Hi Gavin,
I recall one such thesis to do with illustrating chemical production
processes at Coventry University. Get in touch with Clive Richards at
Coventry. He can probably help. My recollection is that the student
was European.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
On 12/02/2008, at 11:03 AM, Gavin Melles wrote:
> Hello PhDisters
> I would appreciate it if anyone knew of completed PhDs in Design
> fields
> (hopefully available as digital dissertations or contact details to
> request this and discuss) with a practice based material focus
> (including the production of artefacts or studio projects as part of
> the
> submission - so I don't want design history etc., as the focus), which
> make any theoretical claims about pragmatism (Dewey, James, Rorty)
> and/or use mixed methods. I don't particularly care what designerly
> discipline it is from architecture, built environment, through to
> interior, industrial etc. The aim, in addition to other things I am
> attempting to pull together in writing, is to illustrate and
> exemplify a
> point. Appreciated.
>
>>>> David Durling <[log in to unmask]> 24/01/2008 9:17 am >>>
> I thought that this article, which apparently appeared in the 2
> November 2007 issue of the USA Chronicle of Higher Education, may be
> of interest to members of phd-design list too.
>
> ---
>
> HOW EDUCATED MUST AN ARTIST BE?
>
> By Daniel Grant
>
> Job security is a relatively new concept in the ancient field of
> teaching art. Historically artists have created, and been judged
> on, their own credentials - that is, their art. And the master
> of fine-arts degree, often described as a "terminal degree," or
> the endpoint in an artist's formal education, has long been
> sufficient for artists seeking to teach at the college level.
> But significant change may be on the horizon, as increasing
> numbers of college and university administrators are urging
> artists to obtain doctoral degrees.
>
> We shouldn't be surprised; the M.F.A. has been under attack for
> some time now. The M.F.A. has become a problem for many
> administrators, who are increasingly uncomfortable with
> different criteria for different faculty members. They
> understand the lengthy process required to earn a doctorate - of
> which the master's degree is only a small, preliminary part -
> and see hiring a Ph.D. over an M.F.A. as the difference between
> buying a fully loaded showroom automobile and a chassis.
> Administrators like the background Ph.D.'s have in research,
> publishing, and grant writing (though if their principal concern
> were the teaching of studio art to undergraduates, they wouldn't
> focus so much on the doctorate).
>
> Holders of M.F.A.'s - often adjunct instructors or would-be
> instructors at universities - have noticed the trend, and many
> believe that their degree holds them back in a realm where
> advancement and larger salaries go to Ph.D.'s.
>
> The most recent development in the studio-doctorate trend is the
> creation of the new Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual
> Arts in Portland, Me., which offered its first classes this past
> May for a Ph.D. program in philosophy, aesthetics, and art
> theory. A studio M.F.A. is a prerequisite for admissions, and
> the institute's president claims that the program "will provide
> rigorous training that will help artists expand their studio
> practice." His aim is to turn artists into theoreticians of art,
> fully versed in critical theory and able to teach it at the
> college level, but still be practicing artists.
>
> Other doctorate programs can be found at the University of
> Rochester, Ohio University, and Texas Tech University (though a
> large percentage of their students have performing, literary, or
> studio-art backgrounds). More may be on the way: The School of
> the Art Institute of Chicago, the California Institute of the
> Arts, and the Rhode Island School of Design are expected to be
> offering studio doctorates within the next several years.
>
> Studio doctorate programs do have high-minded and practical
> aspects. They try to make artists better versed in critical
> theory, which would presumably be helpful for their art, and to
> help graduates get and keep university jobs. Another benefit of
> a doctoral degree, artists and university administrators say, is
> the ability to teach a wider variety of courses, such as classes
> in art theory and history, previously the province of art
> historians. However, the first goal has yet to be achieved - can
> anyone name a great Ph.D. artist of our time? - and the second
> merely indicates what is wrong in academe, which is that it
> elevates credentials over everything else.
>
> And what of the students? Students by and large want their
> studio instructors to be working artists. In fact, art schools
> and university art departments promote their studio faculty
> members to prospective students in terms of those
> artist-teachers' presence in the art world, their commissions,
> or their work in the realm of nonprofit and for-profit
> galleries.
>
> I am not opposed to artists who want to pursue doctoral programs
> in critical theory. My complaint is that, without a doctorate,
> professional artists are finding it increasingly difficult to
> get and keep a full-time job with benefits teaching B.F.A. and
> M.F.A. students.
>
> M.F.A. and Ph.D. programs move in different directions. Earning
> an M.F.A. means spending another year or so in the studio,
> developing a body of work that, ideally, prepares students to
> enter the art market. The program is a timeout from the world of
> galleries and selling that helps graduates re- enter that world
> more successfully after graduation. Doctoral programs, on the
> other hand, are research-based.
>
> Pushing artists toward doctoral programs fundamentally changes
> their focus and goals. The Ph.D. says to the university, "I am
> committing myself to aca- deme," whereas the M.F.A. primarily
> reflects a commitment to developing one's skills as an artist.
> Requiring studio artists to become researchers as well would
> diminish their ability to keep one foot in the exhibition world.
> Some might be able to do it all - teach studio art, research,
> publish, and exhibit - but not many. There are only so many
> hours in a day.
>
> Devaluing the M.F.A. or making the doctorate the fine-art
> world's terminal degree is likely to drive away professional
> artists who have a lot to offer in terms of guidance and
> example. Having active, commercially viable artists working in
> colleges and universities is something that should be
> encouraged. Are we likely to have artists of high caliber
> employed at the college level if they are required to undergo an
> academic program that takes five or six years, rather than just
> one or two? Requiring a Ph.D. is also likely to drive artists
> away from art, as time spent working on the dissertation equals
> time away from the studio. Some artists may leave the field of
> fine arts entirely, becoming theoreticians, historians, and
> fine- arts scholars instead of practitioners.
>
> Inevitably, the years spent focused solely on theory will
> diminish other areas of instruction. The training of artists has
> already largely moved away from techniques and skills - how many
> artists now can mix their own paints or even know what is in the
> paints they buy? - and toward theory. Concept-based art is what
> a good many schools already encourage their students to create.
> The current training of artists barely maintains a delicate
> balance of studio practice and art history, criticism, and
> theory. Could such a balance be maintained with professors whose
> education is weighted so heavily on the side of theory? It
> hardly seems possible.
>
> Another scenario is that the same type of instruction currently
> offered will continue to exist but will be provided by
> overqualified instructors. Aestheticians, rather than working
> artists, will teach basic drawing. Performing-arts faculties at
> some universities are already seeing plenty of this. (A friend
> of mine, a pianist who studied at the Juilliard School, Oberlin
> College, and the New England Conservatory, needed to obtain a
> Ph.D. in music to get a job as an adjunct teaching students at
> the University of Vermont how to play the piano.) Writers, too,
> are being told to get doctorates in order to teach college
> students. The M.F.A. in creative writing is losing its hold, as
> more and more writers seeking college-level teaching work are
> choosing doctoral programs that have a "creative dissertation"
> requirement.
>
> The shift toward requiring Ph.D.'s is likely to be slow and
> uneven, as some institutions will balk at the trend while others
> jump in with both feet. But ultimately more graduate schools
> will have to create studio doctorate programs to meet the
> demand.
>
> We are already on the slippery slope. Before we slide any
> farther, we should set out what is actually desired in the
> education of artists; what is the balance of manual, perceptual,
> and conceptual skills that artists need to have; and to what
> ends are those artists being trained. Judging artists on the
> basis of their academic credentials rather than of their art,
> and devising programs that lead them away from making art, is
> absurd and ahistorical. University departments of art history,
> the likely employers of this new hybrid group, should reconsider
> this focus on academic qualifications. Do we really want to turn
> the creation of art into a thing of the past?
>
> Daniel Grant is a contributing editor for American Artist
> magazine and author of Selling Art Without Galleries: Toward
> Making a Living From Your Art (Allworth Press, 2006).
>
> Copyright © 2007 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> David Durling PhD FDRS | Professor of Design
> School of Arts & Education, Middlesex University
> Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK
> tel: 020 8411 5108 | international: + 44 20 8411 5108
> email: [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]
> web: http://www.adri.org.uk | http://www.durling.info
> http://www.dartevents.net
> _______________________________________________
>
> -----
> Swinburne University of Technology
> CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
>
> NOTICE
> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for
> the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is
> privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use
> is
> strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail
> and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be
> corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any
> attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have
> received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214
> 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept
> liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay,
> interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
|