Dear Alec,

I wonder if I might try to challenge you on your attempt to equate
designing with doing PhD research.

I quote from your response to Ken's point (12).

     Ken said,
     The Ph.D. is not awarded for the artifact ...

     It is awarded for the generalized report of findings that
     demonstrates the ability to conceive the research program,
     (DESIGN BRIEF), to investigate the problem successfully,
     (DESIGNING) to derive results,(DESIGN) to generalize them
     (NEXT VERSION/POSSIBLE NEW DESIGNS) and to shape them into
     a larger philosophical framework.(UN-NATURAL PHILOSOPHY BIT)

     (Alec's additions in brackets)

I agree with Ken's words, and with all the careful argument he has
presented to explain and justify what these words mean, i.e, what a PhD
is and what doing PhD research necessarily involves.

In you response you try to place another meaning on Ken's words---that
you introduce in your added brackets.  But you offer no argument or
justification for why this added or modified meaning has any real
truth.  I think it does not.

(1) First, you equate the PhD research program with the design brief,
but these are two very different kinds of things.  The design brief is
produced by the customer or client, and it is, and always remains, the
property of the customer or client, even if and when it is changed as a
result of the designer doing some designing.  The PhD research program,
on the other hand, is an essential construction of doing PhD research.
As Ken has argued and explained, one important aspect of gaining a PhD
is the need to demonstrate that you can develop and formulate a
coherent and worthwhile research program.   The research program is
thus the property of the researcher (not of the PhD supervisor, as I
suppose you imagine).  Demonstrating that you are a good designer thus,
does not involve demonstrating that you can formulate good design
briefs: that is not part of designing.

(2) Second,  you equate successfully investigating the problem (as set
out in the research program) with designing.  But designing, in
general, is not the investigation of just one problem, nor is it the
investigation of any previously formulated problem.  To use Archea's
words (and to say what many design researchers have said in their
different ways) designing is "puzzle making and puzzle solving", it is
not just puzzle solving. Designing involves the (typically incremental)
construction of a problem whose solution satisfies the needs or desires
expressed by the client or customer.  The problem synthesis,
modification, and development that goes on in designing is often
tightly coupled with the problem solving activity, so much so that
often they are hard to pull apart.  Designing thus constructs problems,
as a proper and essential part of the designing.  PhD research
investigates a previously established problem---a problem that
identifies a current (real) "whole" the in the field of study, and
which has been developed from a thorough and detailed review of the
current state of the art.  While individual designers may well review
the work of previous designing, there is no necessary need for this
review to be thorough or complete---it does not need to identify any
real whole in what has previously been designed.  So, successfully
investigating a PhD research program is not like designing.

(3) Third, you equate the deriving of (PhD research) results with design.
Here I am not sure if you mean the design resulting from the designing,
or the designing process itself. If you mean the design, i.e, that
designing derives designs like PhD researching derives (research)
results, then it seems to me this hardly says very much, since we might
equally well say (here) that devising plans is like (PhD research)
deriving results, or a story that results from some act of writing is
like PhD research deriving results, etc. The equation seems to me to
be rather empty here. If, on the other hand, you mean the process of
designing is like PhD research deriving results, then you would be
equating the processes, and thus saying that doing PhD research is the
same as designing.  Well, I can't agree with this for the reasons given
above.  Designing is not the same kind of process as doing PhD research.

(4) Fourth, you equate generalisation of the PhD research results with
the next version (of the design) or possible new designs.  It's hard to
see how this can be an equation at all simply on temporal grounds.  The
PhD research, and thus the PhD thesis that presents and reports this
research, must  of necessity present a generalisation of the results
obtained.  No designing must (of necessity, i.e., in order for it to be
designing) present other versions of the design or any new (future)
designs.  The generalisation of PhD research results has no kind of
counterpart in designing.  Designing must deliver a particular design
(perhaps with some particular possible variations or options) but there
is no need to present generalised forms of the of the final presented
design.  Designers do not have to show how their design is a
contribution to the designed world, customers and clients, and perhaps
society as a whole, will do that.  PhD researchers, on the other hand,
must show how their research work makes a worthwhile contribution to
the their field of study.

(5) Fifth, you equate shaping the PhD research results and
generalisations into a larger philosophical framework with what you
call the "un-natural philosophy bit".  But again, there is no necessary
requirement on designers (in order to do proper or good designing) to
make any kind of philosophical contribution. There is certainly no need
for designers to justify how their design or designs fit into some
larger philosophical framework, or some "school of design" or some
"programme," or some particular style, etc.  It's true, some designers
do try to explain how their designs fit in and develop some particular
style, form, programme etc., but this is not a necessary requirement,
as it is in PhD research.  Furthermore, the PhD researcher cannot
freely chose which philosophical framework he or she tries to fit his
or her research work into.  It must (of necessity) be the (or one of
the) accepted philosophical framework of his or her field of study.
This means that the PhD researcher must have a firm grasp and proper
understanding of the relevant philosophical framework.  Designers may
have a good understanding of the philosophical framework that their
designs fit into and contribute to, but they do not have to have this to
produce good designs---designs that can make profound and lasting
contributions.  So, once again, while it may seem that there are
similarities between designing and doing PhD research, there are
important differences: PhD research must do certain things
that designing may or may not, and most often does not, even if it is
very good designing.

A superficial likening of designing to doing PhD research, such as the
one I think you present, cannot form the basis for developing and
defining a high level degree awarded for the demonstration for a high
degree of competence in designing.

Best regards,

Tim
CEIT,
Donostia / San Sebastián
[log in to unmask]



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