Hello,

The PhD is an unusual recent invention in academic terms whose function
since its first establishment is practical - as an assessment of an
individual's practical skills in research. No more - no less..

There's three falsehoods about the PhD that most of us have held at some
time:

1. That The PhD is old established and has existed back since the mists of
medieval time or before.
2. That central role of the PhD is theoretical rather than as a practical
assessment of research skill.
2. That since the establishment of the PhD there has been a single
'standard' PhD form.

The history as far as I can tell is... 

The PhD was an innovation of  the Humboldt University of  Berlin, Germany in
the mid-1800s. The Humboldt University insisted that staff had practical
expertise in undertaking research and the new PhD was the practical test of
their skill in being able to do research. The Humboldt University became the
model for most universities in the western world.

The Humboldt University of Berlin trained American academics and as a result
the German PhD became adopted in the late 1800s by Johns Hopkins University
and Yale University.

Around 1920, the UK, started to adopt the German PhD and this then spread
through the British Empire colonies. The first Australian university to
offer  the PhD was the University of Melbourne in 1947.

In essence, in most universities the PhD has  less than 100 years history -
a pedagogic newbie.

The changes in trajectory  to the PhD identified by Bryn Tellefsen and
myself  a decade  ago are significant in that they have been influencing PhD
assessment for around one fifth of the total life of the PhD as an award .
For disciplines such as Design, this trajectory of change in PhDs to improve
its assessment of practical research skills comprises most of the time of
the existence of Design PhDs.

Teena's observation indicates one of the dimensions of this trajectory, that
'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'

The only consistent feature of the PhD is its role as a means of assessment
of practical skills of research.

These practical skills  of research comprise three separate groups:

1. Research skills of project management (funding and budgeting, resource
and people management, operation of technical devices etc.)

2. Research skills necessary for interactions with others, networking,
managing authority, leadership and management, service, disseminating
information, communication, liaising with others, teamwork, and
collaboration.

3. Research skills of sound reasoning, valid theory management, data
collection, justified analysis of  existing literature and theory,  

Some years ago, the PhD candidate's possession of the above three groups of
skills could be inferred by the report of the practicalities of their
research necessary to supporting their claims as embodied in their thesis
document. This is obvious in relation to , e.g. anthropologists managing the
funding and practicalities of undertaking research for years at a remote
location. Similarly, it was obvious for scientists and engineers managing
the acquisition and technological support for technical devices for data
collection.

Nowadays, government and those who want to employ PhD post-graduates for
their research skills expect new doctors to be able to set  up and manage
research projects. That is, they require PhD graduates to have all of the
above three groups of research skills to a professionally competent level.

By observation, there has been a reduction in PhD graduates acquiring the
above practical skills of research to a professional level during their PhD.

In part, this has been due to a failure of assessment via using the PhD
thesis as the assessment rubric in situations in which research projects are
chosen in which the first two groups of practical skills of research are
needed less . 

 This in turn appears to be associated with the increasing use of PhD
projects that either have minimal practical research management requirements
or these have been devolved to university administrators,  technicians and
support staff.

The result is the new changes in the way PhDs are assessed and taught in
many institutions. In parallel, is increased focus on "doctoral
competencies".   

Post-graduate work is following the same trajectory (see for example,
http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/competencies )

In this context, for me assumptions by academics that the PhD is unchanging
and that learning the practical skills of research is inappropriate in a PhD
education program are puzzling. 

I'd welcome information about any institution that is embarking on doctoral
competency-based assessment and training.   I'd also welcome information
about PhDs in Research through Design focusing on the PhD  assessing
practical skills of research. 

Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, PhD, B.A. (Hons), P.G.C.E
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK

PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]   +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==




-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of teena
clerke
Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 6:20 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Research through Design?

Dear all,

taking up Ken's comment,

> A doctoral program is where people learn to do research.

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.

At UTS, as a doctoral student, I recently participated in developing what we
are calling a Doctoral Study Plan to accommodate the pedagogical process. In
developing this study plan, we drew on a rubric of research capabilities
which, I recall, was developed by people in the University of South
Australia. It was in hard copy, which I don't have to hand, but if anyone is
interested, I can track it down and let you know the authors' names.

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.

cheers, teena