
specific artifacts also involves facts. That this painting means one thing
or another is interpretation.
That a painting meant one thing or another to a specific scholar who wrote
his interpretation is a fact. That the interpretation may be mistaken, is
itself an interpretation.
That a painting meant one thing or another within the frame of a specific
church or culture is a probable fact, subject to analysis and
interpretation. That the painting had deeper levels of meaning or hidden
messages is an interpretation.
Used to the materiality and factual qualities of studio objects, some of
our studio colleagues seem to dispute the concept that there are immaterial
facts, and that these facts can be examined in many ways. To suggest that
the immaterial facts of history may constitute mere position is an
inadequate basis for rebuttal.
The specific content of the current debate involves the question of the
studio Ph.D., sometimes called the "practice-based Ph.D." To conduct this
debate in a rigorous way requires an understanding of what the Ph.D., how
it developed, and what it has been until now.
It may be that an argument can be made for a studio Ph.D. My position is
that there is no valid argument for the studio Ph.D. I may be wrong. This
is the constitutive nature of the debate at hand.
Whether I am wrong or not, to make an argument favoring the studio Ph.D.,
one must first understand what a Ph.D. is. Some of the participants in this
debate simply don't seem to know what a Ph.D. is.
(43) How is it possible not to know what a Ph.D. is?
We all agree that the term "Ph.D." means "philosophiae doctor" or "doctor
of philosophy." In that sense, we all know what a Ph.D.
There are several kinds of doctorates, however. In addition to the several
kinds of doctorates, there are several kinds of levels of research degrees
and professional degrees. In the sense that some participants in this
debate confuse these degrees, what they mean and the issues they represent,
some of us do not know what a Ph.D. is.
This lack of knowledge is a matter of ignorance. Ignorance is no sin. It is
nevertheless foolish to parade ignorance as fact by asserting issues of
fact on feeling rather than evidence.
The ignorance manifested in some parts of this debate arises from several
causes. There are three groups in particular that seem not to know what a
Ph.D. is.
People who haven't earned a Ph.D. do not always know what a Ph.D. degree is
and what it represents. That is, they don't understand the essential
features of the education leading to the Ph.D. They don't understand what
distinguishes the Ph.D. training from the training for other kinds of
doctorate.
This seems to include some who supervise Ph.D. programs without themselves
having a Ph.D. It's obvious that they know what they do in their own
school. They know of what their own Ph.D. program consists. This doesn't
mean they understand what a Ph.D. is anywhere else. They don't seem to know
what the Ph.D. degree represents in the majority of universities around the
world.
The fact that a school is permitted to grant a Ph.D. under the English
common law tradition of university governance means that each university
may establish its own regulations defining the Ph.D. Each university may
appoint anyone to supervise Ph.D. study. Anyone so appointed in an English
university is duly authorized. It does not mean that this supervisor is
aware of the larger issues involved in the Ph.D.
A third group of people who may not understand what a Ph.D. are those who
have earned a Ph.D. in universities with inadequate programs. The fact that
a school is permitted to grant a Ph.D. under the English common law
tradition makes the degree legal. It doesn't make its holder a scholar or
researcher.
The distribution of questionable Ph.D. degrees based on studio practice
reminded one colleague of the 1939 movie version of the Wizard of Oz. Those
who have seen it may recall the scene where the Wizard bestows a doctorate
on the Scarecrow who has been looking for a brain.
". . . anybody can have a brain," the Wizard says, "That's a very mediocre
commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the earth, or slinks
through slimy seas has a brain! Back where I come from, we have
universities - seats of great learning - where men go to become great
thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts, and with no
more brains than you have. But - they have one thing you haven't got - a
diploma! Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the
Universita Committeeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the
honorary degree of Th.D."
"Th.D.?" asks the Scarecrow.
"Yeah," answers the Wizard, "- that - that's Dr. of Thinkology."
One imagines the studio Ph.D. in much the same way. The artist thinks no
more deeply than before, and with no more brains, but he or she has a
diploma.
I much preferred the original solution created by the Wizard of Oz in L.
Frank Baum's 1900 book [see below]. The Wizard mixed up some brains for the
Scarecrow, blending pins, needles and bran together, holding it in place
with straw. This was a far better solution than handing out a diploma - and
it didn't confuse the issue of brains with the issue of the doctorate.
(44) The core elements in the debate
The crux of the debate is that the Ph.D. is a research degree. Some want
simply to redefine studio practice as a form of research. Thus arises the
problem.
I have framed my participation in this debate around one issue: the
question of the studio Ph.D. This includes the "practice-based Ph.D."
awarded primarily for studio practice.
Seven kinds of doctorate ultimately require consideration. Three of these
have not been considered here except as they touch on the studio Ph.D.
These are 1) the traditional or "old" Ph.D., 2) the innovative or "new"
Ph.D. developed for the demands of design, 3) the professional doctorate, a
doctorate in the professional practice of design with a title such as
D.Des., 4) the technical doctorate oriented around design.
Two forms of doctorate have been debated here. These are 5) the studio
Ph.D., that is, the Ph.D. awarded for studio practice in fine art and
design supported by some form of explanatory essay or contextual document,
and 6) a practice-based Ph.D. in design as somehow distinct both from the
studio Ph.D. and the traditional Ph.D.
There may also be reason to consider another degree, 7) a studio doctorate
awarded for practice with a designation other than Ph.D.
It is clear what the "studio Ph.D." means. It is a research degree awarded
for a body of work and a summary explanation. It is a research degree
awarded for an activity that is not research.
It is less clear what the "practice-based Ph.D. means." The term seems to
have two possible meanings.
A practice-based Ph.D. awarded for design practice without research is a
studio Ph.D.
A practice-based Ph.D. integrating practice and reflection on practice into
the larger frame of thought required for a Ph.D. is a variant on the
traditional Ph.D.
This makes the term "practice-based Ph.D." a poor designation.
Christopher Frayling (1998) has argued against the term. He proposes what
he calls the "studio doctorate" in contrast against the traditional Ph.D.
His argument suggests that what is being called "the practice-based Ph.D."
should probably fall clearly into one category or the other.
One of the difficulties arising in this debate involves the uniquely
British problem of the "practice-based Ph.D." Universities are
self-governing institutions under the ancient common law tradition. Any
university is permitted to award any degree at all - including the Ph.D. --
on any basis. Some practicing artists and designers demand that studio
practice be redefined as research. On this basis, these artists and
designers demand the right to receive the Ph.D. for studio activity.
(45) Issues to be discussed elsewhere
Three kinds of doctorates must be considered outside this debate.
First, we must ask how, and in what ways, practice should be integrated
into some forms of traditional Ph.D. There are good reasons for this
consideration, and it is clear that some forms of practice can properly be
integrated into even the most traditional Ph.D. program.
Second, we must consider the issue of a new kind of Ph.D. suited to the
field of design. Design is an integrative, interdisciplinary field that is
being shaped through new philosophies and theories. This will have
implications for a new kind of philosophical doctorate. What that doctorate
is, how it is to be constructed, and how developed are important issues for
the coming years.
Third, there is the question of a doctorate in the professional practice of
design or a doctorate organized around the practice of design. This is
comparable to the D.Arch., the D.Psy., or the DBA. The Harvard University
D.Des. is an example of such a degree.
None of these issues has been considered here except as touching on the
narrow and specific topic of this debate, the studio Ph.D.
There may also be a reason to discuss a studio doctorate without mistaking
it for a Ph.D.
(46) Short restatement of purpose
The purpose of this debate is a deep consideration of the studio Ph.D.,
sometimes called the practice-based Ph.D.
This requires rigorous, systematic definition of terms, investigation of
issues and consideration of how these issues affect the field of design.
Clarity and consistent development should are not "hard and arrogant."
Quite the contrary. A position systematically developed and carefully based
on discourse permits others to enter the debate and challenge based on
fact, history, knowledge, and experience.
My proposals are open to debate. Lacking debate, it can seem that the
series has been one-sided. While I've had considerable - and useful -
offlist correspondence, greater serious participation would be welcome.
In one respect, the communication has seemed one-sided even to me. I have
done my best to answer every question seriously, responding to each
challenge in a robust and comprehensive way. When a compact and apparently
simple question raises a rich host of issues, I have done my best to
address the issues.
-- Coda--
"Come in," said Oz.
The Scarecrow went in and found the little man sitting down by the window,
engaged in deep thought.
"I have come for my brains," remarked the Scarecrow, a little uneasily.
"Oh, yes; sit down in that chair, please," replied Oz. "You must excuse me
for taking your head off, but I shall have to do it in order to put your
brains in their proper place."
"That's all right," said the Scarecrow. "You are quite welcome to take my
head off, as long as it will be a better one when you put it on again."
So the Wizard unfastened his head and emptied out the straw. Then he
entered the back room and took up a measure of bran, which he mixed with a
great many pins and needles. Having shaken them together thoroughly, he
filled the top of the Scarecrow's head with the mixture and stuffed the
rest of the space with straw, to hold it in place.
When he had fastened the Scarecrow's head on his body again he said to him,
"Hereafter you will be a great man, for I have given you a lot of bran-new
brains."
The Scarecrow was both pleased and proud at the fulfillment of his greatest
wish, and having thanked Oz warmly he went back to his friends.
Dorothy looked at him curiously. His head was quite bulged out at the top
with brains.
"How do you feel?" she asked.
"I feel wise indeed," he answered earnestly. "When I get used to my brains
I shall know everything."
"Why are those needles and pins sticking out of your head?" asked the Tin
Woodman.
"That is proof that he is sharp," remarked the Lion.
[References]
Baum, L. Frank. 1900 [1993]. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. [The Project
Gutenberg Etext of The Wizard of Oz]. File Name: wizoz10.txt. Date
accessed: 2000 April 29.
Frayling, Christopher. (1998) Transcript of research seminar on
practice-based doctorates in creative and performing arts and design.
Surrey Institute Occasional Paper. Surrey: Surrey Institute of Art and
Design, University College.
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
Home office:
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
