On the question of "why Not have PhDs in Design Studies", Michael Clark writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On the issue of degrees as raised by Keith Russell and Carma Gorman: The
decision not to propose a Ph.D. for Design Studies from the beginning of
the School was strictly pragmatic. Doctoral level education is extremely
expensive, as we all know, as are Masters-level programs compared to
undergraduate majors. We thought we should emphasize graduate programs in
those areas that had at least some chance of securing extramural funding
for graduate support. There was no intention to preclude the development
of a Ph.D. in Design Studies at some point in the future, and we certainly
did not intend to imply that Design Studies was somehow less "serious" an
academic field than the other three areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Michael,
If I found myself unable to run a PhD program on the basis that I was not actually "precluded" from doing so, I would still feel that I was excluded from doing so? As a major in English with a PhD in literary aesthetics, I find such language, justified by the notion of pragmatics, to be "unusual"?
Examples that extend this logic might include:
I'm not full-able, but that doesn't preclude me from anything, it just doesn't pragmatically fit that we should have to build a wheel chair ramp for you; or, I'm not male, but that doesn't preclude me from using the workshops it's just that we cannot afford to put in female toilets and emergency showers (and we are not allowed to have uni-sex facilities).
Pragmatics that exclude classes of people are secret forms of class discrimination? We had a famous test in Australia that allowed the Government of the day to exclude entry to anybody they wanted to based on a spelling test - no, it was NOT a white Australia policy - it was a spelling test.
The actual costs of running such programs (PhDs in Design Studies) would be less in Australia than PhDs in all other Design areas. They would normally fit inside the expectations of staff - so no extra funding required there. And, if the Design Studies undergraduate program was properly funded, then it would have adequate resources in terms of library facilities etc. Any extra library resources needed would be justified via staff needs (the undergraduate teachers would, one assumes, be already engaged in their own research into such domains and thus books would be purchased via staff allocations?).
So, just how far does this pragmatic go? Are we talking about hiring staff for Design Studies who don't do research - part timers for example who wander into the program - spare staff from Liberal Studies programs who need to make up time? Are we talking about no senior appointments in the Design Studies area - no full professors? Are we talking about a whole culture of denial where junior Design Studies staff bash away for years minus full and serious support while they are told they are full members of the community (no conference funds - no promotions - no executive positions - sounds like a woman's job to me?)
Hey, I might be wrong about all of this - but at the moment I am worried. Convince me I'm worried about nothing.
keith russell
OZ newcastle
|