Hi Ken,

I suspect the two studies align and that our figures are in the same ball
court.

The 60-80 hours I  reported is for  writing a journal article - only writing
- the data gathering, analysis and everything else having been done.

In scholarly articles, as distinct from reporting empirical research, the
boundary between writing and the data gathering (in documentary scholarship
= reading other work), building the argument, developing analyses,  review
of literature etc. tends to be blurred. I can easily believe that together
they could be 1000 hours. If I'm right, the 900 hours difference is the
research component that underpins your writing. The 1000 hours you suggest
applies in an overall fashion in empirical realms of research. It would
equate to reportable findings every 6months  to a year for a full time
researcher, on the basis there are around 1650 working hours in a year.

When I was involved in estimating the time to write journal articles and
conference papers, the reasons were fourfold:

1. To estimate additional unfunded costs of research projects. Project
funding usually covers only the data gathering and analysis. The resources
for writing up the material for a journal or conference needs to come from
somewhere else. Hence the focus on 'writing time' and the resources needed
for it.
2. To establish a reasonable estimate of potential outcomes with given staff
resources. In particular this was developed as a protective move to avoid
staff having unreasonable management pressure placed on them ('next month
knock off a couple of papers in the gaps between lectures would you?') 
3. As a basis for optimising the leveraged government funding based on
research outcomes. Knowing how much time and resources things 'cost' and how
much benefit is likely to be gained offers individuals the basis for
strategic planning of their time
4. As an exploration of the potential contribution of doctoral publishing to
the candidate's skill development and research outcomes; as a basis for
delivering additional research funding to candidates; and as an exploration
of the potential for quickly building a large body of research material in
an area.

A difference in design terms of the underlying basis for this work was using
the information in the ways Deming suggested to increase quality of outcomes
rather than as a motivational pressure on individuals.

I feel having some sort of quantitative understanding for these things is
helpful. If we know how long things take and how much effort and resources,
then for example it provides a much better basis to understand whether it is
reasonable to ask doctoral candidates to publish, and what will be
compromised if they do.

Best wishes,

Terry


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2008 2:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The problem of Design Research journals

Dear Terry,

My belief is that this is a serious understatement of the time a journal
article requires.

We did a study some years back at the Norwegian School of Management. From
first concept through publication, we found that many articles took close to
1,000 hours. That's why people often publish only one or two good articles
in a year. Getting an article into a top quality, high-impact journal every
other year while turning out a journeyman piece or two for decent journals
is considered good work.