On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Bill, Amanda wrote:
> What would we consider 'banal, individual-level creativity', or a
> 'skill-complementary technology', and is it appropriate to award
> PhD's for practicing, or for developing them?
Amanda, I personally don't think it would be appropriate to award a
PhD for either of these, if I understand what you mean by them.
"Banal, individual level creativity" will occur without significant
new knowledge. Having said this, ways to increase individual
creativity would be worthy of a PhD. Similarly, "skill complimentary
technology" will probably develop naturally through practical,
responsive innovation. A PhD level effort might be appropriate if
underutilized skills needed appropriate new technologies to fulfill
their potentials. Development and demonstration that would provide
significant new knowledge worthy of a PhD, might for example, take
the form of philosophical systems or theories , or new ways to
structure, mediate, and process information to serve some useful
purpose such as to model thought processes, or complex systems (such
as social networks or services). All of these should be required to
demonstrate their appropriate application.
Or so I believe.
Chuck
Dr. Charles Burnette, FAIA
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
[log in to unmask]
|