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