Dear Frankie,
I don't agree that
<very' good practitioners as well as 'very' good researchers… are (exceptionally) rare>
I prefer to think of people who work in universities in design as design scholars who practice a
range of things, including designing, teaching, researching and writing. In my experience and
through my research, each of the people I spoke to are doing just this, and on a daily basis. Not
rare at all.
cheers, teena
On Mon, Oct 10th, 2011 at 5:09 AM, "Frankie Ng [ITC]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I followed through the line of discussions on the captioned topic. I admit
> that I cannot agree more with the summary by Ken in particular. Mark's
> division of expertise under one roof have been around for some time, and
> are very much adopted by universities in Mainland, where outstanding
> individuals can advance to full professor either via teaching, research or
> administration. Tiiu's adjunct professorship (or visiting ones) is no
> doubt another proved-to-be-effective way to maintain high standard of
> research and teaching in a school. For example, many design schools today
> employ a running stream of successful design practitioners as visiting
> lecturers. Normally, these schools have but a handful few of full time
> faculties/professors, but with an impressive long list of
> reputed/successful design practitioners as visiting tutors. Personally, I
> tend to concur with Lily's emphasis, if not mere opportunity, of the need
> for design faculties today to take leaps across domains of knowledge and
> practice, with her illustrated skills to survive in the savannas, much as
> we need to survive in today's ever-evoking design academic world. Tiiu's
> statement that "theory informs practice and practice in turn informs
> theory and this is the richness of design education" purports this belief
> when it comes to individuals, I believe. Yet, we do not often come across
> this species (that are 'very' good practitioners as well as 'very' good
> researchers). As Ken pointed out, multi-disciplinary talents (like Aalto,
> Balenciaga or Escher) are (exceptionally) rare, and having a school full
> of them is a picture too good to be true. Thus, as time goes, "some of the
> practitioners might (forcibly!) choose to undertake PhDs and some of the
> researchers might choose to explore their subjects through advanced
> practice" for one reason or another, e.g., survival, self-enhancement. In
> the place where I work with design, technology and business under one
> roof, even a design tutor possesses a PhD. With this scenario, I believe
> the problem is how well these faculties develop themselves into something
> that they are/were not familiar with, or worse still, not fit(ted) for.
> One wrong step you may end up with what Ken warns: "the (could be fatal)
> mistake of allowing people who know nothing about research to manage
> researchers or control research policy"...or "allow(ing) such people to
> sit on search committees for positions that require research". I add that
> the same applies to design. All in all, if I am given choices and if
> situation allows, my preference for the next generation of design
> education will be with faculties who are multi- and inter-disciplinary,
> who understand and can work with experts in different fields.
> Frankie
>
> _____________________
> Frankie Ng, PhD(RCA), FCSD, FRSA
> The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
> Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
> Tel: +852 27666463
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> >>> Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> 10/09/11 10:35 AM
> >>>
> Dear All,
>
> Does the PhD pose a threat to design education? Not with respect to the
> quality of design with a PhD, but certainly with respect to the fact
> that there are too few. As Mark noted, requiring a PhD imposes capacity
> constraints on hiring. There are not enough solid, bi-lingual designers
> around who are skilled at design practice and research both. As Lily
> wrote, a solid PhD implies is no more threat to design education than
> outstanding craft skills. Martin’s note echoes both points, and both
> are correct. While the PhD is no threat, constraints threaten capacity.
> There is a genuine shortage of highly skilled practitioners with a PhD,
> and universities that require a PhD cannot hire excellent designers who
> lack one.
>
> Supply being low and demand high, it is a seller’s market for people
> with a PhD who are strong in research as well as design. It is even a
> seller’s market for solid, workaday contributors in one area who excel
> in the other.
>
> Nevertheless, it is a buyer’s market for design schools that are
> hospitable to the bi-lingual minority. Researchers have a tough time in
> art and design schools where the vast majority still lack a PhD.
> Everyone who has attempted to develop research within such a school has
> tales to tell and scars to show.
>
> Schools that support research on significant questions remain uncommon,
> along with senior staff members who run interference when needed. It’s
> a seller’s market for good designers with a good PhD. It’s a
> buyer’s market for positions at design schools with a strong
> research program.
>
> In some universities, requiring a PhD is a university-wide policy. This
> is the case in research-intensive universities. At Swinburne, it is one
> aspect of an interdisciplinary context where the goal is to hire
> designers who can work with engineers, information technologists,
> chemists, or physicists as equals.
>
> Not all universities aspire to research intensity. Where they don’t
> case, Tiiu’s suggestion of two tracks is appropriate. There are also
> strong universities that do not expect staff across all disciplines to
> contribute to research in equal measure. Tiiu’s university
> –University of Montreal – and others like it are highly ranked in
> the league tables. These universities are so strong in so many fields
> that they can afford practitioners who do not contribute to research.
> But such universities tend to be relatively old and reasonably wealthy.
> That is not the case for younger universities that aspire to research
> intensity on a lower resource base. Two tracks also work for independent
> art and design schools, polytechnics, and universities with a primary
> teaching mission.
>
> In “Design Science and Design Education,” I made a suggestion along
> the lines of a two-track system. There is also a warning. It is a
> mistake to allow people who know nothing about research to manage
> researchers or control research policy. It is also problematic to allow
> such people to sit on search committees for positions that require
> research.
>
> In deciding whether to require a PhD of designers, therefore, one must
> ask two questions. First, is the university research intensive? Second,
> does the university expect all faculties and schools to contribute to
> research intensity – does the university expect its professional
> schools in such fields as design, business, or IT to meet the same
> research standards as the schools of the sciences, humanities, and
> liberal arts? If the answer to both questions is “yes,” then one
> must require a PhD of designers, and it must be a solid PhD that gives
> people the background they need to conduct research, publish their work,
> and develop the next generation of researchers.
>
> Martin is quote right about the need for a rich relationship between
> practice and theory. This rich relationship was the driving force for
> improvements to medical education and engineering education over the
> course of the twentieth century. This is the best future for design
> education in the twenty-first. This will take the same kind of hard work
> that medical schools and engineering schools put in to achieve the
> transformation they have undergone. The future is bleak for design
> schools that are not prepared to make this kind of investment.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
> | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61
> 39214 6078 | Faculty
>
> --
>
> Mark Evans wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> he threat that I alluded to in my presentation to the IDSA and subject
> line of this thread is that an increasing requirement for new staff to
> have a PhD may be impeding the capacity of institutions to deliver
> undergraduate/masters design education of the highest standard.
>
> —snip—
>
> --
>
> Lily Kommonen-Diaz wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> PhDs are not a threat to design education anymore than having great
> craftsmanship in a particular area is. Being a good 3D modeler in
> digital media is a highly sough after craft skill, for example. It is
> one more way in which a designer can communicate his/her
> ideas/concepts/results.
>
> —snip—
>
> --
>
> Martin Salisbury wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> You are absolutely right to say that PhDs are not a threat to design
> education. They are a welcome addition. Making them a precondition to
> employment in design education however is, as Mark Evans observes,
> seriously at odds with the capacity to deliver the highest standards of
> all round design education. Such preconditions, at the expense of highly
> skilled practitioners, are also very much at odds with student needs and
> expectations. I would suggest that Mark’s priorities in setting up a
> new design school are spot on though I would expect that some of the
> practitioners might choose (voluntarily!) to undertake PhDs and some of
> the researchers might choose to explore their subjects through advanced
> practice.
>
> —snip—
>
> --
>
> Tiiu Poldma wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> We have an interesting mix of what Mark describes, with the older
> faculty from the teaching / consulting backgrounds and the newer faculty
> with mixed theoretical or theoretical/practice mix or pure traditional
> Ph.Ds....Ideally, a practitioner who has reflected on their practices
> and brings this to all levels of education, baccalaureate, masters or
> Ph.D. is interesting as a way of allowing both perspectives to co-exist,
> not “either-or”....in my mind, theory informs practice and practice
> in turn informs theory and this is the richness of design education.
>
> —snip—
>
> The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
> WHERE INNOVATION MEETS APPLICATION
>
>
|
