Jena Schneider noted that  "histoire(s) du cinéma", by J.L. Godard is
an example of a rigourous, structured, refutable historical analysis of
cinema, and its form is congruent with the problematic that it raises."

Can anyone give me a philopsophically well-justified reason why a PhD
on this topic shouldn't be viewed, and categorised more appropriately,
as a PhD in History. It seems to me that as historical research it more
properly lies under the domain of History rather than  Design Research.

Best wishes

Terry

________________________

Dr. Terence Love
Love Design and Research
GPO Box 226
Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel & Fax: +61 8 9305 7629
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________
========================================

From: Jean Schneider <[log in to unmask]>
To: Internet Mail::[[log in to unmask]]; Internet Mail::["DRS" <[log in to unmask]
.uk>]

Subject: Re: Thesis 19: The nature of the philosophical doctorate
Date: 0/17/00 8:42 AM

[rather long post]

Ken's long posting has the merit of clarifying his position about design
and Ph.D at the same time. His radical option, that, in my understanding,
explicitely denies to any "artifact" (I mean by that any result of what
is commonly termed the "design activity", and gives to it its economical,
social, and eventually cultural legitimacy) the ability to stand for a
Ph.D thesis would have my favour (BTW, I do not have any specific choice),
but I think that the arguments are not always adequate. I will leave aside
the long digression on philosophy, though it implicitely represents one
of the schools of philosophy, and not necessarily, in my view, the one
that is the most adequate to discuss the activity of creation (I don't
like the "problem-solving" formulation).


[Friedman]
" There are hundreds of acceptable research methods and research paradigms.
For the Ph.D., what is required is that one choose among those that permit
explicit clarification and generalizable findings that others can use.
No
one suggests that there is only one way. We do call for selecting among
those ways that allow others to draw on and apply the findings at a
distance, that is, ways that depend on the clarity of the published results
rather than depending on the tacit transmission of first-hand knowledge
through apprenticeship and craft means."

€> Do you see the course book as the model of the Ph.D then? But 1/there
is an ongoing normalization of materials and descriptions that makes first-hand
 knowledge quite marginal; 2/ the things left that truly require first-hand
knowledge cannot be tought by any other means than apprenticeship


[Friedman]
" Again, this question contains a load of confusions wrapped up in seemingly
simple prose. The problem is not the validity of drawings as texts. The
problem is the fact that a drawing can not represents all the forms of
inquiry, analysis and representation required in a Ph.D. thesis.

Let me be precise:
1) A drawing is valid.
2) A drawing may be a valid text.
3) In certain contexts - blueprints and applied research - a drawing may
even constitute a complete and valid text.
4) Within a thesis, a drawing may be constitute a valid text as part of
a
larger discourse.
5) Since no drawing can pose and answer all the questions required of
the
thesis, it can't constitute the specific kind of structured representation
of thought that forms a thesis. Such basic requirements as literature
review and problem statement can't take the form of a drawing."

€>I see different problems coming up here. 
€ First of all, one can argue that literature review and problem statement
are, by their very nature verbal. Nevertheless, this doesn't imply that
the problematic can only be 1/structured, 2/represented verbally. In fact,
if you dissociate the two concepts (to structure, to represent) by changing
form (or medium, though a distinction would be needed there, but I'll
leave it aside), you are on a good ground to discuss the issue (and eventually
to evaluate). E.g.: 1/ "histoire(s) du cinéma", by J.L. Godard is an example
of a rigourous, structured, refutable historical analysis of cinema, and
its form is congruent with the problematic that it raises. 2/The value
of Alexander's "Pattern language" doesn't come from the text that justifies
each pattern, but from the elaboration of a graphical text (as it is demonstrat
ed by all the works that preceded the book). The words that constitute
the book are there for a denotative purpose only, they are not the "text".
€ Second -and more serious-. If you suggest -unless I am misundertsanding
you- that the problematic (again, I want to distinguish this from the
"problem statement", which is just a verbal approximation of the problematic)
can only be structured by a language-based text, you imply that either
the thesis is descriptive or prescriptive. In other words, either 1/you
describe and interpret a sequence of facts, or 2/you prescribe modalities
(and you often do both). Why? 1/ is probably clear enough, it is the bulk
of the design research literature. 
2/ comes from the following. If you are doing a project (i.e. engaged
in designing), and that you have to use verbal language, the only one
that applies is an anticipation of a sequence of actions (this is well
demonstrated by the raw material brought up in cognitive psychology when
aiming at the development of expert systems). Why: because the concept
of reality (whatever definition we give to it) is not accessible, and
is under constitution. In a perfect world, language-based representation
would exclude then discovery, because you will reduce the modalities to
a finite automata (a bit like "big blue" playing chess).
Non verbal texts (in the philosophical sense of the word) allow other
possibilities. "Free" drawing allows simultanous global and local manipulationŠ
 Music allows recursivityŠ If you accept that they can be "texts", then
I don't see that they can be excluded a priori. Of course, I am prepared
to accept that the review and a few other things are done verbally, but
-if you try to be rigorous- we should not mix up the current standard
format of the academical text with "structured representation of thought"
and objectivity (there are enough examples of falsification). Moreover,
even in philosophy, there are different forms of text that do exist.

[Friedman]
" The contribution of original knowledge in a field is not the contribution
of the artifact. It is not even implicit in the documentation of the
process that shapes the artifact. Rather, the contribution of knowledge
to
a field involves the development, analysis, and articulation of general
applicability of the principles that make the process possible.

In conclusion, I wrote, "Seeking a Ph.D. for studio practice isn't seeking
a research degree. Isn't that what the whole debate is about?""

[ŠsnipŠ]
" In this sense, an artifact is not a fact. Rather, it is the trace of
a
process. When the doctoral candidate does not himself or herself conduct
and articulate the full research process, the artifact is no more than
raw
data that may be part of someone else's research.

Making an inspired artifact demonstrates the knowledge and skill required
for the applied mastery a discipline. A physician earns the medical
doctorate by demonstrating knowledge and skill. An architect earns the
master's in architecture in much the same way. The Ph.D. in medicine or
the
Ph.D. in architectural engineering do involve more than solving a specific
case. They involve creating a model or theory or process that enables
others to solve a range of cases. This is an original research
contribution."

€> If I understand correctly, you suggest that the Ph.D is a formalisation
of a procedure. While this is one option, I am sceptical about the value
of such formalisation. After all, there is already a large body of literature
that deals with the formalisation of the design activity/process: whether
it is in terms of cognitive skills, or working procedures.
One of the reasons why I am sceptical is the following. None of the studies
or papers that I have read defines what is design in this or that project:
there is a consensus that assumes that "design" would be a similar -if
not a generic- activity for most of us, whether we would do graphics,
architecture, products etc, or even excert our human ability to transform
our world. Now -and please correct me if I am wrong- I have never found
any study that proves this. In fact, one might quickly point out that,
for instance: 1/the analogies are taken for identity; 2/the historical
constitution of design (e.g. architects and designers, BauhausŠ) is seen
as a sufficient justification; 3/the socio-economical model (e.g.client
based activity, shared creativityŠ) creates a similar frame that structures
the activities in the same manner; etcŠ
One might wonder who has interest in sustaining such an option, if not
dogma. I am not convinced that it benefits design at all -though it probably
benefits designers-.
My own observation of designers work or designers working would lead me
to slightly different conclusions.

Jean Schneider
Dept. of Product and Strategic Design
University of Art&Design Helsinki/Hämeentie 135C/00560 Helsinki/Finland
[log in to unmask]
phone: (358) 9 756 30 261
fax  : (358) 9 756 30 345