Karen, Glenn, Ken, Chris et al
Perhaps there is an audience for a short description from designers who have
earned a PhD and for the reasons that motivated them to do so. At the risk
of filling up someone's mailbox, allow me to begin with my short
description.
I have an undergraduate and graduate degree in furniture design (Montreal
1969) and industrial design (Birmingham, UK 1971), respectively. For ten or
twelve years after graduation I was in professional practice in Canada,
working with consultant design offices, manufacturers and, eventually, in my
own practice. The thought of a PhD or even university teaching/research was
the furthest thing from my mind. Until, that is, I took a one-year teaching
appointment at the University of Alberta. Clearly, a seed for inquiry was
planted then but did not come to fruition until several years later at
Carleton University. Why it occurred there and not at the U of A was
principally because the School of Industrial Design at Carleton University
was located in engineering. Most of my colleagues had PhDs and most were
involved in research. As I began to discover the world of 'discovery and
creation of knowledge,' I became hooked. I began my PhD full-time in 1983
and completed it on a part-time basis in 1987 (it's in cultural studies). In
the years since I have always attempted to reconcile the practicalities
implicit in design practice, on the one hand, with the need to demystify it,
on the other. Looking back, I would not have wanted it any other way.
I hope that my anecdotal tale assists those people who are considering a PhD
as part of a career plan but who may still be sitting on the fence. The PhD
is not for everyone and it is not a panacea. However, it does fit like a
glove for many of us.
Jacques
On 12/6/06 6:47 AM, "Erik Stolterman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Karen, Ken, Chris, Catherine et al
>
>
> I agree with Catherine. PhD studies are not suitable for anyone only
> as "preparation" or as a means. Since the question of whether or not
> anyone should try to achieve a phd, it is important to remember that
> we are talking about three distinct different practices, i.e.,
> research, teaching and design. To be highly skilled in any of these
> practices does not mean that you are prepared to do good in any of
> the other two. So, a phd is something you strive for if research is
> a practice you want to master and devote your life (or parts of your
> life) to. (Of course there are also some symbol values that can be
> used for other purposes.)
>
> This distinctions between these practices are also something I always
> us when we discuss phd programs or master programs. What is the
> intention and what is the future main practice of these students? An
> education should be clear about these choices and be able to argue
> for the program and its courses based on this.
>
> Well, I guess all this is maybe too obvious to write a post about :-)
>
> See you all
> Erik
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Erik Stolterman, Ph.D.
> Professor of Informatics
> Director of Human Computer Interaction
> School of Informatics
> Indiana University
> Bloomington, IN
>
> Home page: http://design.informatics.indiana.edu/erik/
> My Blog: http://transground.blogspot.com/
> Phone: (812) 856 5803
> Fax: (812) 856 1995
>
>
>
> 6 dec 2006 kl. 08.26 skrev Catherine Harper:
>
>> To be fair I think Ken mentioned the notion of 'passion-driven
>> enquiry'
>> (maybe not quite his words), and I very much endorse the idea of
>> being sure
>> that the effort and time invested doesn't just have long-term benefits
>> (employment, contribution to field of enquiry, expansion of the
>> territory,
>> eventual publication, etc.) but that there are some benefits during
>> the
>> process of the PhD itself.
>>
>> That is, that the actual experience is in some way enjoyable (a
>> range of
>> emotions is usually experienced, but hopefully joy is in there
>> somewhere) -
>> otherwise it could be a kind of academic purgatory with the joy of
>> release
>> being the only driver...
>>
|
