Dear Colleagues,

George's note yesterday highlights an important distinction between
two kinds of culture, guild culture and research culture. One of the
serious problems in the young research culture of art and design is
the tendency to develop, handle, and show artifacts while neglecting
the articulate inquiry that is central to any research program.

Working directly with the subject matter of inquiry is vital in all
fields. Drawing is no different than sociology, medicine, literature,
or physics in this respect. In all fields, however, inquiry is the
core of the research act. Both kinds of engagement are needed.

This brings a challenging problem to the front. Drawing research is
linked to drawing practice, and it often therefore requires
engagement in studio culture.

Studio culture is anchored in the guilds, and art and design schools
still replicate guild mentality. This mentality emphasizes studio
practice and making artifacts. This is a good way to develop
practical studio skills. It is not the best way to learn research or
to practice research.

Guild culture behaviors work against the arts of critical inquiry
that form the core of research activity. Guild cultures emphasize
behavioral modeling with strong socialization and argument from
authority. They often discourage articulate inquiry. In the old
guilds and studios that existed before university education, this
often involved explicit rules: masters might question masters, but
journeymen could only question journeymen, while apprentices could
question neither. Each might ask questions of the ranks above them,
but they were not permitted to challenge or to question
unsatisfactory answers. The sanctions against critical inquiry were
not merely social: a journeyman could easily be denied work, and an
apprentice could be severely punished - often physically - for daring
to ask questions. While beatings are no longer common, the other
sanctions remain effective in many professional guilds today. Artisan
production studios, design studios, architecture firms, and medical
schools are often the sites of guild culture, as are art and design
schools.

These aspects of guild culture are inhospitable to research.

Developing a research agenda requires preserving the valuable aspects
of studio practice while moving beyond them to encourage articulate
inquiry.

John's suggestion involves gathering data. There are many kinds of
data. Research takes place when we reflect on data and structure them
into a cogent inquiry.

I agree with George's view. One thing in George's note surprised me,
though, and this is that some universities have awarded a PhD for
interview data alone. This involves more than wasting a rich source
of knowledge. The problem is that the PhD is a research degree, and
there is no research involved in recording and transcribing an
interview. While designing interview questions are part of the
research process, a research assistant can ask the questions and get
the answers. It used to be that a secretary could record and
transcribe the interview: soon, a computer will be able to do it,
with a second -- possibly human-assisted -- program used for editing
and verification.

In most fields, it is impossible to imagine awarding a PhD for
presenting raw data. Gathering data is part of research. Research
itself occurs in the mind of the researcher as he or she works the
data to develop conclusions.

A PhD is awarded for an original contribution to the knowledge of a
field. In the case of interviews, the raw data constitute someone
else's knowledge and not the knowledge of the researcher.

My sense is that this phase of Katrinka's project involves creating a
data set. It may even be exploratory research to develop sensitizing
concepts that will guide further research. (Please correct me if I'm
mistaken about this.) Gathering this data is only one step in the
research.

Research involves inquiry that takes place as the researcher works
with the data. This cannot take place with the raw presentation of an
interview or the raw presentation of artifacts. It requires inquiry,
articulate analysis, and interpretation.

While these thoughts are probably consistent with George's views and
those of many list members, they are not yet a common view in all
areas of art research. I will risk preaching to the choir by stating
them as a follow-up to George's note.

Best regards,

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University