I'm struck by the endurance of this thread, one which has left Don Norman's
original impetus behind as most are considering the core proposition of the
list: PhD -level design education.
The PhD is a research degree, so why would we expect the PhD to have to be a
superior practitioner? It is fine if they are, but it is not relevant to the
drivers of research necessarily. The time and dedication it takes to learn
and perform good research almost necessitate that an advanced practitioner
set their tools aside and focus on research. I wonder how long it's been
since Don led the design of a system or product. I keep a design / research
practice (actually two different practices, one in US and one in Canada) and
teach at OCAD University as an associate prof in the new MDes Strategic
Foresight and Innovation program. I constantly lead design projects, but
subcontract most of the craft work to designers who are MUCH better than I
at form-giving, coding, and presentation. The practice helps in teaching,
absolutely, but I am not a studio leader. I teach design research and
systemic design methods.
Among these are dialogic and systems-oriented methods, which I just convened
a workshop at AHO with Birger Sevaldson and his 24 MDes and some PhD
students. We covered new ground, and advised with the studio projects as
well. At the MDes level though, it's not expected that students learn the
scholarly literature in full. At the PhD level, the literature is a huge new
commitment, as well as research methods, teaching and co-education, and
research writing for publication. At the PhD level it's not just user level
research, but well-framed and proposed, carefully sampled, and theoretically
resolved research projects. These are enormous differences, and design
education at the graduate level needs to clarify how these distinctions are
resolved.
With respect to Lubomir's medical example, I'd just it's not that simple.
I'm working on a book on design and systemic design research methods across
the spectrum of healthcare, and have done a lot of research into clinical
practice and clinical education. Design for Care http://designforcare.com
will be out next year on Rosenfeld Media. And there really isn't a good
comparison with medicine - for one thing, an MD degree is already a doctoral
degree for medical training. The residency - practice training - last for
years AFTER medical education. Cardiology is a good example, because it goes
well beyond the basic residency period. The extension of cardiology into
advanced research is done through Fellowships, which is more like a post-doc
than a PhD. These advanced practices and specializations are certified
through board exams, and unless the clinician is going into research, there
is no need for a PhD. (Perhaps that's where it is similar - unless the
design grad student is going to continue in research and graduate level
teaching, the PhD may be more than necessary for good studio teaching.) Then
again, it depends on the PhD program!
Peter
Peter H. Jones, Ph.D.
Redesign, Inc.
OCADU, Strategic Foresight and Innovation
http://redesignresearch.com
http://designdialogues.com
Subject: Re: Are PhDs a threat to design education?
Friends,
Please let me make that last note quite precise: This is not about whether
most people are good design teachers, but whether most are BOTH strong
design practitioners AND strong researchers. But that said, even based on
the experience of most folks on this list, relatively few good design
teachers can make a go of top-level professional practice.
In visiting many art and design schools, I found very few people who could
really make a mark as practicing professionals in either design or art. In a
young research field such as ours, there are very few truly strong
researchers.
It's hard to see how there could be more people who are strong at BOTH
research AND professional practice than the number of people who are strong
at one OR the other.
Again, the purpose of doctoral education is to build stronger
university-based design schools for a stronger field.
Ken
--snip--
|