Dear All

        The debate what is or what ought to be doctoral has
clearly traceable historical dimensions. At mediaeval
Institutions of Higher Education, before the term
university was in use, titles such as Master, Doctor and
Professor had the same status. At that time they were not
indications of levels of competence like we use today, but
indicated in which Faculty/College one was a teacher.

The first known academic awarded Doctorate after an
examination was in Canon Law at the University of Bologna.
This was a furthering of the separation of academic
recognition for civil and religious purposes. In fact the
first titles awarded for professional competence for civic
matters as a different career path than careers within the
church was the title magister (master).

With the growing influence of civic economies in the late
mediaeval and early Renaissance, Doctorates became the norm
for teaching positions in European universities. This may
explain why today so many countries by law require a
doctoral recognition for university lecturers.

However with the demand of academic jobs outside the church
and universities, professional doctorates like medicine and
law became the second route for a doctoral recognition. So
you either displayed scholarly competence and became a
doctor to teach or you displayed professional competence to
become a doctor who practised his profession.

Only in the 19th century was the research doctorate
established. This happened in German speaking countries.
Univerities like Oxford, Cambridge but also Paris and Prague
refused to recognise these so-called junior Doctorates (PhD)
because they were based on the axiom of doubt instead of
building on historically accepted academic authority.

Research PhDs were awarded to young researchers trained by
professors who invented new science and philosophies,
among which Chemistry was the economic giant that changed
society in the same way as IT has done in our times. So
PhDs got status because they earned the intellectual powere
which underpinned new money in the 19th century. Once this
message spread, everybody wanted PhDs, even the older
conservative universities which had opposed PhDs for
decades. However it was not easy and still required two
laws in the mid 19th century in Britain to force Oxford and
Cambridge to accept research as a legitimate activity
within their walls.

So we now have three polarities for doctoral work.
- a display of known scholarship
- a display of professional competence
- a reseach ability which can make new contributions of
        knowledge for the first two

All current doctorates display at least one aspect of these
three archetypes, but very confusingly some doctorates
display a mixture of these ideas.

For people interested in more of this, I delivered a paper:
Doctoral research in Art and Design, at the  5th ADC in
Seoul.

Hope that this simplification adds to the debate

Paul van der Lem

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:45:51 +0100 Ken Friedman
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In opening a new thread, Chris Rust mentioned my interest in seeing
> greater consideration of the professional doctorate as one option in
> design education. This has to do with the fact that some people seek
> doctoral education with a professional focus rather than a research
> focus.
>
> Chris is right to argue that we have a job to do in developing
> research degrees. I share his view. My interest in the professional
> doctorate involves their uses for those who may find value in
> doctoral education even though they do not intend to be researchers.
>
> Professional doctorates exist in many fields. The ancient university
> professions of medicine, law, and theology all offer versions of the
> professional doctorate. Practitioners earn doctorates in the
> professional practice of medicine (MD), law (JD, LLD), and ministry
> (STD, Th.D., DD, and D.Min.). There is often some confusion on this,
> since the degree that may be awarded for research in one place may be
> awarded for professional practice in another, and some universities
> award LLD or DD as honorary degrees where others award them for
> professional contribution on presentation of evidence or nomination.
> It is the issue, rather than the specific degree title that deserves
> consideration.
>
> Newer professions also award professional doctorates, including
> dentistry (DDS, OD), nursing (DN), clinical psychology (Psy.D.) and
> other fields, including education (Ed.D.). Dick Buchanan notes that
> some professional doctorates are thought to be pretentious rather
> than substantive. This is true. As with the Ph.D., the quality and
> meaning of the degree depend in great part on the school.
>
> Before explaining my interest in professional doctorates, it may help
> to summarize the eight kinds of doctorate now awarded in design. It
> is also useful to distinguish between the research doctorate (Ph.D.),
> the professional and technical doctorates (D.Des., DCA, D.Arch.,
> Dr.Eng, Dr.Tech., etc.), and the studio doctorates (DA, DFA, and some
> degrees called Ph.D. awarded for studio work or a design project
> without a research thesis).
>
> There are eight models for a doctorate in design (Friedman 2000: 373;
> Durling and Friedman 2003: unpaged). Different models suggest eight
> different kinds of doctorate. These are: 1) The traditional or "old"
> Ph.D., 2) a practice-oriented Ph.D. in art or design that meets all
> requirements for the traditional Ph.D., 3) an innovative or "new"
> Ph.D. developed for the demands of design, 4) a technical doctorate
> with a title such as Dr.Tech., or Dr.Eng., 5) a professional
> doctorate in the practice of design with a title such as D.Des., or a
> professional doctorate in the practice of design under another title,
> 6) a studio doctorate awarded for fine art or design practice with a
> designation such as DA DFA, or DCA, 7) a studio Ph.D. awarded for
> studio practice in fine art and design supported by some form of
> explanatory essay or contextual document, 8) a practice-based Ph.D.
> in design distinct from both the studio Ph.D. and the traditional
> Ph.D.
>
> In the debates on these topics, there has been substantial confusion
> between the kinds of degrees covered by category 2 (a
> practice-oriented Ph.D. in art or design that meets all requirements
> for the traditional Ph.D.), categories 3 and 4 (the technical and
> professional doctorates) and categories 7 and 8  (the studio Ph.D.
> awarded for studio practice in fine art and design, and something
> labeled a practice-based Ph.D. that is neither a studio Ph.D. nor a
> traditional Ph.D.).
>
> The education laws of different nations mean that degrees of one kind
> appear elsewhere under the same title as very different degrees.
>
> At some schools, and Carnegie Mellon is a good example, the focus is
> on a Ph.D. that is clearly located in the domain of research. I
> understand that any applicant for the Carnegie Mellon (please correct
> me if I am wrong, Dick) is expected to have advanced skills in the
> professional practice of design BEFORE applying to the CMU Ph.D.
> program in design.
>
> There are some D.Des. degree in various places, though. As Kari-Hans
> Kommonen notes, Harvard has one. Fatina Saikaly points to another at
> Washington State University.
>
> If we expand the consideration of design to the larger framework of
> the design sciences, some form of DBA are also professional
> doctorates in design, especially those oriented toward IT
> applications and MIS. Where design or product development or related
> skills are taught in an engineering or architecture school, the
> D.Eng, D.Arch., or Dr.Tech. may also be professional doctorates in
> design.
>
> It should be noted that many professional doctorates have some form
> of research education. Advanced professionals must be able to conduct
> clinical research, to bring applied research into clinical use, and
> to understand and interpret basic research. The skills needed to
> design and conduct original research involves a partially different
> series of skills. A professional doctorate would allow doctoral
> candidates to develop and to master the skills appropriate to their
> needs, rather than force them to study skills that they will learn
> badly, never use, and soon forget.
>
> There are three main reasons for considering the professional
> doctorate. I am not arguing the case FOR a professional doctorate,
> but rather offering reasons that the professional doctorates deserve
> CONSIDERATION.
>
> The first reason has to do with education for professional practice.
> Professional doctorates may allow individuals to develop advanced
> professional skills and training at a level higher than the MFA or
> the advanced professional degree of other kinds. In the increasingly
> complex world of design, this may include advanced study to develop
> knowledge and skills that are not always developed through active
> professional practice.
>
> The second reason involves university politics. An increasing number
> of universities want design educators to have an earned doctorate. It
> is for this reason that we are seeing so much pressure to create new
> forms of Ph.D. degree for those who are not genuinely interested in
> research. Rather than offering weak research degrees to those who
> have no interest in research, there is a case to be made for a
> serious professional doctorate for those who are committed to
> practice rather than to research.
>
> The third reason involves improving the field itself, and saving at
> least some future Ph.D. students the pain of poor supervisors.
>
> The Ph.D. is two things. It is a research degree for those who master
> their own subject fi4eld and the research methods issues related to
> that field. It is also presumed to be a demonstration of skills that
> enable a philosophical doctor to teach research, research
> methodology, and research to others, and to supervise research
> students. In the debate on the DRS list in 2000 titled "Picasso's
> Ph.D." some of us warned about possible problems that would arise
> when scholars with problematic Ph.D. degrees went out into the field
> licensed to teach research and supervise research students. We are
> seeing these problems emerge now in many places where poorly educated
> scholars who hold a questionable Ph.D. are responsible for
> supervising others.
>
> One may well ask why schools hire these people. The fact is a simple,
> sad reality. The people who do the hiring often lack either the
> Ph.D., or the specific knowledge of research in design, or both. When
> a small art and design schools is merged into a university is still
> managed by the same staff and leaders that managed it as an
> independent school or a polytechnic, simply giving them the name
> "university" does not give them the kinds of skill that we see in a
> school developed around a research program. The kinds of problems we
> are now seeing do not occur when research universities hire
> ill-prepared doctors of philosophy because research universities are
> not hiring them. They are being hired at newly merged university
> schools or at studio schools, and ere we are seeing shocking cases of
> poor advising.
>
> Awarding a professional doctorate will solve an important problem for
> those who should not be awarded a Ph.D. They will be able to earn a
> doctorate for what they do, but their degree will not qualify them to
> supervise research and it will not be expected of them.
>
> It is precisely for this reason that some have argued against the
> professional doctorate as a lesser degree than the Ph.D. This is
> wrong. The professional doctorate is a different kind of degree than
> the Ph.D. The problem we see is that some people are convinced that
> the only degree worth holding is a research degree. If only a Ph.D.
> is worth holding, then a D.Arch., or Dr.Eng. is by definition a
> lesser degree. I disagree.
>
> In my view, a problematic Ph.D. is a lesser degree than any solid
> professional doctorate. If a Ph.D. is intended to indicate skill in
> research, some of the work I have seen in the past few years suggests
> deep flaws in Ph.D. education in some schools. Beyond this, there are
> some genuine horror stories now emerging as students begin to
> complain about the problems they experience in unqualified
> supervision. (Worse yet are the students who are happy with
> unqualified supervisors until they discover the skills they should
> have developed.)
>
> In my view, there are many reasons to consider the professional
> doctorate. One is as a path to the advanced practice of design. The
> other is to offer a serious doctorate for those who have no interest
> in research even though they will teach design at the university
> level.
>
> In offering these thoughts, I am not arguing which of the first five
> kinds of doctorate are best. My purpose in earlier calls for a
> consideration of the professional doctorate is that the professional
> doctorate offers useful possibilities that the research doctorate
> does not meet. It may serve useful purposes for practicing
> professionals and for educators. In doing so, it may relieve a
> problem that has come up in the inappropriate use of the Ph.D. as a
> credential for teachers at art and design schools who need a
> doctorate even though they have no interest in research.
>
> I appreciate the fact that Chris brings this thread up. It is worth
> considering.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
>
> References
>
> Durling, David, and Ken Friedman. 2003. "Debating the Practice-Based
> PhD." Special issue of Design Science and Technology. In press.
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Form and structure of the doctorate in design:
> Prelude to a multilogue." Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations
> for the Future. Proceedings of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12,
> 2000. David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United
> Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, 369-376.
>
>
> --
>
> 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

----------------------------------------
VanDerLem, Paul
Email: [log in to unmask]
"University of the West of England"