Dear Chris,

The way this question is framed puzzles me. I am not sure what sort of structure a "logic-based structure" is, especially given the fact that there are many kinds of logics. 

For a PhD -- practice-based or classical -- one expects to answer a question, interpret or challenge prior knowledge, or in some way make an original contribution to the knowledge of the field. How else might we do this than through some form of organized inquiry, and how might we present what we develop, discover, or learn other than through some kind of logical structure?

If by "practice-based PhD" one means awarding a PhD for practice, that's an old debate, and there have been many robust contributions on this list, in conference proceedings, and in special journal issues. I'm not going to repeat those argument except to say that I still don't see why one would get a PhD for practice -- one gets an MFA or a DFA or a DDes for creative production. 

If by "practice-based PhD" one means awarding a PhD to a research scholar who problematizes aspects of practice, inquiring into issues related to creative practice and partly using the results of creative practice as evidence for an argument, I don't see how this would be different to awarding a PhD for research into the practice of surgery, law, or pharmacology -- or, for that matter, maths, physics, or chemistry. We undertake a practice, and the results of our practice constitute both the object of inquiry and evidence for the result. The PhD is given for the quality of inquiry and argument.

The inquiry and the argument must be made in words. The practice and the practical result constitute part of the whole, but the whole itself must take some kind of "logic-based structure." At least it must be so unless we actually give a PhD for creative practice itself. If there is a university out there that does this, please let me know. This September, Stendhal Gallery in New York will mount a solo exhibition of my event scores. I suppose there are at least three ways of looking at it. One way might just be that it's art. A second would be to call it a relic of my misspent youth as a Fluxus artist. The third would be to call it "creative practice as research." If someone is giving out doctorates for this kind of thing, I'll be happy to submit evidence of my creative practice for a PhD. 

Yours.

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

Telephone +61 3 9214 6755 
www.swinburne.edu.au/design

--

Chris Kueh wrote:

There have been some discussions on structure for practice based PhD at Curtin University. Many supervisors/lecturers in Design and Art have voiced their concerns over the appropriateness of logic based structure for PhD with creative production component. I am just wondering what are the structures that other universities are having for practice/creative based PhD. Have there been such discussions/arguments at your universities and how did you solve it? What are the main differences between PhD and practice based PhD, in terms of the process and credibility?