Hello everyone,
I wonder about the 'confusion' and 'delusion' ....
We are currently having this debate at our faculty and we have 2 types of Ph.D.'s existing and one being discussed as emerging....Ph.D. (Aménagement) - in French 'aménagement' means planning, but in our disciplinary context it means 'Environmental Design' and captures architecture, urban planning, industrial design, interior design and landscape architecture.
We are building knowledge of design of the built environment in all of its various forms, written, visual and form-giving, virtual and physical,etc...etc....within a Doctor of Philosophy whose aim is to 'contribute to existing forms of knowledge'. These forms are not 'sociology ' or 'anthropology' based, they are specifically based on understanding epistemologically our forms of practice and contributing to knowledge in fields that are emerging in different ways and at different stages of maturity.
The other type is the more discipline-based Ph.D. and this one focusses on discipline-specific theory and epistemological development....also contributing to knowledge but within the discipline-specific modes and processes that are varied...this one is currently an ad-hoc Ph.D. in architecture and the range of subjects encompasses clearly what are known as 'practice-based approaches'.
We also have students developing projects in what here is called 'research-creation' where the artwork becomes the mode of expression, but this is usually explored at the Masters level only and not at the Ph.D. level (yet)...however, this is en emerging form of knowledge as well and there is much debate about its form, and as I notice Ken mentioning in Australia, there are other forms of Ph.D.S emerging around the world.
Regards to all
Tiiu
|