I too have been following the discussion about the "design Ph.D."; with an
ear for how our "Environment-Behavior Studies" doctoral program fits with
the perceived needs in the broader design and research community.
Briefly, my view is that a solid Ph.D. represents the production of new
knowledge - and the argument then (about what constitutes a valid Ph.D.)
turns on just what constitutes valid knowledge. A good test (on my view)
for processes which generate valid knowledge is whether one can militate
against and/or challenge existing knowledge with observations that can be
repeated. This safegaurds against the sort of a-priori knowledge objects
upon which "witch burning," "flat earth theory," or the "geocentric
universe" (to name but a few) find grounding - and have caused variously
immense human suffering or intellectual suppression.
As to Victor Margolin's lecture - I find myself perplexed in that he has
made no mention of organizations like IAPS or EDRA which presently engage
in just the sort of interdisciplinary research-practice praxis that he
calls for.
Any comments?
__o Jesse L. Voss, NCARB __o
_ \<_ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee _ \<_
(_)/(_) PhD Candidate Dept. of Architecture (_)/(_)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|