> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salisbury, Martin
> Sent: Mon 8/10/2009 3:36 PM
>
Hello Martin,

There are several points in the comments you make. I'm not sure I can  
deal with them all, but I can make some observations about one or two  
of them. These may be very similar to the interesting interchange we  
had off-list some while ago!
>  A month or two ago, Jose Luis Casamayor raised the issue of PhD
> qualifications being increasingly valued more highly than advanced
> professional practice in art & design faculties. He rightly pointed  
> out the
> gulf that is opening up between student expectations of lecturers  
> continuing
> to be engaged in professional practice, and institutional  
> expectations of
> PhDs (for new appointments and existing post holders if they are to  
> advance
> their careers). This seems to me to be the ‘elephant in the  
> bedroom’- perhaps
> one of the most important issues facing Art & Design higher  
> education in the
> UK.
I agree that it is an important issue. I suppose that I start from the  
position that the last three institutions I have worked in have had  
insufficient staff with a research training. The overwhelming majority  
were practitioners, some admittedly 'lapsed' as you put it, but in one  
institution about half active in practice, some at a very high level.  
However, I started in one institution as the only member of staff with  
a research training. I would have thought most schools of art and  
design would value a healthy mix of expert practitioners and expert  
researchers, and indeed some who do both. It is not that it is not  
discussed. Most discussions I have had in recent times have been  
around encouraging staff who want to undertake a research training to  
do so - and here I mean both a research masters and PhD. I would also  
like to see, when making new appointments, that occasionally staff  
with a research training are taken on. In recent job descriptions that  
I was involved in for teaching posts, the PhD qualification was in the  
'desirable' column rather than the 'essential' column. However, if I  
were seeking an appointment for research specific jobs, say a post-doc  
research fellow or reader, then a well founded PhD would likely be an  
'essential' prerequisite. If there is a problem with this balanced  
approach, I do not see what it is.
>  At present, it is virtually impossible for an artist-lecturer to  
> maintain
> the highest level of practice and also study for a PhD.
I feel that the assertion [that this would necessarily be true in all  
cases] is incorrect, and I have little sympathy for this position.  
Plenty of people have already gained PhDs part time while working. I  
did my PhD part time while running variously a small design practice  
and latterly a production company. It wasn't easy, but then then who  
said a PhD was an easy process? Nearly everyone in some way finds it  
tough going, but that's why doing research at this level is such a  
valuable training. You might argue of course that my designing  
practice was not world leading like some of your colleagues, and I  
would probably agree with you. You might argue that art or applied art  
is special, and I would not agree with you.
>  So we are heading for
> a situation where leading practitioners in applied arts are only  
> available to
> students as occasional guests, wheeled out now and then, while most  
> teaching
> is delivered by theorists or lapsed practitoners.
It follows from my argument above that this is not the case, at least  
it's not the case in places where I have worked. It may of course be a  
special problem with your university, but I doubt it.
> But I sense that art schools are in a situation where those involved  
> in research, many of those who
> contribute to this list, have 'bought into' a definition of research  
> that
> does not serve art schools well.
This seems like special pleading, ie. there is research 'out there',  
people get research degrees under those regimes, but what they do does  
not fit with what art schools do. Well, maybe it doesn't fit, but  
maybe the problem is with the art schools rather than the researchers?
> Whenever discussion on
> this list returns to the practice-led doctorate, it seems to get no  
> further
> than an affirmation of traditional definitions of 'scholarliness'  
> rather than
> debate about how to move forward in defining research in/through  
> creative
> practice as distinct from research 'into' creative practice
  I indicated in an earlier post that the term 'practice-led' is not  
helpful. Unless we are able to define carefully what we mean by the  
term, I have no basis for understanding whether it might mean the same  
thing for both of us. It probably doesn't. PhDs are research-led in my  
experience.

If however you really do mean a practice-led doctorate (which is not a  
PhD), then I agree that we should put resources into understanding how  
that might be structured.

I must make something clear here that is very important to me in the  
relation between designing practice and research practice. Creative  
practice (designing) can be a significant part of a PhD - your  
university regulations and mine, having the same CNAA source, are  
likely similar in stating this (and in other parts of the world also).  
I would have thought that any kind of creative practice, set in a  
suitable research framework, would be welcomed in a PhD study. Though  
perhaps simplistically the creative practice can be a point of  
reference or used for data collection, there are possibilities for  
developing new methods in these modes of working - for example  
universities such as Sheffield Hallam and Loughborough have been  
prominent over some years in successful PhD completions and some  
notable theses involving creative practices of various kinds. Some of  
them have been mentioned on this list before now. The PhD with  
designing practice AND rigorous research has been in existence for  
some years.

> No one would argue in favour of “awarding a PhD for practice” in the  
> sense of
> “What wonderful work- here’s a PhD.” What is at issue is creative  
> practice as
> a mode of inquiry and as a language for disseminating knowledge.
Isn't this what we are all struggling with? How is creative practice  
(designing) a mode of inquiry? How can such knowledge be disseminated  
through designing, clearly and unambiguously?

> However, the creation of a
> separate title for a doctorate in or through creative practice in  
> the UK
> would lead to it being perceived as a second class award,  
> perpetuating the
> undervaluing of creative practice in the ‘academy’.
Why must this be so? Already, in other disciplines/places, the PhD is  
not valued as highly as a doctorate with a different title, hence the  
plethora of Ed.D., D.Psych., D.Eng. etc.

Shackleton and Sugiyama, in the La Clusaz papers, discussing Japanese  
doctorates state that:
"...the term generally translated as 'PhD' does not invoke any special  
response over and above those of other doctoral degrees. Indeed, on  
the contrary the [PhD] is often looked upon as a less desirable  
qualification than a doctorate in a more specific discipline."

Perhaps practice doctorates may not have value in the UK, but surely  
that in itself is not a reason to modify the PhD to become a designing  
practice degree rather than a researching practice degree.

David
.........................................................................

David Durling FDRS PhD   http://durling.tel
.........................................................................