Dear Vivek,
I hope you won't mind if I barge in here and offer a reply to
your two questions to Ken:
1 what counts as original contribution in design research?
2 how many footnotes, or (better), what does it take to
support a claim of an original contribution to knowledge?
First, let me admit that I have never directed nor examined a
thesis of the Art Work + Exegesis kind that is an accepted
form of examinable outcome of a PhD by Creative Practice. But
I do have experience of directing and examining PhD theses
that result from--let me call it--the conventional kind of PhD
as a training in doing research. The kind of research I'll
call Research here, with a big R. (You'll see why below.)
The distinction is important in responding to your questions
because, as I see it, there is on-going debate as to whether a
PhD by Creative Practice needs to present an original
contribution to knowledge, or something else. Nelson (2004),
for example, pleads that "... a cultural contribution of
substantial significance ..." is a better and sufficient
criterion for assessing a Creative Practice PhD, and adds that
"This has been a very liberating declaration, which Monash
[University] as a whole received with relief and embraced
warmly in amendments to the doctoral regulations." For a more
European action in this debate, you might look at the Research
(by) Designing conference [2]--the next one is in May--which
explains on it's webpage that
"Research in creative disciplines reaches far beyond the
conventional understanding of what knowledge is and what it
is meant for. Practicing arts, design, music or
architecture, when conducted reflectively, naturally
involves types of knowing that, unlike in exact sciences,
are based on individual, subjective interpretation of the
context within which the designer/artist works. As such,
the critical reflection of the artist on his/her own
practice makes it more coherent, better, influential,
unique. At the same time worthwhile chef-d'oeuvres, works
of art, designs essentially extend and enrich our
understanding of the world."
Some grand claims here, it seems to me.
Second, let me admit, that I am a Conventionalist in this
debate--what the Creative Practice people would more likely
call a Conservative (perhaps together with the negative
connotations that sometimes go with this term). So, Nelson
like notions of a "cultural contribution of substantial
significance" worry me, a lot!. This kind of outcome need not
necessarily involve new knowledge and understanding, at least
not of the kind that Research tries to build.
The Research (by) Designing propaganda also worries me, a lot!
I do think designing builds new knowledge and understanding,
with and without the reflection that the Research (by)
Designing people call for. But it's new knowledge and
understanding of a personal kind. So, it might be what I will
here call research, with a small r, but it's not Research.
By personal, I don't just mean individual. It can be, and
often is, research done by a collaborating group of people,
and they each may, and often do gain new knowledge and
understanding from their involvement. But there is no
explicit attempt to establish that any shared new knowledge
and understanding is actually common and understood in the
same way. Nor is there any attempt by members of the group to
review what each has gained, nor assess the reliability of the
new knowledge and understanding. So, usually, this kind of
new knowledge and understanding is absorbed and becomes tacit
in the on-going working of the people involved. So, I call
this personal knowledge and understanding, and accept that it
can be gained by doing kinds of research (little r).
This mode of knowledge construction contrasts strongly with
the mode of knowledge generation that Research employs. The
mode of Research is the one we're familiar with; one in which
peer-review and replication, are basic components of the
construction process. It's a mode that needs and depends upon
a community of active and knowledgeable other researchers and
practitioners--users of the kind of knowledge and
understanding built by the Research. A community that
essentially forms the people who make up the field in which
the Research is, and must be situated, or sometimes fields.
So, being a conventionalist, a PhD is a training in doing
Research (big R), and not a training in doing research (little
r).
Having said this, I don't want to be understood to be
devaluing personal knowledge and understanding, nor it's
effective construction, by doing research. It is valuable,
and important. Not more nor less valuable than what we get
from good Research. But it is differently valuable, and we
should take care not to confuse the two, in my view.
Although I am a Conventionalist, I am interested in (and
working on) how new knowledge and understanding is built, and
in new ways of doing this: new ways of doing Research.
Furthermore, I think Design Research both needs new methods,
and affords new opportunities to work out and develop new ways
of building reliable new knowledge and understanding: new ways
of doing productive Research. (And, in case you didn't
notice, I put the design in Design Research with a big D, to
indicate what is being called here professional designing.)
But what ever these new methods might turn out to be, they
must engage the Design Research community in ways that lead to
collectively and collaboratively built reliable new knowledge
and understanding. That's what PhD-Design is for, to help
bring and keep this community engaged. If we were each doing
design research, we wouldn't need PhD-Design, not necessarily.
Or only, perhaps, as a place to display our new personal
discoveries.
OK, that's lots said already, but now I can offer a few
thoughts on your two questions, the first of which I would
now re-write as
1 what counts as original contribution in Design Research?
The short answer is, it's original if the active and engaged
community of Design Researchers and Practitioners see and
receives it as such (and yes, big P means professional
practitioners). So, that's what you need to be heading for in
doing a PhD. And that's what you need to be sure you are
heading for. How do you to that?; check that you're header
towards a real and sufficient original contribution. Several
ways: publish some of your results in a good peer reviewed
journal of conference; talk with your supervisor(s) about your
results, and other members of your group or department; give
one or two department seminars on what you're developing;
produce an internal research report or two report, and ask
interested people to read and comment on it, and not just
people in your group or department. In other words, engage
other qualified people in what you're doing and what's coming
out of it. And do this from the very beginning, not near the
end. It can often be too late to correct things then, if they
need to be. And don't wait for your supervisor to tell you to
do this, and certainly not to make it happen. This is
something the PhD student needs to do, so as to learn how to
do it. He or she will need to continue doing this for the
remainder of his or her Research career.
So, to your second question
2 how many footnotes, or (better), what does it take to
support a claim of an original contribution to knowledge?
Again, the short answer is, what it takes is whatever is
needed to convince your Research community. So, the advice is
much the same as for question one. Start working on this from
the beginning. This time you can usefully add looking at how
other Researchers have done this: in relevant published
journal and conference papers, and other successful PhD
theses. (For the footnote bit, check you University or
Faculty PhD thesis submission regulations, look at other
theses from your group or department, ask your supervisor(s),
and others, until you think you have a safe answer.)
I would add though that one of the points made by Tara
Brabazon is worth taking on board here too: Research with a
good focus makes it easier to identify and substantiate an
original contribution. Focusing is important in doing good
Research, so its something important to learn how to do when
doing a PhD. And, as Brabazon also explains, as long as you
make clear and can explain and justify your focus, there is no
problem with this. A strong focus does not, in an of itself,
diminish the contribution. Indeed, as she implies, this is
usually regarded positively by examiners.
I've gone on long here, Vivek, but I hope it helps. If,
however, you're doing a PhD by Creative Practice, you may find
all this of little help, even none. Tell us. There are other
people on this list who I think will be able to help more if
you're engaged in a Creative Practice PhD. And it would be
good to hear from these people any way.
Best regards,
Tim
PS: I see Ken has also replied to you, but I've not read his
post yet.
References
[1] Nelson, R, 2004, Doctoralness in the balance: The agonies of
scholarly writing in studio research degrees, Text
Special Issue No 3.
<http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue3/nelson.htm>
[2] Research (by) Designing, Sint-Lucas School of
Architecture, Ghent-Brussels/Belgium Faculty of
Architecture, KU Leuven, 22--23 May, 2013.
<http://www.bydesigning.net/>
============================================
On Apr 6, 2013, at 09:12 , Vivek Kant wrote:
> Dear Ken,
>
> Another thought that just occurred to me after hitting the send button, was
> to post a comment that I received from my PhD comprehensive exam committee
> member on my proposal.It is interesting given what I read about footnotes
> in the article you posted.
>
> Comment from my committee member: " Personally, I found the footnotes to be
> over-used and distracting. If a point is important to the thesis, it should
> be included in the main text; if not, then a footnote should only be
> included if it adds real value. Although it is evident and impressive that
> a lot of bkgd research has been covered, it is the author’s responsibility
> to be selective in his inclusion of supporting material (such that the
> take-home message is clear), and to ensure
> the document is self-contained (no need for reader to go read many other
> papers to understand/appreciate what’s here)."
>
> I had thought that a proper and well researched background is necessary for
> proving the validity of the ideas but when the committee member gives
> comments like this to a PhD student about footnotes "adding value" then it
> becomes confusing for a fledgling grad student.
>
> Comments are appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> VK
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
