Dear Ken

Thanks for playing the middle-man.

I agree good supervision is good. But I don't understand why such a resistence
to 'no supervisor'.

To me, 'no supervisor' opens up imagination, to think things differently...
yes, there are difficulties (but not impossibilities) in doing a phd without
supervison... but in the name of design, we can create scenarios... how crazy
they might sound...how improperly-supervised and untrained they make me appear
to some...  they are the seeds for change.

Have fun in Izmir with Can!

Rosan


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