Dear All,

Robert Harland’s note and Janet McDonnell’s response raise useful
issues, but neither addresses the question that several of us raised
earlier.

This is the issue of what the PhD is for. In earlier comments to the
thread leading up to this point, Don Norman, Terry Love, and I addressed
several issues on the nature of research in relation to the PhD degree.
Others (including Terry and I) discussed the issue of competencies
required for a PhD, and why we require them.

A situation in which this many posts resolutely steer around such a
vital topic leads me to think that the debates of the past decade need
to be repeated again.

Before agreeing – or disagreeing – on the quality of the doctoral
programs that Janet cited, I’d like to see a range of thesis projects.
Perhaps it’s time for the UK design schools and universities to do
what most of us do in Australia: place all PhD theses on the web in PDF
format. The other possibility would be doing what North American
universities do by placing all PhD theses in a central registry with
access to hardcopy and microform printed on demand, or – for recent
theses – PDF as digital download. I prefer the Australian solution
because it is free, but I’d go for either approach. It is difficult or
impossible to find out whether the claims anyone makes for the quality
of a PhD program are reasonable in the absence of the key demonstration:
several years worth of thesis projects.

Now I’m not going to disagree with Janet about research in general
– she’s the editor-in-chief of one of the leading journals in our
field – Co-Design – and a renowned scholar in our field. But I am
uncomfortable with the statement that the future is already here at some
of the schools that Janet gives as exemplars. According to the Research
Assessment Exercise results for 2008, only the Royal College of Art
submission suggests more work in the top 4* range than in the lower
ranks. The 4* rank designates “Quality that is world-leading in terms
of originality, significance and rigour.” The rest of the schools
range from ordinary excellence to plain good. This does not support the
view that the future is a decade old, at least not at the schools given
in example.

I’d be much more interested in hearing Janet’s own views on what
the new PhD programs ought to be and do – and how the new PhD programs
can serve the field.

Let me be clear. I don’t suggest that the old models are the only way
to go. Chris Rust, Mark Burry, and others have convinced me that there
are useful new approaches to research and that design practice plays a
key role in many of these approaches. Terry Love and Don Norman also
convince me that the competency-based thesis is the way to present these
new research modes for the PhD degree. Once our doctoral students have
graduated, of course, there is no reason for them to demonstrate their
competence in every article. Since we already agree that a research
article or a monograph is far different to a PhD thesis in fields
ranging from anthropology or history to physics or philosophy, there is
no reason why a research article or paper in design should resemble a
PhD thesis.

But there is a difference between a research article or a monograph and
a PhD thesis. That is because we expect a thesis to demonstrate the
skills and competencies we expect in someone with a degree that serves
as a license to teach research skills and methods – and a degree that
has become the de factor license to supervise research students.

Since it went unnoticed when I posted it earlier, I will repeat what
Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre (2004) offer as their list of what a doing
a PhD implies. If someone disagrees with this, I’d like to know what
they see as wrong or mistaken and why: 

[Use of academic language] “correct use of technical terms; attention
to detail in punctuation, grammar, etc.; attention to use of typographic
design … to make the text accessible; ability to structure and convey a
clear and coherent argument, including attention to the use of
‘signposting’ devices such as headings to make the structure
accessible; writing in a suitable academic ‘voice’; [Knowledge of
background literature] seminal texts correctly cited, with evidence that
you have read them and evaluated them critically; references accurate
reflecting the growth of the literature from the seminal texts to the
present day; identification of key recent texts on which your own PhD is
based, showing both how these contribute to your thesis and how your
thesis is different from them; relevant texts and concepts from other
disciplines cited; organization of all of the cited literature into a
coherent, critical structure, showing both that you can make sense of
the literature – identifying conceptual relationships and themes,
recognizing gaps – and that you understand what is important;
[Research methods] knowledge of the main research methods used in your
discipline, including data collection, record keeping, and data
analysis; knowledge of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in your
disciplines, and of what is acceptable as a knowledge claim; detailed
knowledge – and competent application of – at least one method;
critical analysis of one of the standard methods in your discipline
showing that you understand both its strengths and its limitations;
[Theory] understanding of key theoretical strands and theoretical
concepts in your discipline; understanding how theory shapes your
research question; ability to contribute something useful to the
theoretical debate in your area; [Miscellaneous] ability to do all the
above yourself, rather than simply doing what your supervisor tells you;
awareness of where your work fits in relation to the discipline, and
what it contributes to the discipline; mature overview of the
discipline” (Rugg and Petre 2004: 6-7). 

I’ve got to disagree with Robert’s thought that art and design
research are “ridiculed, by traditional university subjects, for a
lack of etiquette and sophistication.” It’s not etiquette or
sophistication that the traditional disciplines question. It is more
often an inability to manage common skills, and a tendency to make odd
and insupportable truth claims – especially when these truth claims
involve easily demonstrable facts that an historian or physicist can
readily check.

Seriously, friends, if we’re going to have this debate, let’s think
it through in a thorough way.

I’ll close by disagreeing with my colleague Gavin Melles. I do not
see this as a wicked problem – the term is often applied to issues
that are simple to understand. Despite national differences and
differences between and among disciplines, there is a rich international
literature on what we expect of a PhD – and a series of massive
national literatures. Only after we’ve read these and thought the
issues through should we give this up as a wicked problem that has no
common solution and no stopping rule.

Warm wishes, 

Ken 

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

Swinburne Design 
Swinburne University of Technology 
Melbourne, Australia 

Reference 

Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD
Research. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press. 


Robert Harland wrote:

—snip—

I recently posed an issue to immediate colleagues about the parallel
history of formal Art and Design education in the UK, and traditionally
University education. It went something like this: 

‘I wonder how we might perceive Research in the UK had Art and Design
been an integral part of the University system as it has developed since
the 1840s.’ 

What could Art and Design have contributed to the development of
Research protocols and debates as it has developed since? 

Rather than having to play catch-up, as often seems to be the case.
Even occasionally be ridiculed, by traditional University subjects, for
a lack of etiquette and sophistication. 

I know some of my colleagues here at Loughborough have explored what we
know about ‘making’, through ‘making’, as part of their PhD. I
have heard Chris Rust refer to the work of Owain Pedgley, in particular.


But I do like to entertain myself with the idea that Art and Design has
just simply arrived at this particular party much later than expected. 

—snip—

Janet McDonnell wrote:

—snip—

Greetings from the future where what you envisage ‘might’ happen
has been going on for well over a decade. I think the temporal
discontinuity must be your end rather than ours as we at CSM are
surrounded by the same future here in London .... Goldsmiths, the Royal
College, Chelsea .. to name but 3. Further afield there’s Glasgow,
Cardiff........... 

Catch up? Ridicule? Hmmmm! 

—snip—