Hello José Luis,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your email left me food for thought for a while, since I agree with you and yet something is still left open for further considerations.
I see the point in what you say about schools that will value a PhD more than the mastery of the practice when filling teaching posts. Also, it seems logical to think that this is not an universally better choice, since people that are excellent designers but don't do research are somewhat left out.
Yet, I wonder about the effectiveness of the standardization of criteria as a corrective measure for this situation. It seems to me, another option could lie in the recognition of each branch of design (that is "design-practice" and "design-research", as you refer them) as useful both, but always respecting their different natures. This recognition could be internalized by the design institutions, adopted in an official way, and then valued in their different educational programs.
The criteria then can stay differentiated amongst design-practice and design-research, and the corrective measure is then shifted to the perceived value the design institutions have of each one. This perceived value can be assessed within certain limits of objectivity; for example, like you say, understanding the aims of the courses given (e.g., a course to learn "how", as opposed to a course to learn "why" design is).
Regards,
________________________________
De: jose luis casamayor <[log in to unmask]>
Para: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Enviado: martes, 2 de junio, 2009 18:03:14
Asunto: RE: On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being recognized
Hi Livier,
The point i wanted to make is that although designers-practitioners and designers-researchers have different aims, produce different outcomes and their outcomes are evaluated under different type of criteria, the criteria used to evaluate both groups in design-academia is not equivalent. and then some people can poin out...why it should be? well, because design institutions are adopting a criteria where lecturers experience as design practitioners is increasingly becoming less valued, in other words, a PhD and publications is becoming the most valued asset, which might not match the students learning demands.
In fact, today in some institutions, not necessarily research-based, a PhD has become a must if you want to get into academic positions, independently of the type of teaching (BA, MA, PhD, etc.) you will carry out. Ironically, a lot of academics with research-based training are not only (sometimes they will never do) supervising research students but also (most of the time) teaching master students or bachelor students.
David already mentioned that he carried out his MA to learn how to design-practice and a PhD to learn how to do design-research. However, the reality is that today you can become a lecturer without any or minor real professional design experience and yet teach BA and MA design students how to design. Again a PhD and text-based publications is the criteria that 'counts' (Robie asked) more. If most of the teaching involves teaching bachelor and master students, why a PhD is so necessary if the students (future designers) will not need the skills that are encouraged in research-based degrees, or if these skills maigh be also needed in their training why dont value both skills in the same manner. That is physical artefacts outcomes and text-based outcomes, which have been evaluated by their own respective experts.
I think here the americans have been more realistic, by allowing design-practitioners to access design education by showing a mastery of the practice with an MFA whilst in UK the PhD is becoming the 'license', making less sense. why a common evaluation standard? to try to solve these issues.
ok, enough of stealing your precious time...
Hope this helps,
Jose
________________________________
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:01:31 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being recognized
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Hello,
I have joined this discussion list mainly to learn. I have followed your discussions for a while, finding them incredibly helpful, feeling I am acquiring new and questioning old ideas all the time. I am a Mexican professor who is still developing her own "style" in research but is still learning, since I just finished a Phd in decision aid tools for product development preliminary phases.
In the case of this particular thread "On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being recognized", I haven't been able to find further messages than the one included below. Other related threads have evolved from this, but this one stops in my mailbox at this time.
I'm very very curious about this discussion, I think after José Luis Casamayor's post is closed with a question that takes us to the inevitable counter-question "Why should a common standard to evaluate these different practices be created?"
-----
Livier Serna Vázquez, Dr. Mec.
Coordinación Maestria en DI e Innovación de Productos | Profesor-investigador
Departamento de Diseño Industrial, DIA
Campus Monterrey
TECNOLOGICO DE MONTERREY
Of: A4-337-B
Tel. +52(81) 83 58 2000, ext. 5482
________________________________
De: jose luis casamayor <[log in to unmask]>
Para: [log in to unmask]
Enviado: domingo, 3 de mayo, 2009 10:06:44
Asunto: Re: On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being recognized
Hi Terry,
No I would not accept it, I can see what you mean, and it would follow Don's comments about that they cannot be evaluated or reviewed with the same 'metrics' or by the same 'experts' because they are just different. I totally agree, the aim of practitioners and researchers in any field are different, so are their outcomes and the way they are evaluated. The problem arrives when they converge in one point: the design-academy; How can we create a common standard to evaluate these different 'practices'?
thanks for the question Terry, it was very helpful
Jose
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 07:47:46 +0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being recognized
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi Jose,
>
> Perhaps its simpler to see differences by looking at the reverse:
>
> Would you accept the meaning of a written academic paper as an entry of
> equal worth to a great graphic in an international graphic design
> competition? Could it win the competition?
>
> If not, why?
>
> 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 Don
> Norman
> Sent: Sunday, 3 May 2009 12:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being
> recognized
>
> Jose Luis Casamayor asks:
> -----------------------
>
> - This question is related with Robbie's question (what i think he meant in
> his question). If one practitioner and one 'researcher' present their
> 'research' outcomes, namely a paper and a physical artefact, and both are
> presented to an academic peer review (which is the one that counts for
> academic/research purposes) which one would be considered or they would be
> considered equally?
> -----------
_________________________________________________________________
Descárgate ahora el nuevo Internet Explorer 8 y ten a tu alcance todos los servicios de Windows Live ¡Gratis!
http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/es-es/ie8.aspx
________________________________
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web!
Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8.br> http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=mx
________________________________
Disfruta antes que nadie del nuevo Windows Live Messenger
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web! Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet Explorer 8. http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=mx
|
