Dear Chris,
I will try to make some observations that are directly relevant to
your question. I am currently trying to avoid taking part in all more
general, polemical and philosophical discussions on this list.
I am assuming that you actually mean a PhD that is grounded in and
stems from practice: designers in practice, practising, etc. In
Frayling-esque language, research in and/or through design. This is in
contrast to what I will call project based PhDs, where (in my usage)
some theoretical argument is illustrated by project work. I am
assuming, therefore, that a practice based PhD is carried out in/
through practice, and that the major part of the material comes from
that practice—so it's also research on design. (This is not an easy
option and requires very hard work: it is much harder to do well than
the conventional written study.)
Under these circumstances, there are, I believe, 3 critical events.
The first is when someone is accepted as a candidate. This is critical
because it requires the formulation of an appropriately formed and
voiced research question, which often needs to be negotiated. It is
not common, in my experience, for people to come with questions
expressed in a viable manner: often there is no question at all. (I am
sticking within the convention that a research question is important.)
It may take some time to achieve this.
(It is also important that the research question can develop and
change, reflecting the learning of the candidate: as in any PhD.
Making this possible is part of the supervisory and assessment process
that happens during study.)
The second is the examination: how will this be done, and how managed;
and what will be submitted? Although a written component is probably
part of what is produced, it is not likely to be the major part. If
projects are produced, and some sort of critical meta-conversation
over these is the basis of the PhD, for instance, how should this be
examined? I think this mitigates against exams that don't contain a
serious, significant and challenging viva.
The third is just before the end: the penultimate step. It is crucial
that the candidate is not set up with an exam (and, particularly, with
examiners) without gaining prior approval. It is critical that their
ability to submit in appropriate forms, and their schedule of work
leading up to that submission and the consequent exam, is checked very
thoroughly. Without this step, all sorts of problems arise (including,
if you are in Australia, importing examiners on advance booked
flights, only to find candidates aren't ready).
I don't think these events are much different to those taken, perhaps
informally, for a more conventional PhD.
Please note that I have not written about supervision, except in terms
of the research question.
I hope this helps.
Best, Ranulph
On 7 Aug 2009, at 06:29, Christopher Kueh wrote:
> Thank you all for the responses to my email. While the debate/
> discussions are important and interesting, i might need to lead the
> conversation a little bit back to my actual question - structure of
> practice-led PhD. I'm just wondering should practice-led PhD be
> treated any differently from traditional PhD, in terms of candidacy
> process, research methods, to examination?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -chris
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx
|