Dear Karel,

I'm with you here! A PhD is a training in doing research,
and needs to be examined as such.

Loading other requirements on, such as Ken's "training to
teach research" and Terry's "project management" (and all
that entails), are not, in my view a good idea. 

First, as you say, it's not clear how external examiners
are to assess and evaluate these capacities; and if the
external examiners don't do this, who will?

Second, the PhD, as a training in doing research, is only
the first step in a professional development trajectory.
A good post-doc position should follow in which the 
researcher can learn about and how to do these other
aspects of doing good research. Next, as a junior faculty 
or junior researcher, he or she can co-supervise PhD 
students, and thus learn from some co-doing, how to 
"teach research" ... assuming that what we mean by teach 
here is supervising the doing. (In my experience, new 
PhDs don't make good PhD supervisors, and should not be 
expected to do this kind of work without first having 
some good(!) co-supervising experiences. A PhD isn't a 
license for anything. It's not a  qualification granted 
by a recognised and established professional body.)

I'm impressed by the number of words others need to talk 
about and discuss something that seems to me not to be 
overly complicated.  There is, however, one aspect that 
I've not seen mentioned, but, from my work with 
researchers today, both young and not so young, I see 
does need some attention: it is the need for researchers 
to learn better how to be the judge of the quality of 
their own work, and to be the keeper of that quality ... 
not leave these basic aspects up to others to judge and  
control.

Best regards,

Tim

Donostia
The Basque Country

====================

On Jun 19, 2012, at 08:27 , Karel van der Waarde wrote:

> Dear Ken,
> 
> Thanks for your message. Yes, we expect a lot from PhD-students, and quite rightly so.
> There seems to be a discrepancy between what we expect, what is actually taught and trained, and what is examined.
> 
> You state:
>> The PhD is a research degree and a license for those who practice and teach research.
> 	Ok, so the training for a PhD should include 'training to practice research' and 'training to teach research'.
> The first part is ok and this usually results in some sort of thesis that shows that a candidate is able of practicing research. (Unsupervised, independent, critical, creative, new knowledge, ... + all relevant organizational and management skills.)
> 
> I'm not sure about the 'training to teach research'. Yes, it is an essential part because a PhD is a license to teach and supervise. 
> 
> As an external examiner, I have difficulties examining these qualities. What evidence do PhD-candidates have to submit to show that they are able to teach and supervise? This proof is not submitted in the thesis.
> 
> You state:
>>> Because the PhD is a license to teach and supervise research, the
> candidate must demonstrate research skills that will eventually qualify
> her or him to teach research methods and research methodology before
> moving on to teach and supervise research students.
> 
> This is the crux: you seem to suggest that 'research skills' and 'teaching and supervising skills' are chronologically related. First research skills, later teaching methods and methodology, after that teaching and supervising research students. I'm not sure about the strength of this relation: is the relation between 'research skills' and 'teaching/supervising skills' really that strong that an 'an ability to conduct research' will develop into 'an ability to teach and supervise'? Shouldn't we make absolutely sure that PhD-candidates can actually show 'some teaching ability' and 'some supervision ability', but probably not on the highest levels?
> 
> Furthermore, how can I examine the 'teaching and supervising skills' of a PhD student before I can give him or her a license to practice this if I only get to see a thesis? [What is best practice in other universities?]
> 
> Kind regards,
> Karel.
> [log in to unmask]
> 
>>> 
> 
>> If a candidate cannot demonstrate most of these skills, he or she
>> cannot teach and supervise research students. It is likely that he or
>> she cannot conduct research without these skills.
>> 
>> Therefore, demonstrating these skills establishes the basis for
>> awarding or denying the PhD.
>> 
>> Research for a PhD involves a subset of all possible kinds of research.
>> It is a subset because the PhD serves to train researchers in the skills
>> they will use in independent research. It is specific because it entails
>> demonstrating skills that graduated doctors will need in teaching,
>> supervising, and training the next generation of researchers.
>> 
>> An original contribution to knowledge is one criterion of the thesis
>> that demonstrates the ability to conduct research. Since an original
>> contribution requires some degree of creativity, great or small,
>> creativity must therefore be a requirement for the PhD.
>> 
>> There is indeed a rich literature on developing doctoral education,
>> both across the many fields, and within the design field. I’m
>> surprised that so few people in our field stay on top of the literature.
>> While Rugg and Petre (2004) are a bit old now, the book remains useful.
>> For supervisors, Delamont, Atkinson, and Parry (1997) is a classic. From
>> the student perspective, Feibelman (1993) and Peters (1997) are
>> extremely valuable, as is Sternberg (2004).
>> 
>> If you would be so kind as to send it to me off-list in digital form,
>> I’d be interested to see the document you've developed at UTS.
>> 
>> 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 3 9214 6078 |
>> Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> References
>> 
>> Delamont, Sara, Paul Atkinson, and Odette Parry. 1997. Supervising the
>> PhD. A Guide to Success. Buckingham, England, and Philadelphia,
>> Pennsylvania: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the
>> Open University Press.
>> 
>> Feibelman, Peter J. 1993. A Ph.D. Is Not Enough! A Guide to Survival in
>> Science. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
>> 
>> Durling, David, Ken Friedman and Paul Gutherson. 2003. “Debating the
>> Practice-Based PhD.” Design Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 2,
>> 7-18.
>> 
>> Friedman, Ken. 2000. “Form and Structure of the Doctorate in Design:
>> Prelude to a Multilogue.” In Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations
>> for the Future. David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Proceedings of
>> the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. Staffordshire, United
>> Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, 369-376.
>> 
>> Peters, Robert L. 1997. Getting What You Came For. The Smart
>> Student’s Guide to Earning a Master’s or Ph.D. New York: The
>> Noonday Press.
>> 
>> Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD
>> Research.  Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
>> 
>> Sternberg, Robert J. 2004. Psychology 101 1/2. The Unspoken Rules for
>> Success in Academia. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
>> Association.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Teena Clerke wrote:
>> 
>> —snip—
>> 
>> there is a substantial international literature on doctoral pedagogy,
>> and professional doctoral pedagogy in particular, that is addressing
>> these questions. And increasingly in Australia, universities are taking
>> up the challenge of how to design pedagogical programs that cater to a
>> range of disciplinary differences while also preparing candidates for
>> independent research in universities and industries. The focus here, is
>> how to develop pedagogical programs which produce research capable
>> individuals, rather than just theses/artefacts (although
>> theses/artefacts are some of the possible outcomes of the pedagogical
>> process). And, how to build a research community that supports this.
>> 
>> —snip—
>> 
>> And, on a small point, there is some suggestion that doctoral graduates
>> (across all fields, not just design) are required to be “creative”,
>> although what this means eludes definition. This requirement will make
>> for interesting debates across disciplines.
>> 
>> —snip—