While I don't doubt that there are (many?) cases like those sketched by Chris,
there's also (many) cases where that just isn't so.
I think publishing 1-2 (good) papers a year is perfectly reasonable (compared
to the 10-20 per year published by some of my colleagues). Publishing is a
form of communication. Some of the papers I've written have generated very
interesting feedback that has improved my own research capacity.
...if this also satisfies certain institutional concerns, then so much the better.
Nonetheless, I also think that the scenarios like that described by Chris need
to be addressed quickly and resolutely.
Cheers.
Fil
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dear Gavin,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am going to have to respectfully disagree Gavin ; )
>
> I agree whole heartedly with Jeremy. I believe that this increased fascination with getting RHD students to publish whilst still engaged in their research is generated more out of a knee jerk reaction by the institution to ensuring a stream of federal research funding. This is further demonstrating by the increasing popularity of Doctorates by Publication. The institution wants PHD students in design completed within 3x years full stop, with the ongoing flow of funding that comes along with it. It is not generated out of a genuine inquiry as to how to construct a rigorous educational framework through which the doctoral student’s education itself is the key focus. At least this is my experience in Australia. I am not denying that there are payoffs to RHD students presenting papers, through the exposure of their work to broad public debate, but this is rapidly becoming a therapeutic post-rationalism of what good we can find in a bad situation. Surely the horse should be pu
lling the cart, not the other way round?
>
> There are other ‘activities’, or as Jeremy puts it ‘forms of production’, that doctoral students in Design conduct that are understood and validated by this community in particular as appropriate Scholarly output. Publishing textual discourse is only one scholarly activity. But we continue to have this debate when the criteria for validating scholarly output is quite clear.
>
>
> On 3/04/08 10:45 AM, "Gavin Melles" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> HI Jeremy and listers
>>
>> I have to respectfully disagree - design doesn't need any more avenues for
>> being creative and the longer it puts off engaging with scholarship in the way
>> suggested the longer it will remain marginalised
>>
>> Dr Gavin Melles
>> Research Fellow, Faculty of Design
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gavinmelles
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> : : c h r i s b r i s b I n : :
> B. Des. Studies, B. Architecture [ hon I ]
>
>
> Lecturer in Design [ Architecture ]
>
> Doctoral Candidate of the ATCH Research Group UQ
> [ architecture/theory/criticism/history ]
> http://www.architect.uq.edu.au/atch/
>
> Research Member of the AMDM Research Group QUT
> [ arts/media/design/modernity ]
>
> personal web site
> http://web.mac.com/christopherbrisbin/
>
> s-architecture web blog
> http://s-architecture.blogspot.com/
>
> downloadable e-print publications
> http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Brisbin,_Christopher.html
>
>
> [ postal ]
> School of Design
> Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
> Queensland University of Technology
> 2 George Street, Brisbane 4000
> [GPO Box 2434]
> CRICOS No. 00213J
>
> [ e ] [log in to unmask]
> [ p ] +61 7 3138 2903
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|