Practice-based Ph.D.. Problems in Theses.

[Beryl's Challenge, Part 2, section 1]

--

This note is copyright © 2000 by Ken Friedman. All rights reserved.
Permission to quote or reprint in part or in full with proper
acknowledgement of authorship and source.

--

Several days ago, I posted five examples of good doctoral thesis projects
as an answer to Beryl Graham's challenge. Today, I'll discuss problems in
practice-based Ph.D. thesis projects. [Beryl's Challenge, Part 2, section
1] This note is the first half of the notes.

This section contains and introduction and 5 problem areas,

(0) Introduction
(1) Flawed empirical data - historical data
(2) Flawed empirical data - physical data
(3) Flawed empirical data - social data
(4) Flaws in method
(5) Flaws in literature review


(0)

Introduction

Rather than identify or comment on entire thesis projects, I will cite
major flaws. In nearly each of the flawed thesis projects I have seen,
flaws are so serious that the thesis would on the stated flaw alone be
rejected at any good university. Most of these projects have more than one
flaw, and in many cases, all flaws are serious. This suggests poor advising
and doctoral program problems in art and design schools that offer the
practice-based Ph.D. This issue has already been discussed.

To make it impossible to determine the identity of the thesis author or the
school, today's post will operate at a high level of abstraction. In some
cases, thesis projects with multiple flaws will be used as examples in more
than one category.

Most of the issues raised here evolved when I began to annotate problem
theses. I identified generic problems, developed these into a matrix, and
finally structured them as an outline. I'll give a few specific horror
stories at the end.

Not every thesis demonstrates all these problems. The nature of high level
problems, however, is such that any thesis demonstrating even one serious
problem should be rejected or returned for resubmission. Problems with
minor flaws should be returned for revision.

The major problem areas exemplified in the practice-based thesis projects I
have seen. This includes a number of conceptual or theoretical thesis
projects by practitioners submitted through art and design programs.

This does NOT include thesis projects submitted by practicing artists and
designers through classical research programs. An increasing number of
practicing artists and designers earn degrees in other subject fields.
These include Ph.D. programs in philosophy, social science, art history,
design history, engineering, technology, and other fields.

They take their work in established programs. They are required to meet the
same standards as other doctoral candidates. Even when some aspect of their
practice is a research concern, the doctorate is not a "practice-based"
Ph.D. While this may lead to a "practice-oriented" Ph.D., the work is
required to meet all the requirements of a Ph.D. in general. In doing so,
it avoids the essential problems I describe here.

The problems described here almost all occurred in examples of doctoral
research and thesis projects at British universities. A few examples are
taken from conference presentations by doctoral candidates or professors in
design schools or academy-based doctoral programs.

Section (5) on the literature review will interest colleagues interested in
the nature of the practice-based Ph.D. This section clarifies the
contrasted between the practice-based Ph.D. and the theoretical Ph.D.
Discussing the role a literature review plays in the thesis reveals many of
the distinctions between the practice-based Ph.D. - the philosophical
doctorate - and the professional doctorate.

There has been much confusion in this debate between the research doctorate
and the practice doctorate. I do not oppose awarding a doctorate for the
practice of art and design. I oppose granting the RESEARCH doctorate for
the PRACTICR of art and design.

Section (5), "Flaws in literature review," makes the challenges and
problems of a RESEARCH doctorate based on PRAVCTICE clear. It is obvious
that a research doctorate may focus on or include practice. What seems less
obvious to practitioners is that practice is no substitute for research. An
artist or designer who wants a doctorate for practicing his or her work
should seek a third-level practitioner degree. When practice becomes the
focus and subject of research, the Ph.D. is subject to the same criteria as
all other third-level research degrees.

Discussing the literature review offered the opportunity to address these
issues. I will generalize them later.

Beryl Graham's challenge raised the need to identify good thesis projects
and bad. The need to avoid embarrassing individual graduated doctors
required me to analyze and systematically discuss common flaws in thesis
projects for the practice-based Ph.D. The opportunity to systematize flaws
offers the reverse face of a matrix I will later present on necessary
characteristics of a good practice based Ph.D.

This leads to a surprising conclusion. It was, at least, surprising for me.
The conclusion is that the practice-based Ph.D. may, indeed, be possible.
Even so, those who have argued against the Ph.D. as a form of suffering or
an unendurable rigor will not be happy. The reasons for this, too, are
found in the discussion of literature review.

It will be seen that the practice-based Ph.D. requires at least as much
work as the theory-based Ph.D. In some cases, it requires more work. It
requires more work when the practitioner theorizes and generalizes his or
her own work. This is because FIRST, he or she must create the body of
work. This often includes years of practice, mastering technique, and
becoming a master of thew craft in a professional practice. SECOND, to earn
the Ph.D., he or she must treat the work as empirical data. Once the work
leaves the realm of an individual's studio production to become empirical
data, the research scholar must treat it as external object. The work
therefore falls under the same requirements and criteria as all other
external research objects. In some cases, there is a THIRD issue.

This THIRD issue arises when the researcher is also the artist or designer,
the practice-based Ph.D. works on two epistemological or cognitive levels.
I describe these in the discussion of literature review. The candidate must
understand these two levels and keeping them clear. He or she must operate
in the often-ambiguous region between them while maintaining domains of
inquiry as distinct frames of understanding. This requires a level of
philosophical and methodological clarity that is rarely required of a
normal Ph.D.

Most Ph.D. projects focus on a topic or subject external to the author.
While all thesis projects require philosophical and methodological clarity,
it is easier to be clear about our relations to that which is outside us.
Personal engagement and individual views flavor our relationship to
knowledge. Even so, the ontological character of the external world flavors
the epistemological character of research.

When we study the art or design that we ourselves make, we are no longer
investigating the world outside ourselves in the same sense. We investigate
both the world outside us, and an externalized realization or projection of
our inner world. This brings to our research a range of philosophical and
psychological issues that are not present in other kinds of research.

At the end of the discussion and the horror stories, I will present a list
of problems in outline form.


(1)

Flawed empirical data - historical data

Flawed empirical data is a flaw in many art and design theses from the
programs that allow practice-based Ph.D. projects. This also includes the
Ph.D. by research conducted by practitioners. This is essentially a problem
in British universities, and in some of the European design schools. While
the program requirements, supervision practices, and thesis standards
imposed on doctoral candidates in American universities are often strict to
the point of rigidity, they generally weed out problems of flawed empirical
data.

It's obvious that it is easier, in a sense, to develop essentially correct
empirical data in natural science than in social science or the humanities.
Even so, art and design thesis writers often select subjects that involve
empirical data. When they do, they are responsible for empirical accuracy.

There are many different reasons for flawed empirical data. The first (1.1)
involves incorrect or inaccurate historical fact.

Many art and design thesis projects frame the specific inquiry against a
background of historical development. When this is so, the author is
obliged to establish historical facts.

There is such an entity as an historical fact. An historical fact is
different than the interpretation of what an historical fact means. That
Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States is an historical
fact. That Bill Clinton's election represented a decisive turning point in
American eating habits is an interpretation. That Bill Clinton has publicly
demonstrated his fondness for fast food is a fact. That this demonstration
sets American food culture at odds with French food culture is an
interpretation. We might argue the interpretations in La Clusaz. We
shouldn't need to argue the facts.

When art and design thesis writers deal in historical fact, they are
obliged to the same standards of accuracy as authors in any discipline.

These authors may not meet those standards for several reasons. One is that
(1.1.1) they lack a rich enough foundation of historical knowledge to be
able to manage historical data. A strong historical background gives one a
measure of experience in using historical fact as data. Relatively few art
and design practitioners have a strong background (1.1.1.1) in the history
of art or design. Beyond this, few have a strong back in the history
(1.1.1.2) of their own medium or field of practice. Related problems
include (1.1.1.3) weak understanding of the history of technology in
general, (1.1.1.4) weak understanding of the history of technical
development in their medium or field of practice.

Many thesis projects today are interdisciplinary by nature. These often
require data from more than one field. A common problem in
interdisciplinary thesis projects by art and design practitioners is
(1.1.1.5) weak or entirely absent understanding of the history of the
fields on which they draw.

Four special cases also affect historical data. In each of these cases, one
may mistakenly believe that data are correct when they are wrong. The craft
of scholarship requires understanding when this is not so. (1.1.1.6)
Historical data may be wrong when it is obsolete. Data that was once
regarded as correct or valid may be superceded by later scholarship. One
reason for a careful literature survey is to discover instances in which
this is so. There is also (1.1.1.7) the problem of historical information
supplied by sources or informants who mistakenly believe wrong data to be
correct. This is where the careful use of historical methodology and
critical inquiry is vital. Similar is (1.1.1.8) the problem of deliberate
false information provided from informants or sources that should be
credible.

Finally, a fourth reason (1.1.1.9) is common in thesis projects by art and
design practitioners. Some art and design researchers base part of their
work on prior research, using earlier practice-led thesis projects that
have already been accepted. Here arises a severe problem.

One should be able to believe that the data in a thesis project recently
accepted at a university is accurate and correct. This is how the chain of
knowledge is forged. When data are included in a peer-reviewed journal, we
can reasonably accept them as accurate and factual to the time of
publication. The same should be true of thesis projects and dissertations
from university programs and university-level academy programs.

When this is not so, empirical data can be distorted or entirely mistaken.
There is also the problem, noted below, if logically valid inferences drawn
from invalid empirical data.

Using empirical data from outside the field of practice is precisely the
area in which art and design studio programs are weak. Supervisors without
research training tend to be weak in these areas. This is especially true
of supervisors who have not been through a rigorous Ph.D. program. The
examiners they appoint also tend to be weak in these areas.

In a good doctoral program, supervisors are aware of their subject area
deficiencies. When a candidate requires subject expertise in an area in
which the supervisor is weak, serious supervisors call in outside experts
to help the student. Committees are also expanded or enhanced to meet the
needs of thesis projects in which substantial work may involve fields
beyond their expertise. These measures ensure that the author gains the
necessary knowledge ands they require that it be demonstrated.

In art and design projects, the opposite seems often to be the case. I hear
people saying such things as, "Joe is a good egg. He's done his research. I
don't really understand this stuff, but what I do understand looks OK, so
the other stuff must be fine."

Another reason for the use of flawed historical data is that (1.1.2)
authors fail to critically question data. This may involve simple (1.1.2.1)
laziness, (1.1.2.2) inability to recognize potential problems that require
skeptical inquiry, (1.1.2.3) failure to understand the nature of the data,
(1.1.2.4) failure to recognize inconsistencies between false data and
established data, (1.1.2.5) failure to recognize flawed data because the
literature review has been faulty.

Here, again, the literature review has profound and powerful value. This
value extends beyond the weak standards of the so-called contextual review
through which the candidate situates his or her practice in a context of
what he or she imagines the field to be from the limited boundaries of the
studio.

In a field of practice, historical development is often a central
foundation of the issues relevant to current inquiry. There is a
distinction to be drawn between the subjectively important contextual
review of personal practice and the larger frame of inquiry within a field
of knowledge. This larger frame is established in part through the
literature review. Thus it is that rich and through knowledge of the
literature is necessary even for a practice-oriented Ph.D.


(2)

Flawed empirical data - physical data

The second set of reasons for flawed empirical data (2.1) involves
incorrect or inaccurate physical fact.

Just as there are such entities as historical facts, there are physical
facts. Our understanding of physical fact may involve interpretation. The
cultural meaning of physical fact certainly involves interpretation. That
physical facts exist is beyond dispute.

When art and design thesis writers deal in physical fact, they are obliged
to the same standards of accuracy as authors in any discipline.

These authors may not meet those standards for several reasons. One is that
(2.1.1) they lack a rich enough basis in physical knowledge to be able to
manage historical data. A strong background in technology, engineering, or
physical science gives one a measure of experience in using physical fact
as data. Relatively few art and design practitioners have a strong
background (2.1.1.1) in technology, engineering, or physical science.
Beyond this, few have a strong back in the technology, engineering, or
physical science (2.1.1.2) of their own medium or field of practice.
Related problems include (2.1.1.3) weak understanding of technology,
engineering or physical science in general, (2.1.1.4) weak understanding of
technical, engineering or physical developments in their medium or field of
practice.

Three special cases also affect physical data. In each of these cases, one
may mistakenly believe that data are correct when they are wrong. (2.1.1.5)
Physical data may be wrong when it is obsolete. Data that was once regarded
as correct or valid may be superceded by later scholarship. As with
historical data, another reason for a careful literature survey is to
discover instances in which this is so. There is also (2.1.1.6) the problem
of physical information supplied by sources or informants who mistakenly
believe wrong data to be correct. This is where the careful use of
historical methodology and critical inquiry is vital. Similar is (2.1.1.7)
the problem of deliberate false information provided from informants or
sources that should be credible.

In addition to the three special cases, there is a fourth and common case
(2.1.1.8) where art and design practitioners simply lack the ability to
properly observe and report physical data.

Beyond this, as in historical data, there is (2.1.1.9) the problem of
relying on accepted data from poor prior research.

The use of flawed historical data is paralleled by the use of flawed
physical data when (2.1.2) authors fail to critically question data. This
may involve simple (2.1.2.1) laziness, (2.1.2.2) inability to recognize
potential problems that require skeptical inquiry, (2.1.2.3) failure to
understand the nature of the data, (2.1.2.4) failure to recognize
inconsistencies between false data and established data, (2.1.2.5) failure
to recognize flawed data because the literature review has been faulty.


(3)

Flawed empirical data - social data

The third set of reasons for flawed empirical data (3.1) involves incorrect
or inaccurate social facts.

While social facts exist, their status is contested. A rich philosophical
debate exists on the degree to which social facts may be facts or the
degree to which they may always and only be interpretations. Nevertheless,
social and behavioral sciences deal with social facts. Some art and design
submissions engage with the methods and issues of social and behavioral
science.

In addition, there are abstracted social facts ranging from such kinds of
facts as census data and time series to economic facts and industrial
productivity data. While the frame that establishes these facts influences
the kinds of factual meaning the represent, they are facts in a way that
places them outside the range of mere interpretation. In the issue of such
facts, interpretation takes place on another level than the kind of
interpretation that takes place when we say, "All the men on the east side
of the river seem to like blue hats."

As it is with physical facts, art and design thesis writers who deal in
social facts are obliged to the same standards of accuracy as authors in
any discipline.

These authors may not meet those standards for several reasons. One is that
(3.1.1) they lack a rich enough basis in social science knowledge to manage
social data. A strong background in social science gives one a measure of
experience in using social fact as data. Relatively few art and design
practitioners have a strong background (3.1.1.1) in social or behavioral
science. Because art and design generally involve social and cultural
issues, artists and designers often believe they possess a richer
understanding of social and cultural fact than may be the case.

Culture in the sense of social and behavioral science does not have the
same meaning as the word "culture" applied to art or music as examples of
"culture." Few artists or designers have a strong back in the sociology or
anthropology (3.1.1.2) of their own medium or field of practice. Related
problems include (3.1.1.3) weak understanding of social and behavioral
science in general, (3.1.1.4) weak understanding of social, behavioral or
cultural developments in their medium or field of practice beyond their own
circle of acquaintances.

As with physical data, three special cases also affect social data. In each
of these cases, one may mistakenly believe that data are correct when they
are wrong. (3.1.1.5) Social data may be wrong when it is obsolete. Data
that was once regarded as correct or valid may be superceded by later
scholarship. As with historical and physical data, another reason for a
careful literature survey is to discover instances in which this is so.
There is also (3.1.1.6) the problem of social or behavioral information
supplied by sources or informants who mistakenly believe wrong data to be
correct. This is where the careful use of field-specific methodology and
critical inquiry is vital. Similar is (3.1.1.7) the problem of deliberate
false information provided from informants or sources that should be
credible but is not.

In addition to the three special cases, there is a fourth and common case
(3.1.1.8) where art and design practitioners simply lack the ability to
properly observe and report social data. Observing, describing and
analyzing social data represents far greater problems than observing,
describing and analyzing physical data. This requires a level of study,
training, discipline, and experience that most designers and artists simply
do not possess.

Finally, as in historical and physical research, there is (3.1.1.9) the
problem of relying on accepted data from poor prior research.

The use of flawed data occurs when (3.1.2) authors fail to critically
question data. As in the earlier examples, this may involve simple
(3.1.2.1) laziness, (3.1.2.2) inability to recognize potential problems
that require skeptical inquiry, (3.1.2.3) failure to understand the nature
of the data, (3.1.2.4) failure to recognize inconsistencies between false
data and established data, (3.1.2.5) failure to recognize flawed data
because the literature review has been faulty.


(4)

Flaws in method

A variety of methods can be applied to design research. Anttila (1996)
demonstrates the uses of dozens of specific methods from a wide range of
disciplines. She shows their application in design research, and she
proposes a systematic series of tests and choices on the basis of which the
individual researcher can adopt, apply and - if need be - adapt specific
methods.

Doctoral research in design can make use of methods drawn from the social
sciences, the natural sciences, the humanities and liberal arts. In
addition, design research often seems to require methodological innovation,
with new methods and hybrid methods often serving purposes that old methods
and borrowed methods can't serve.

In many fields, the development of appropriate method constitutes the major
original contribution to knowledge of the thesis. In some cases, the
specific problem is used to test the method and validate it rather than as
an object of inquiry in its own right.

The challenge in method is, therefore, to understand a variety of methods,
know how to use them, and choose appropriately among them.

Common method flaws include (4.1) failure to choose appropriate method,
(4.2) failure to explain method properly, (4.3) failure to demonstrate how
a method adopted or adapted from another discipline is properly applied to
the problem, (4.4) failure to explain why the chosen method is suitable to
a specific class of problems exemplified by the problem at hand, (4.5)
failure to analyze the use of method effectively, (4.6) failure to compare
and contrast the chosen method with other methods that might have been
chosen, (4.7) failure to assess the virtues and flaws of the chosen method.

The Ph.D. is a research degree. The Ph.D. is awarded to as a license
stating that a scholar is ready to conduct independent research. This
license states that the researcher is familiar with appropriate method,
that the researcher can select appropriately among a variety of methods,
use them effectively, communicate them, teach them to others and examine
others in their use on the basis of expert knowledge and practice.

One of the central issues in earning a Ph.D. is mastery of method. Any of
the seven flaws listed above is a significant weakness. These flaws often
appear in combination in problematic thesis projects, though any one can be
seen by itself.

One of the widely misunderstood issues in methodological expertise is the
ability to use and apply a method correctly without understanding it. Some
methods are effectively machines for producing correct outcomes. This is
insufficient for awarding a Ph.D.

When a research assistant applies method under the supervision of a
researcher, the assistant may well derive correct outcomes without fully
understanding why the method works. On occasion, a research assistant can
derive correct results without understanding the method at all. This should
not be the case with a trained research scholar.

Failure to understand the how and why of method, inability to explain why a
method is appropriate, inability to contrast and compare one method with
another or to discuss methodological choice suggests that the researcher is
using method in a black-box mode. This is unacceptable as a basis for
awarding the Ph.D.

Paul Feyerabend famously said, "anything goes" when it comes to choosing
and using method. Herbert Blumer and other seminal social scientists were
famously unorthodox in terms of selecting and using methods, and in terms
of using multiple methods. In many fields, the concept of using several
methods for better observations and multiple views is common. There is
certainly no necessary and specific method in an interdisciplinary,
integrative field such as design.

One must, however, distinguish between the immense freedom one has in
choosing a method and the requirement of understanding the chosen method
and applying it well. A scholar is often free to choose widely among
methods. Having chosen, each method offers special strengths and weakness,
specific benefits and problems. The advantages and disadvantages of each
method should condition the choice.

The Ph.D. is, among other thins, a research degree and a license to conduct
independent research. The doctoral candidate may choose among the broadest
possible spectrum of methods, using them as appropriate to develop the best
results. The candidate has the responsibility to examine, explain, and
justify the choice of method.

At no time in a research career will most candidates again be asked - or
required - to explain and justify choices of method and issues of
methodology in such careful detail. It may never again be necessary. Since
one goal of the Ph.D. is demonstrating the ability to conduct independent
research, it is a necessary aspect of the Ph.D. thesis.


(5)

Flaws in literature review

The literature review is connected to every aspect of the thesis project.
It helps to form the background of the work. It is the researcher's program
of self-directed education in mastering the knowledge of the field.

The literature review is the new scholar's first deep foray into the
knowledge of the field and the thinking of earlier scholars. While anyone
who has reached the stage of thesis work has studied much prior
scholarship, this study has generally been directed and closely supervised,
connected to course work or assignments. Most scholars who advance to
thesis work have also read widely and dipped into a field selectively
through intelligent browsing. The literature review is the first deep
exploration of a specific subject, and it is the first time that a young
scholar undertakes a comprehensive course of study on his or her own with
advisory supervision rather than directive supervision or teaching. This
makes the experience of the literature review particularly important, not
merely as a developmental exercise in the research process but as a
learning exercise.

New therapists treat patients under the guidance of a therapy supervisor.
New surgeons perform surgery under the eye of a senior surgeon. Even
streetcar drivers take their first few runs under the guidance and advice
of a seasoned driver.

Reviewing past and current literature in a research theme is a central
aspect of the craft of research. It is central to our work as scholars.
Reading and reviewing is among the core research methods of research in
every field. While the method specifics vary, the principle holds true in
nearly every discipline. One learns to read in many ways. One learns to
choose among these many ways of reading for specific reasons. A seasoned
advisor is a great help.

The advisor's talk is not to say that the candidate must study this or that
issue, read this or that item. The point is to show the candidate how to
look and often where to look. A god advisor will frequently suggest
additional reading to fill in knowledge gaps, cover untouched issues, raise
important questions, and supply necessary substantiation.

Advice on the literature review offers an opportunity to join in reflective
dialogue on what the candidate has read. This dialogue helps forge the
multiple streams of prior work into a new intellectual tool that belongs to
the researcher. It also helps the researcher develop the understanding and
rhetorical skill that transform the literature review into a powerful
foundation for his or her research program. This, in turns, helps to push
the thesis work forward.

The work of scholarship is never done. The world continues to grow and with
it, new data and new information continually emerge. These must be
transformed into new knowledge. New theories, new research, new ideas, new
projects, new programs give continual rise to new literature. Old
literature must be studied and reconsidered in new ways. Every scholar and
every researcher is consequently committed to a life of continual reading
and development.

The literature review is an exercise that marks the beginning - in earnest
- of a life in research. It helps the scholar begin to shape the individual
stock of knowledge that will be required for independent research. This
stock of knowledge and experience is never complete. It must always be
expanded. To be rendered useful, it requires personal experience and
professional judgement in reading and application both. Moreover, it
demands a rich understanding of the work that has gone before. General
acquaintance, deep browsing, wide grazing and reference familiarity,
together with deep specific reading in some areas are a necessary part of
that development.

It is relatively rare that the scholar will be required ever again to do a
literature review of exactly this kind. As a scholar matures, he or she
begins to possess an internalized familiarity with the literature, knowing
how to use item where to turn what to locate for the proper development of
an idea or theme. Until the student has completed and made good use of a
literature review, developing a rich foundation of internalized knowledge
generally remains an elusive ideal.

The pedagogical and developmental functions of the literature review are
one of the most important and valuable parts of the thesis.

The literature review can be flawed in many ways. In art and design thesis
projects, the most common and evident flaw arises as a result of
substituting what is called the "contextual review" for a true literature
review. The contextual review is what doctoral candidates in most fields
would call a first, preliminary stage in a literature review.

The examples of the contextual review that I have seen generally locate an
idea or body of work in a context. This is perfectly acceptable in an essay
or a work of at criticism. It is not sufficient for the literature review.
The literature review does far more than locate an idea or work in context.
It examines and analyzes the thinking on the idea. This is a critical
analysis. Critical analysis subjects prior thinking to review examination
and to the range of questions that open the field for the original
contribution that will be made by the doctoral candidate.

Even in a practice-based Ph.D., the candidate makes an original
contribution to the knowledge of a field. An original contribution to
knowledge is characterized by new ideas. A candidate who simply does
something better than it has been done before does not make an original
contribution to new knowledge. A thought experiment will make the
difference clear.

Imagine a new kind of painting technique. Technique in many fields is a
form of method, and the artist who pioneers a new technique is in many
respects comparable to the scholar who pioneers a new method. Now consider
the possibility that the artist who invents the technique is a conceptually
brilliant thinker who simply doesn't paint very well.

A doctoral candidate in a practice-based Ph.D. program comes across this
technique. He or she raises it to a brilliant level of application without
making any fundamental changes in the technique itself. The candidate does
this because he or she paints far better than the originator of the
technique. On the declared standards of the Ph.D., a body of work that
raises existing technique or knowledge to a new and higher level of
application is not an original contribution to new knowledge in a field.

Doing something known better than others do it is an act of professional
practice. One receives a professional doctorate for professional practice.

The research doctorate involves developing something new, finding or
developing new knowledge that others apply. This is contributing original
knowledge to a field.

Professional doctorates are awarded to those who apply existing knowledge
at a high level of expertise. Research doctorates are awarded to those who
create knowledge that others may apply. A professional doctorate is awarded
to someone who has internalized and can use knowledge well. A research
doctorate is awarded to someone who generates new knowledge that others put
to use. This new knowledge may involve only a minor contribution to the
knowledge of a field. What is necessary is that it must be original and new.

It is in this dimension that the contextual review tends to be a weak point
in the notion of the practice-based Ph.D.

The use of a contextual review in the place of a thorough literature review
is inadequate for several fundamental reasons.

It is the goal of some practitioners to situate and contextualize their own
work in a practice-based Ph.D. The Ph.D. is intended to demonstrate an
original contribution to a field of knowledge through their own work. This
requires investigating the history, theory, and prior art of the specific
professional work they practice. The act of contextualizing and situating
this work is the first stage of the research act. The next step will be
presenting the work. The final step will be problematizing, theorizing, and
generalizing the work.

Contextualizing and situating the practitioner's work sets the stage for
presenting the work as the empirical data of doctoral research. This
establishes a solid foundation for making clear how the artifacts developed
by art or design practice function as empirical data. It will also set the
stage for explaining the way in which the professional practice of art or
design is a research act.

The work represents the research problem. Presenting the work holds a truly
problematic role in the practice-based Ph.D. In saying that this role is
problematic, I do so in a very specific sense of the word. The work is the
problem and the answer both, and doing the work constitutes part of the
method.

To function as a research problem, the work must by definition conflate
three separate aspects of research. These must therefore be explained
clearly to allow distinction.

As process, the work involves method issues and methodological problems.
These issues and problems must be explained in the method chapter.

As artifacts and evidence of process, the work constitutes empirical data.
These must be demonstrated in the core of the thesis. This is where an
exhibition comes into play. Ad this is where rich, full documentation of
the exhibition is required for the thesis. For the reasons I explain here,
however, the exhibition is no substitute for the thesis. An exhibition in a
practice-based Ph.D. constitutes a chapter in a thesis.

As end product and research outcomes, the work constitutes the original
contribution to knowledge.

When artifacts constitute a part of the thesis work in a practice-based
Ph.D., however, each of the streams of method, empirical data, and result
must carry at least two kinds of information. Each of these two kinds of
information is of a different nature, and both must be explained explicitly.

Method requires that one explain the conceptual method and method of
theoretical investigation. It also requires that one explain the practical
physical methods of the work submitted as empirical data. Method may also
involve or require an explanation of the conceptual working process and the
intellectual or creative method employed by the artist or designer.

The artifacts and the exhibition may represent the empirical data. This
also requires thorough documentation to permit others to examine the
representation of empirical data following the show or at a distance from
the artifact. Photographs, video, blueprints, drawings, or other media can
probably do this as long as those media are recorded clearly, captioned,
and explained. In essence, the actual artifact must later be replaced by a
representation of the artifact. In addition, the empirical data must be
explained. A patent drawing requires description and explanation. A map or
a statistical series requires description and explanation. Interviews,
statistics, mechanical equations, chemical formulas, and all other forms of
empirical data require articulate explanation in addition to presenting
them as raw data or the structured representation of raw data. So does the
artifact or the exhibition when it becomes empirical data.

The final step will be problematizing, theorizing, and generalizing the
work. This always involves explanation. Here, both methods and artifacts
must be cast in the light of a research problem. Then from the artifacts,
theory and findings must be adduced.

Generalization organizes specifics and renders them useful by others. The
act of generalization recasts third-level professional practice into
research. What would be a professional doctorate based on practice then
becomes an original contribution to the knowledge of the field. This is
what earns the Ph.D.

The literature review establishes the frame within which this developmental
progression takes place. The literature review will be used at many points
in method, empirical data, problem, theory, and generalization. Prior work,
prior art, and prior concept must often be cited after the literature
review itself. In some cases, literature is used to establish facts on
which proof claims are based. In some cases, literature validates
methodological or developmental choices. In some cases, literature reveals
the areas within which the original contribution can be shown original. In
some cases, literature helps to develop the logical progression from issues
accepted as empirically or axiomatically valid. For many reasons, the
thesis will refer back to the literature brought forward in the literature
review.

It therefore establishes a foundation for what will come, and provides a
body of knowledge into which the researcher will incorporate his or her
original work.

The very notion of an original contribution to knowledge within a field
establishes several attributes in Ph.D. work. It presumes a field. It
presumes a body of knowledge. It presumes a gap or an unresolved problem in
that body of knowledge. To contribute, the researcher must understand the
field. As a license for independent research, the candidate in part earns
the license by demonstrating knowledge of the field. As a researcher, the
candidate partly validates original contribution by demonstrating the gaps
or unresolved problems in the field. As a scholar, the researcher makes use
of the literature in developing his or her own arguments.

Serious problems arise when the literature review is insubstantial, weak,
or flawed in thoroughness. The first and most important of these in a
practice-based Ph.D. is the risk that the contribution may not be original.

The practice-based Ph.D. is generally undertaken by practicing artists and
designers. Their earlier educational background generally involves
practitioner training and professional degrees. They don't usually have
research training before entering doctoral work in the practice-based
doctoral programs. Practitioners generally take a survey course in the
history of their field, but they rarely know enough about the history of
the field to state categorically that a gap or an unresolved problem exists.

When an artist or design comes independently to an original solution for a
problem, it is an important moment in his or her life. But the status of an
original, independent solution to a problem that has been solved long ago
is quite different than the status of an original solution to a gap in the
knowledge of a field, an unsolved problem or an unresolved problem. An
original, independent solution to an already-solved problem is a moment in
pedagogical development. This happens often to researchers in every field.
It demonstrates in one dimension that one is on the right track. It also
confirms one's understanding of the field. Nevertheless, it is not an
original contribution to the knowledge of a field.

Many scholars enjoy the challenge of solving established problem or the
confirmation of discovering prior solutions. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman
often made a habit of reading journal articles in physics only far enough
to understand the problem. Then he put the journal down and worked through
the problem himself. When he finished his work, he would finish the article
to see how his conclusions compared with the published findings.

I have mixed feelings about discovering that others have already come to
conclusions that I have reached independent of their work. It often occurs
that I reach a conclusion based on direct evidence, logical induction from
evidence or logical deduction from established theory applied to a problem.
On the one hand, I'm glad for the confirmation. On the other, I'm always a
bit sad that someone else has gotten to the conclusion first.

Even so, what is more important is the sense that the nature of the world
is such so that serious research yields a similar conclusion. Conducting
research and writing it up is always a slow, careful process. This means
that between the start of a research project and its conclusion, one is
often likely to discover others who have done the same work - or who have
contributed to what must finally be considered the same work. My response
is to shrug and find a way to incorporate and cite prior findings. Then I
dig back in to see what I can add to the knowledge of the field.

In every field of research, you will hear stories of doctoral candidates
who have had to change topics or recast them dramatically on discovering
that their work would not lead to an original contribution. That's the
nature of research. If artists and designers want a research doctorate,
they must develop humility in the face of prior knowledge that honors
earlier original contributions.

The care with which the literature search is taken serves this goal. It
also helps them to do exactly what artists and designers claim that they
wish to do with the so-called contextual review. It enables the art or
design practitioner to situate and contextualize his or her work in a
larger field of practice. This siting of the contribution paves the way for
demonstrating an original contribution to a field of knowledge through the
work that the artist or designer presents.

It may help to think of a field of practice as a geographical region or
territory. The literature review provides a map of what is known. It also
reveals empty spaces, undeveloped regions, and areas to be reworked or
developed in a new way.

Only investigating the history, theory, and prior art of the specific
professional enables the practitioner to site and contextualize his or her
work. Doing this at the level of confidence required of a Ph.D. demands a
literature review and not a contextual review.

The literature review serves a second and equally important purpose in the
work of an artist or designer. The earlier work that most art and design
candidates undertake is oriented toward professional practice rather than
research.

An artist or designer who takes a taught MA in research before entering
doctoral work develops many of the skills that others develop before
entering a doctoral program. Many do not do this. Instead, they move
directly from a professional master's to a research doctorate. This
transition and the gaps it represents are often obscured by the fact that
the schools that offer practice-based Ph.D. programs lack the robust
traditions of research, advising and supervision that have been noted
elsewhere.

A doctoral candidate who does a full, proper literature review in this
context is, in part, undertaking a program of self-taught study to make up
for gaps in an earlier education directed toward goals other than research.
These include gaps and deficiencies in research skills, discipline
knowledge, field knowledge, and the other issues that a doctoral candidate
should master.

Chris Hart's (1998) recently published a good book on the literature review
process titled Doing a literature review. It is aimed at the social
sciences, but many issues are useable in other forms of research needed for
the Ph.D.

Several flaws are commonly found in a poor literature review. These include
flaws that arise when the candidate undertakes a contextual review, since
the contextual review is by definition a spotty and incomplete literature
review.

Flawed literature reviews are marked by many problems. These include (5.1)
Failure to read widely enough. (5.1.1) Failure to read core literature in
the field. (5.1.2) Failure to read literature in the field outside the
core. (5.1.3) Failure to read cognate literature. (5.1.4) Failure to read
possibly applicable literature from cognate fields. (5.1.5) Failure to read
on all the subject issues of the thesis. (5.1.6) Failure to read on all
method issues in the thesis.

(5.2) Failure to seek rich, multiple sources of literature. (5.2.1) Failure
to review Dissertation Abstracts International for the social sciences,
liberal arts and humanities. (5.2.2) Failure to review Dissertation
Abstracts International for the natural sciences and technology. (5.2.3)
Failure to read professional databases. (5.2.4) Failure to read
professional source literature. (5.2.5) Failure to seek proprietary
literature. (5.2.6) Failure to seek archival or archaic literature. (5.2.6)
Failure to use remote libraries via the Wold Wide Web. (5.2.7) Failure to
review public sources, newspapers, magazines, etc. (5.2.8) Failure to use
available reference sources as guides to further reading. (5.2.9) Failure
to track prior sources through references in sources reviewed.

(5.3) Failure to use literature review to develop the thesis. (5.3.1)
Failure to use literature to outline history and progress in the field.
(5.3.2) Failure to use literature as source of valid empirical data.
(5.3.3) Failure to anchor concepts in the literature of the discipline.
(5.3.4) Failure to demonstrate gaps in the knowledge of the field by using
literature to build a rich and well-orchestrated geography of the
territory. (5.3.5) Failure to anchor concepts in literature.

This section could probably incorporate another twenty or thirty common
ways of failing to use the literature review properly. The literature
review has many options, and no single thesis can ever use more than a few.
This means that - in terms of the literature review -- a thesis can be
comprehensive and appropriate even though it does NOT do all that can be
done.

The ways that a literature review can be developed, built, and used involve
the craft of research. This makes doing the literature review a seminal
part of the research act. This is where careful, sensitive advice play an
important role. This is one area where the role of the advisor as a mentor
in introducing the doctoral student to research choices and options is most
essential.

It is my opinion that the literature review is a central part of the thesis
when it comes to research training. This is so for an important reason.
When my students complete their work, they won't always be able to rely on
me for guidance. Many students do call or drop by, but they go on to lives
as independent professionals and scholars. Everyone can use a good source
of advice, however, and the literature review provides each student with a
comprehensive group of advisors, senior scholars, and mentors.

A student who has done a thorough literature review can always turn to
Blumer, Mead, Gadamer, Dilthey or Simmel for advice on conceptualization. A
student who has built the literature review carefully can always consult
Weick, Daft, Lincoln and Guba, Glaser or Strauss on theory construction.
Even more, they can place these scholars in conversation, comparing and
contrasting their views, applying their thoughts to new problems,
questioning and criticizing, analyzing and bringing new meaning to the
issues they address.

The literature review is the first step in transforming the student into an
independent scholar. This is why it holds such a central role in the thesis
and in research training.

It would be an exaggeration to say that the literature review is more
important than understanding method, collecting and interpreting data,
engaging in reflection. It is no exaggeration to say that the literature
review helps the budding scholar to place these aspects of the research act
in perspective, and to see how others have addressed similar concerns.

The sociologist Tormod Lunde once said, "The only way to get smart is by
reading. The only way to get really smart is by reading a lot." He took his
own doctoral training at Stanford. One of the keys to the Stanford doctoral
program in sociology was a rich diet of reading, reading, and reading,
followed by analysis, reflection, criticism, and then more reading. Tormod
told me once that during one of his years at Stanford, he started reading
in September and then one day he looked out the window to discover spring
had come. This is the diet of intellectual preparation that shapes a
researcher.

The practice-based Ph.D. has multiple research goals. Without the
intellectual foundation provided by a rich diet of reading, however, the
practice-based Ph.D. cannot hope to serve as a research degree. This
research training begins with the literature review.

It seems to me, therefore, that the decision a degree candidate makes to
pursue a research doctorate as contrasted with a professional doctorate
necessarily requires a commitment to the literature review.


[[ To be continued: [Beryl's Challenge, Part 2, section 2] ]]


References


Anttila, Pirkko. 1996. Tutkimisen taito ja tiedonhankinta. Taito-, taide-,
ja muotoilualojen tutkimuksen tyoevaelineet. Helsinki: Aakatiimi Oy.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review. Releasing the social science
imagination. London: Sage Publications and The Open University.






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]




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