The debate has again become very broad. I am attempting only to stick my toe into one tiny area. I'm afraid that other problems are too great at the moment.
If I go back to the point about the thesis length (where I intervened), David replied about the need for an explanation of what I'll call (for brevity and so as not to enter areas of the discussion I am trying to avoid just now) the contextualisation, argument and the findings. I agree. I believe it is vital we should require this (an exhibition of paintings cannot, by itself, constitute a PhD). Where I disagree is in the need for this to be shown in words. You can understand it in drawings and in the objects/processes produced. I am not suggesting doing away with a written component, but to an understanding where this is subsidiary to the material produced in the designing and the practice. It is, I believe, an error to think that the contextualisation, argument and findings can only be described in words, or that words are primary. We need to better understand and use logics other than just those of logos.
In my view, most PhD by design work consists of a design that illustrates a (theoretical, and wordy) position (so it's not really a PhD by design, but a PhD illustrated by a design). I am much more interested in theory that is developed from, and in the terms of, designing: where the designing given precedence.
Generally, I agree with Don (and I've been teaching design and doing research in many areas of design for 40 years, so nearly as long as him). There is a whole world that merits recognition at the relatively high level of a PhD but which should not be forced into an inappropriate mould. By inappropriate, I mean one that has no relevance, and which undermines the underlying logic.
Sorry to be a bit cryptic.
Best, Ranulph
On 7 Dec 2009, at 04:17, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
>>
>> If research and supervision skills are irrelevant to a PhD, then we'll
>> need a second degree. Otherwise, we'll be awarding two kinds of PhD: one
>> for people who can do research and supervise research training, another
>> for people who simply want to call themselves doctor. Unless we're
>> moving in that direction, demonstrating these skills establishes the
>> basis for awarding or denying the PhD.
>
> many universities already have this system, but don't need a degree for it. in the u.s. that is, many universities maintain a graduate faculty who are almost all tenured with significant research records and only those faculty can be chairs or supervisors. this has been going on for quite some time from what I can tell. you don't need another degree for it, you just have to have the institutional design for it. entrance into graduate faculty is usually by peer review, though some places it is automatically granted with tenure or with full professorship.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Hunsinger
> Center for Digital Discourse and Culture
> Virginia Tech
> Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> http://wiki.tmttlt.com
> http://www.tmttlt.com
>
> Whoever ceases to be a student has never been a student.
> -George Iles
|