Dear All,

As I was working on a reply to Francois, Tim posted, as did Ann, and
others. They’ve responded on key substantive issues and I agree with
what they’ve written. The discussion moved forward while life dragged
me away. Nevertheless, I’m adding a few notes on institutional
issues.

Francois identified key organizational and institutional factors that
are part of the problem. These are important issue. He also suggested
“the onus seems to be put on the sole shoulders of supervisors.”
I disagree.

Supervision and research training do not rest on individual supervisors
alone. They take place in an institutional context. Communities of
educational practice develop them. These communities usually work
through the academic committees and administrative teams that shape and
manage the process of doctoral education. Supervision and research
training is a process and we manage the process through a system. While
this system includes supervisors, we have not been speaking of
individual supervisors as though individual supervisors alone are
responsible for the process. Individual supervisors are responsible for
the quality of their own supervision. It seems to me that we have not
paid enough attention to the system or to the quality of individual
supervisors in our field. Both factors work together.

It is vital to understand the relation between the process of doctoral
education, the systemic practices that support the process, the
organization that maintains the system, and the individuals who do the
work. Excellent doctoral supervision rests on a comprehensive practice
of supervision, advising, and administrative support. Elsewhere, I
describe the central elements of this practice (Friedman 2000): “1) A
solid, supportive faculty; 2) A well-trained research faculty for
advising research doctorates; 3) General faculty support for doctoral
education; 4) A department organized to provide proper curriculum
development, seminar management, and research supervision; 5) Available
support from other departments and programs if needed; 6) An environment
with senior doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers; 7) Rich
administrative support from experienced administrative staff; 8) Good
academic administration by program coordinators, program heads, and
department heads, as well a good academic administration by professors
whose responsibilities embrace coordination and headship; 9)
Administrative and program support at the college and university
level.”

A university that graduates students with an inadequate PhD is not the
fault of one poor supervisor. Everyone has problematic individual
supervisors. The challenge lies in addressing the problems to improve
the work that individual supervisors do or to remove them from
supervision.

Doctoral supervision and research training is a system in which
supervisors play a key role. Groups of supervisors play a role because
they constitute the committees and managerial group responsible for the
doctoral program at any given faculty or department. Ultimately, the
university and its faculty-level and department-level teams and systems
make the difference.

The problem in our field appears when a university design faculty, an
independent design school, or a design program in a faculty of art and
design or architecture and design has only one or two supervisors. The
other problem, of course, is a large group of poorly trained supervisors
who took on their roles before design schools understood what we
understand now about doctoral supervision and supervisor training.
Unfortunately, there are many such cases in our field. Luke’s example
and Tim’s account are not uncommon. 

The relatively recent development of doctoral programs in design is a
reason for this. While supervision problems are visible across many
fields, fields with longer research traditions and a longer tradition of
doctoral programs have moved sooner than we have done to remedy the
problems. 

While all fields have problems, universities offering doctoral
education in mature fields generally recognize the problems. Doctoral
programs across the board have been working in a systematic way to
improve. In art, architecture, and design, some of the worst programs
and worst trained supervisors claim to be advancing the field by arguing
that general standards appropriate to all fields are irrelevant in
design, art, or architecture. (For a list of common standards, see Rugg
and Petre 2004: pp. 6-7.) The effective claim of such programs is that
the ignorance of poorly trained supervisors represents a new standard.

As Teena notes, the PhD-Design list is a good place for this kind of
conversation. Holding a conversation like this on the PhD-Design list is
especially useful given the fact that many list members hold supervision
roles. As individuals and as groups, we are responsible for doctoral
education. We are responsible for our individual students. We are also
responsible for the systems and processes in our faculties and
departments. Some of us are responsible for the management decisions
that govern these programs. A reasonable number of list members serve on
university boards. Several serve the discipline, the educational system,
or research governance and evaluation systems at the regional or
national level. This makes the list a useful resource and a community
with valuable information. We also have many current doctoral students
who reflections and experiences are relevant and equally valuable.

Keith Russell and David Durling established the list after the first
conference on doctoral education in design at Ohio State University in
1998. It took off following the second conference at La Clusaz. It has
grown dramatically in the years since, and we’ve got enough of the
right kinds of people for a global conversation. 

I disagree with Francois on one issue. The topic of PhD supervision is
too broad for a PhD thesis and often too advanced. There is also a
question on whether this topic is appropriate for a thesis in design
history. The history and development of doctoral studies in design is
rather different to the studies of design in culture that generally
constitute the focus of design history. These questions involve
education, education policy at the level of governance, pedagogy, and
professional education. One requires reasonable background knowledge and
experience across several fields to address this. 

The institutional issues that Francois raised move into politics,
political science, and education policy at the level of national
education frameworks. While these issues are important, nearly no one at
the PhD level could address this as a thesis. In fact, only a handful of
people in design programs could supervise such a thesis. To the degree
that these issues are significant, scholars with the proper experience
and a broad enough knowledge of the issues to address these problems
ought to write articles in peer-reviewed publications or monographs for
good academic presses.

The political and policy level issues that Francois identified are
important, but we can’t control them. That debate moves from doctoral
education and design education to education policy. It also involves the
government policies and national fiscal policies that affect education
policy. While we can debate these issues, our opinions are as important
as that of any group of taxpayers or citizens. This means that we have
as much and as little power as any other group of citizens in the
debate. As it is, I’m not overly concerned with issues that operate on
the level of taxpayers, politicians, or governmental agencies. I’m
only slightly more concerned with issues at educational levels operating
outside the university. These are regulatory regimes, and they are
negotiated through political decisions over which we exert no control
and for which we have relatively little responsibility. 

We have enough work to do in areas where we are responsible for systems
and processes. In these areas, we can and should take responsibility. 

The exception involves individuals who advise government bodies. While
those individuals may have significant expertise, their expertise and
the influence they exert are two different issues. Even those whom the
government acknowledges as experts merely advise. They generally speak
to the civil servants who carry out policy. Those civil servants in turn
advise senior civil servants who, in their turn, offer advise to
ministers who may or may not act on their advice. 

The political butterfly effect also plays a role here. External experts
gain influence and credibility over time by offering useful advice that
helps civil servants and elected politicians to shape policy. This
influence can vanish overnight when a minister changes portfolio, taking
advisors along. A new minister brings a new team into office, a team
that may or may not have their own favored experts on issues of research
and education that cascade down to affect doctoral education and
research training.

In contrast, the topics that Tim has been addressing are issues that
nearly all the members of this list work with in one way or another.
Like many on this list, I have occasionally been called on for advice at
levels outside the faculty where I work. Sometimes my ideas made a
difference, sometimes they didn’t. 

The key issue is that any of us with supervisory or management
responsibilities do make a difference on the job. Our ideas and those of
our colleagues make a difference through the decisions we make, and
through the actions we take to bring those decisions to life. 

Our ideas also make a difference within our discipline. As we build the
field through dialogue and common conversation among those with
front-line responsibility for doctoral education and doctoral students.
In my view, that’s the place to begin.

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

Friedman, Ken. 2000. “Form and structure of the doctorate in design:
Prelude to a multilogue.” In Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations
for the Future. Proceedings of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12,
2000. David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United
Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, pp. 369-376.

Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD
Research.  Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.