Hi Teena,

I think that you make a number of good points -- especially about the
possibility of poor supervision, even though I don't think that it negates
the importance of the master/apprentice relationship. But, I don't want to
get ahead of myself. I'd like to go through your response point by point.

>> I would like to see an environment where taking chances on the new knowledge
> produced was not seen as a potentially career ending move.<
> 
> I suggest that perhaps that's what the PhD is for (speaking as one
> engaged in such an endeavour).

I can see why you would feel that the process of developing the dissertation
is a time to take chances, and I agree with you. It is often the springboard
to your next 5 to 10 years' work. But it brings two related points to mind.
First, how will you feel if the most creative work you ever do comes at the
beginning of your career, in fact before your career begins, and for that
rest of that career, because of tenure pressure, you feel forced to do
competent, but not outstanding work? I think that it might be a bit
disappointing. 

Second, the work of building the dissertation is not only to create new
knowledge, it's also to learn the process (or several processes) for
creating new knowledge. I would argue that in the midst of that double
learning curve, it is the rare person who fully understands their own
project or can fully explore it.

While my perspective is based on anecdote, I've often found myself in the
halls, talking to people who've said what I also felt. They didn't fully
understand their project until a year or so after the defense. The process
of writing the thing, making the new connections between the ongoing
conversation and your contribution is an amazing, heady experience. But I'd
argue that the year after is even more amazing, even more heady. I can only
imagine what it would feel like 10 years later, in an environment that
encouraged your best reflective thought instead of expecting "x" number of
publications.

> There are possibly other models that might go someway toward
> addressing this context, such as co-supervision, group supervision,
> peer supervision. After all, team work is fairly common in design
> practice, and while the master-apprentice model has been the
> historical model in design, you have all identified issues with it.

I think that our difference in perspective here is smaller. By suggesting a
master/apprentice model, I'm not suggesting that the apprentice can only
look to one master. In Ph.D. work, that would quickly turn the master into a
jack-of-all-trades. If the dissertation model is one where a supervisor
oversees both the student and a committee, multiple masters do exist. In my
case, my supervisor was among other things, the master of springboarding me
from one stage to the next. But when I needed advice on adapting the work on
cohesion in English to the visual/verbal realm, I needed another master --
this time in linguistics. When I wanted to improve my drawing as part of the
applied aspect of my work, I sat with a master, and watched his hand move.
That apprenticeship would not have been possible with my supervisor, but my
dissertation would not have been possible without my supervisor.

I am concerned when the argument turns to group supervision. When many
strong personalities are involved, each with their own perspective on the
emerging whole, the process can become confusing. Additionally, supervisors
can be fantastic at helping a candidate keep moving through the process,
because one person has taken on that responsibility. With a group, whose
responsibility does it become?

> This is also what makes doctoral program reform such an enticing area
> - what can universities do to initiate candidates into rich and
> creative research cultures, that also goes beyond one close working
> relationship with one academic.

I agree with you here. Doctoral reform along with other kinds of reform is
important. And a close working relationship with one academic is not enough.
That still does not violate the master/apprentice model.

> Also, internal faculty and institutional conferences within each
> university, and across universities that present students' work in
> progress is becoming more prevalent.

I have no problem with student led conferences. I think that they are useful
and empowering. I think that they encourage the kind of practice that
students need in order to emerge into the discipline. Those conferences also
allow students to consult with people who have already done that kind of
organizing. 

Additionally, as someone who had her first manuscript (very politely and
kindly) rejected without review, because the editor could smell
student-in-progress work a mile away, the publications that result, might
have the feel of working through the problem -- rather than coming to a
solution to the problem. I want to step carefully here. Amazing work emerges
when and where it emerges. But I think often times, student work has to have
a different standard for publication.

And I'm concerned about requiring students to be accepted into journal
publications before dissertation. Did I have that right? Conferences yes,
but publications that early worry me. Still, I need to think about that a
bit. 

I do agree with you though, student publications, names as such, could
address some of the problem in getting students published.

Thanks for giving me something to chew on.

My best wishes,

Susan 

 


On 4/3/08 5:02 PM, "teena clerke" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Susan,
> 
>> I would like to see an environment where taking chances on the new knowledge
> produced was not seen as a potentially career ending move.<
> 
> I suggest that perhaps that's what the PhD is for (speaking as one
> engaged in such an endeavour). And I would also suggest, with that
> the growth of doctoral student numbers, combined with a small pool of
> suitably qualified, experienced and published supervisors in design
> fields (in Australia), who are also attempting to publish new work,
> the master-apprentice model is perhaps not the only model to be
> considered. I recall a conversation when I first joined this list
> about poor supervision and its results - disgruntled students, poor
> research work and poor candidate outcomes (other than the thesis).
> There are possibly other models that might go someway toward
> addressing this context, such as co-supervision, group supervision,
> peer supervision. After all, team work is fairly common in design
> practice, and while the master-apprentice model has been the
> historical model in design, you have all identified issues with it.
> 
> This is also what makes doctoral program reform such an enticing area
> - what can universities do to initiate candidates into rich and
> creative research cultures, that also goes beyond one close working
> relationship with one academic. It may encourage PhD research to
> arise and develop more creatively and collaboratively from 'felt
> difficulty' to innovative practice. Given the problem with timely
> completion of doctorates across disciplines, institutional support is
> necessary in these times, along with the appropriate supervisor.
> 
> Also, internal faculty and institutional conferences within each
> university, and across universities that present students' work in
> progress is becoming more prevalent. These conferences are an example
> of institutional support, run by students, for students, with papers
> peer reviewed by doctoral students and academics alike, and published
> online (to cover the publishing requirements). Having just come from
> one of these at University of Queensland in a Faculty of Cultural
> Studies, I co-presented with another doctoral student, wrote separate
> papers, and received some wonderful feedback and support from the
> students and academics present. And the published paper will 'count'
> as a double peer reviewed onine journal publication, while it
> contributes towards my thesis. These such instances both reduce the
> reliance on the supervisor, while encouraging local, intralocal, and
> national peer support networks. And this may go someway to addressing
> Chris's original proposition.
> 
> best wishes, teena
> 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan Ph.D., MDes
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213