Dear Vivek,
Thanks for your reply. We both owe a tip of the hat to Keith Russell – he found the Brabazon article.
You’ve asked two good questions. First, “a question about original contribution and what counts as original contribution in design research. A new design methodology maybe or a design framework? How microscopic should a good topic be in design research?”
Estelle Phillips and Derek Pugh (2005: 62) offer a useful list of 15 different kinds of original contribution. The first six are:
“1 setting down a major piece of new information in writing for the first time;
2 continuing a previously original piece of work;
3 carrying out original work designed by the supervisor;
4 providing a single original technique, observation, or result in an otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research;
5 having many original ideas, methods and interpretations all performed by others under the direction of the postgraduate;
6 showing originality in testing somebody else’s idea.”
The next nine are:
“1 carrying out empirical work that hasn’t been done before;
2 making a synthesis that hasn’t been made before;
3 using already known material but with a new interpretation;
4 trying out something in Britain [or your own nation – KF] that has previously only been done abroad;
5 taking a particular technique and applying it in a new area;
6 bringing new evidence to bear on an old issue;
7 being cross-disciplinary and using different methodologies;
8 looking at areas that people in the discipline haven’t looked at before;
9 adding to knowledge in a way that hasn’t been done before.”
This is where your second question come in. All of these contributions presume an articulate understanding of prior knowledge, and most of them build on prior knowledge.
The scholar or scientist must dig out and articulate what is already known to contribute to knowledge. He or she must state how and why earlier knowledge has been used, and he or she must state clearly the new contribution he or she has made.
This explains the importance of the literature. And this leads to your second question:
“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.”
Using footnotes or not using them depends on the reference and citation style that your university and your faculty prescribe. Footnotes are common in the classics, theology, some humanities departments, and some history programs.
From the comment, I’d gather that your departments uses Harvard Style or APA. These styles use in-text citation, and they generally do not encourage footnotes.
You are right to note the importance of developing the background. Fortunately, there is a way around this.
Rather than using footnotes, you should develop a robust and comprehensive literature review to demonstrate the background before launching into the main body of research.
At appropriate points, you can also bring the literature into play to develop and illustrate critical points.
Have a look at Phillips and Pugh (2005) and at Peters (1997) for some useful tips.
Hope this helps.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
References
Phillips, Estelle M., and Derek S. Pugh. 2005. How to Get a PhD. A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors. Fourth Edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Peters, Robert. 1997. Getting What You Came For. The Smart Student’s Guide to Earning a Master’s or a PhD. Revised Edition. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|