Hi David,
That's all very well in practice, but how does it work in theory ;-)
In reality I don't know if there is a real difference between training
'professional researchers' as compared to 'researching professionals.' How
is a 1 + 3 PhD which is based on ethnographic or action research approaches
any different from your 'traditional' 4-year ProfDoc? I have not gained my
professional doctorate yet - I have suspended it to 'spend more time doing
research'! ;-) But my view so far is that the research methods masters and
my professional work as a researcher has prepared me better as both a
'researching professional' and a 'professional researcher' than the
doctoral programme.
They say a PhD/ProfDoc is to prove you are capable of doing research. I
already am as evidenced by my publication list! So there must be more to it
than that, and it seems it is: being supervised by someone who only if
you're lucky is on the same wavelength as you, and navigating a maze of
pointless regulations and bureaucracy, before facing the toughest defence
of your work you will ever do, simply get the title 'Doctor.' This gives
one more credibility, but from my point of view, I am already a 'PhD'
because I do research that gets into 5* journals - I just don't have one.
Equally, if there are 'PhDs' out there who are not doing research; they may
have a 'PhD,' but they are not one in reality.
For ProfDocs therefore, which should be carried out by experienced
professionals, I think they should change from the model of the 2 to 3
supervisors that undergraduates may need to step up from degree to PhD, and
simply have one mentor. I don't need to be told how to do research by
people with a lower publication count, lower citation count, and lower g
and h-index than me (as I did have), simply because they are in the same
subject area - I need someone who has been there and done that, and who I
have a good rapport with to get me through the 'process' (as I'm hoping to
get). From experience, it is more important to be 'supervised' by someone
with a similar worldview to you (e.g. epistemological, ontological, social,
etc.). By the end of one's doctorate one should be more expert than one's
'supervisors,' and in the case of a PhD by Publication more expert before
one enrols. If neither are the case then has one really made an original
contribution to knowledge?
I will probably get more interviews with the media after I get my
doctorate, and be more resilient in dealing with bureaucracy and
challenging situations from having to go through the process where one can
feel helpless and disillusioned. But I have done more research since
suspending my ProfDoc than when I was on it!
Best,
Jonathan
On 11 April 2013 15:05, David Durling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Kev,
>
> Yes that's much clearer and more in line with what I thought you did!
>
> I meant to add that I agreed with your earlier points about the
> professional doctorate. In a previous post I watched (from afar) a D.Arts
> being set up, largely to overcome problems that a practice-based department
> had experienced with lack of PhD completions. It had a difficult time in
> gaining recruits, most seemed to want a PhD title but not do the work for
> it. However, I do recognise the distinction between training that is
> appropriate for a candidate intending to become a professional researcher,
> rather than the practice development and reflection required of a
> researching professional (designer). In the academy I prefer to employ the
> former, but in the industrial sector might prefer the latter skill set.
>
> Kind regards,
> David
>
> .........................................................................
>
> David Durling FDRS PhD http://durling.tel
> .........................................................................
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2013, at 8:52 am, Kevin Hilton wrote:
>
> > Sorry David/All
> >
> > That could have been put more clearly. By taught component I was
> referring to the typical 'set' of Masters level modules and marked
> assignments for Prof Doc programmes that are not part of a typical PhD
> programme of research. However, PhD researchers in Northumbria are expected
> to develop a Postgraduate Researcher Development Portfolio, through
> attendance of a number of research seminars and other forms of training,
> relevant to the individual's research programme. Without evidence of these
> experiences in their portfolio our Research Degrees Committee would not
> approve an individual for their examination.
> >
> > The difference then is that with the Prof Docs the taught component is
> predetermined as a course, with the cohort all doing the same modules,
> whereas with a PhD the researcher selects from a range of available
> training what they need and when.
> >
> > I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Kev
> >
> > Dr. Kev Hilton
> > Reader in Designing for Transformational Experiences
> > The Centre for Design Research
> > Department of Design CCE2
> > Northumbria University
> > Newcastle upon Tyne
> > NE1 8ST
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 0191 243 7340
> >
> > http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/scd/research/ourpeople/1930837/
> > www.vimeo.com/northumbriadesignschool/gender
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|