Dear All

besides under the influence of spring time in germany, i have been reading Stanislaw Lem instead of 'how to get a phd with a supervisor' kind of books. that might explain why i don't see such a big problem of doing a phd without supvisor as some seem to. 

I am unable to express myself further.  so i call upon the followings for a much more daring position or approach to designing phds. 

I don't know if john chris jones has ever had the ´necessarily supervised research training', or a phd at all, but he has been my source of hope and inspiration while doing a phd. 

.....................................................................................................................................rosan

designing as people by john chris jones

I believe that the eventual future of design, design research, and of all other specialised professions, is to disappear - to be replaced by the diffusion of these activities from design offices, universities, or other centres of specialised work, to all of us as users, as citizens, as people, enabled by computernets to practice and to learn most of the creative skills of our former professional selves in the continuous redesigning-while-using-and-living of the changing forms of our (consciously or spontaneously) co-designed culture. What a mouthful - and what a change!(1)

A precedent for this is the open source movement for the shared development of software by people, all of whom are both users and makers of it (2).

Instead of myself presuming to imagine and to say how this might work out I am taking advantage of this new form of participatory conference book to invite those who take part to send me not criticisms but stories or imaginary diaries (or such) of how you think the future of designing may be realised. I will incorporate each reply as the eventual substance of this paper.

If you wish to respond please send me up to about 150 words of your idea of how you might one day be living and designing as a user or active person either in what I call creative democracy (3) or else in your own vision of the future.



----- Original Nachricht ----
Von:     Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]>
An:      [log in to unmask]
Datum:   27.04.2005 08:54
Betreff: Re: Rigor and supervision -- a few more thoughts

> Dear Ken,
> 
> Thank you for your further thoughts: generous and understanding
> as always.
> 
> While I agree in general with all you say, I would take issue
> with you over one thing.
> 
> You talk, in several places, of "self-supervision," as if this
> is an option that can to entertained, albeit unadvisedly, or
> as a poor option, or a last resort.  Treating it at all, even
> to disfavour it, as you do, counts it in, I think.  But, for
> the reasons I tried to set out in my previous post,
> self-supervision is not, and cannot be a part of PhDing, for
> whatever reason.  As I say, a PhD is a supervised training in
> doing research, but not a self-supervised training. This would
> require the Apprentice to act as the Master, as well as the
> Apprentice, and this would be to misunderstand the nature of
> this ancient and well tried and tested form of developing and
> sustaining certain kinds of knowledge and practice, including
> learning how to do good research.
> 
> I think it is therefore better that we make it clear that
> self-supervision is not a proper part of PhD training, keep
> it clear, and do not appear to even entertain the possibility.
> 
> I would further like to clarify an impression that I think you
> may have left; about presenting a PhD thesis to a University,
> without having received any PhD training from any Faculty or
> Department of the said University. I am aware that in many
> Universities in Europe, it is technically possible to do this.
> But this does not mean that any such University must accept,
> or would accept a PhD thesis prepared by someone who has not
> received any proper supervision during the research the thesis
> purports to present.
> 
> By accepting a PhD thesis for examination, a University
> commits the time and resources of a some (appropriate)
> Faculty.  I do not believe that any serious University would
> do this without first being sure that the submitted thesis is
> the result of an appropriate course of research training.
> 
> But we are talking of the unusual here.  What is more useful,
> and more important, is to talk of what mostly happens.  I do
> not profess to have the solution to the reality of too much
> poor PhD supervision, examples of which we can all recount,
> not to mention how to avoid instances of abuse or
> maltreatment.  What I can say though, is that unless we have
> clear, and keep clear, what the nature of the solution must
> be, and what it must not be, we cannot expect to improve
> matters.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tim
> Donostia / San Sebastián
> 
> ===========================================================
> 
> At 12:33 +0100 26/04/2005, Ken Friedman wrote:
> >Dear Friends,
> >
> >This list is somewhat addictive. Perhaps I need a 12-step program. Just in
> >my office for a few minutes, I read Tim's note and Rosan's response. I
> >understand Tim and I empathize with Rosan.
> >
> >Rosan has been raising important points on bad supervision. I agree
> >completely with her on the importance of this issue. I share her outrage
> >over bad supervisors and the damage they shape in human lives, and I am
> >always perplexed and angered by the damage they create in a young and
> >developing field such as ours. This accounts for some of the sharp
> comments
> >I posted in the Picasso's PhD debate to which I earlier referred.
> >
> >Where I diverge slightly is in the solution of self-supervision. If a PhD
> >is a singular research degree, then it would be right to say that a
> >candidate could self-supervise. It remains legal in many European
> >universities for a candidate to deliver the thesis to a faculty for
> >evaluation. It is rare, but such doctorates are awarded. I know of one
> such
> >degree awarded in art history a few years ago. The thesis was brilliant,
> >quirky, and entertaining. Unfortunately, the graduated doctor has not been
> >a brilliant or entertaining supervisor for the students later entrusted to
> >his care. This brings us to Rosan's key question and to Tim's point.
> >
> >Since the first doctoral degree was awarded centuries ago, it was -- and
> >has always been -- a license to teach and to supervise the research of
> >younger scholars. This is the origin of the title "doctor," a term that
> >derives from the Latin word "docere," to teach. The doctorate was always
> >the highest degree in any learned faculty. As the license to teach and to
> >supervise research at the highest level, it was a requirement that those
> >who earn a doctorate receive a research training.
> >
> >Rosan noted the fact that some universities permit a student to show up
> and
> >hand in a thesis for evaluation by the faculty. If the thesis is found
> >worthy, the university may award its doctorate to a person who has never
> >been enrolled in that school. This is correct. It remains a legal option
> in
> >many European universities.
> >
> >The European traditions of earning a doctorate by submission or
> publication
> >go back to an era in which complex social conditions shaped multiple paths
> >to a degree that was far more arduous than today's PhD. In that world, one
> >could not get a thesis accepted without thorough and extensive proofs of
> >methodological preparation and skill. These proofs were taken as prima
> >facie evidence of solid research training. It was nevertheless presumed
> >that research training is the foundation of the PhD or the other learned
> >doctorates, and it is often the full faculty rather than a small committee
> >that reviews and awards degrees by submission. In most, the award is only
> >given after thorough review and examination of the submission and the
> >candidate. The doctorate by submission generally requires the defense or
> >the viva, and when a faculty does not know the candidate, questioning at
> >the defense is likely to be particularly careful. This award, in any good
> >university, is the needle's eye, and few pass through it.
> >
> >Rosan is right about an original contribution to knowledge, but it is the
> >thesis that constitutes the original contribution to knowledge and not the
> >PhD itself. The PhD is a license awarded to the candidate. The thesis is
> >only one of the requirements for earning the license. This is why so many
> >universities place the words, "in partial fulfillment of the requirements"
> >on the title page of every thesis. Other requirements include research
> >courses, language requirements, methods courses, seminar, major and minor
> >fields, and often much more.
> >
> >There are two difficulties with self-supervision. The first is that it is
> >difficult for a fledgling researcher without a research background to
> >master the many skills on his or her own. The second is that writing a
> >thesis (which may itself require only one research method) and graduating
> >with a PhD will not prepare the graduate to teach or supervise research.
> >
> >We do not award two kinds of PhD, one for futurte research supervisors and
> >one for everybody else. The PhD is presumed to be a license demonstrating
> >the ability to teach and supervise research. This is why a school that
> >graduates doctors who become bad supervisors soon gets a bad reputation.
> >Other schools stop hiring graduates from a school with a bad reputation.
> >
> >So far, I have yet to meet a self-supervised PhD who is adequately
> prepared
> >to teach and supervise research. If the PhD meant only that a doctor is
> >able to conduct his or her own research, self-supervision might be an
> >acceptable solution in preference over bad supervision. Since the PhD is
> >also a license to teach and supervise research students, self-supervision
> >is insufficient.
> >
> >In reviewing the thesis projects of many graduates from young doctoral
> >programs, I see mistakes that would not get through solid programs at good
> >goods. Since supervisors approve the thesis before submission, I attribute
> >these mistakes to inadequate supervision. For all practical purposes,
> >inadequate supervision meant that these students were self-supervising
> >while neglectful supervisors signed the proper forms to move them through
> >the system.
> >
> >Minor mistakes in a thesis are not a serious issue, but many mistakes are
> >serious enough that one can not only predict that the graduate will be a
> >poor supervisor -- one can often predict the specific kinds of supervision
> >problems that will result.Some readers who remember the Picasso's PhD
> >debate will recall the back-channel discussion we had on a few specific
> >cases and my predictions at that time of the likely future results. At
> >least two or three of those predictions have been amply demonstrated to
> the
> >rescue supervisors who took on the task of helping good students recover
> >from bad supervision.
> >
> >This is a genuinely difficult dilemma. Rosan is absolutely right about the
> >importance of leaving a bad supervisor or an abusive relationship. It
> seems
> >to me that Tim agrees with her. His answer is that we must emphasize the
> >requirements of good supervision before we entrust people with doctoral
> >supervision responsibility.
> >
> >These issues are particularly difficult to discuss in an open forum
> because
> >of the fact that human sensitivites and libel law make it impossible to
> >discuss examples and specific cases, or even to discuss specific schools.
> >This is a matter of principles.
> >
> >I agree with Rosan's viewpoint on the problem of bad supervision. I join
> >her in using the word abuse. I share her anger and I have felt much anger
> >myself over the cases that have touched my life, close up or at a
> distance.
> >What's needed is better solution than self-supervision, though. That's
> >where I agree with Tim. In reading Tim's post, I wish I had myself
> >discussed more deeply some of the points he raised.
> >
> >In the world that Tim and Johann describe, we'd cure many of the problems
> >that Rosan identifies before they fester into abusive situations.
> >
> >I'm going to be quiet about this for a while now. I would welcome the
> views
> >and experiences that others may have on these issues.
> >
> >Warm wishes,
> >
> >Ken
> 

Machen Sie aus 14 Cent spielend bis zu 100 Euro!
Die neue Gaming-Area von Arcor - über 50 Onlinespiele im Angebot.
http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-gaming-1