Dear Gunnar, 

Rugg and Petre’s partial list of skills expected in a successful PhD graduate covers a wide range of issues.

Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre (2004: 6-7) offer a useful partial list of skills in their excellent book on earning the PhD: [Use of academic language] “correct use of technical terms; attention to detail in punctuation, grammar, etc.; attention to use of typographic design … to make the text accessible; ability to structure and convey a clear and coherent argument, including attention to the use of ‘signposting’ devices such as headings to make the structure accessible; writing in a suitable academic ‘voice’; [Knowledge of background literature] seminal texts correctly cited, with evidence that you have read them and evaluated them critically; references accurate reflecting the growth of the literature from the seminal texts to the present day; identification of key recent texts on which your own PhD is based, showing both how these contribute to your thesis and how your thesis is different from them; relevant texts and concepts from other disciplines cited; organization of all of the cited literature into a coherent, critical structure, showing both that you can make sense of the literature – identifying conceptual relationships and themes, recognizing gaps – and that you understand what is important; [Research methods] knowledge of the main research methods used in your discipline, including data collection, record keeping, and data analysis; knowledge of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in your disciplines, and of what is acceptable as a knowledge claim; detailed knowledge – and competent application of – at least one method; critical analysis of one of the standard methods in your discipline showing that you understand both its strengths and its limitations; [Theory] understanding of key theoretical strands and theoretical concepts in your discipline; understanding how theory shapes your research question; ability to contribute something useful to the theoretical debate in your area; [Miscellaneous] ability to do all the above yourself, rather than simply doing what your supervisor tells you; awareness of where your work fits in relation to the discipline, and what it contributes to the discipline; mature overview of the discipline.”

This is the starting point. Your question is deep and specific: "How much do you think the appearance of a problem with too-narrow research capabilities for design (when compared to, say, traditional laboratory sciences) is due to the less-narrow range of choices for research approaches available to those with firm ‘laboratory traditions’? 

In my view, most kinds of design research focus on questions that could be interdisciplinary. While we are asking these questions from a design perspective, the same questions can often be framed in the language of other disciplines. This means that we have a wide range of research approaches to choose in answering many of these questions.

North American PhD programs have both depth requirements and breadth requirements. The best universities expect their students to learn something about research methods and comparative research methodology precisely so that they can learn the applicable research methods in their own field, and appropriate research methods that they may want to draw on from other fields.

North American PhD programs typically require a sequence of depth and breadth courses, along with methods and methodology courses before the comprehensive examinations that advance the PhD student to formal candidacy. Only then does the PhD student complete, present, and gain approval for the thesis. In Australia and in some Bologna nations, students for the 3-year PhD write a proposal as a condition of acceptance into the program. In many places, they get none of the methods training they need, and in others, no skills training. In essence, PhD students in many 3-year programs are expected to do research with no foundation in research skills or methods. What’s worse is that the supervisors in these programs lack the experience to guide them. They often graduated from similar programs. Many seem to have earned a PhD at the same university where they teach, which means both a lack of skills and methods and a research monoculture. As a result, these supervisors have no idea of the literature and reading they should be giving their PhD students to move them forward, they have no exposure to other ways of thinking and working, and they have no experience outside the one university where they work. 

I do not think that the design field itself lacks research methods, research traditions, and research approaches. I think that we have too many people with a PhD from programs that lack substance.  

Again, you will find a more extensive discussion of these issues in the paper posted to the “PhD Training, Skills and Supervision Section” of my Academia page. It is the paper titled "Writing for the PhD in Art and Design."

https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Best regards,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015 

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology

—

References

Friedman, Ken. 2014. Writing for the PhD in Art and Design. Issues for Research Supervisors and Research Students. A Research Skills Working Paper. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology.

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

—

Gunnar Swanson wrote:

—snip—

Rugg and Petre list "Knowledge of the main research methods used in your discipline. . ." How much do you think the appearance of a problem with too-narrow research capabilities for design (when compared to, say, traditional laboratory sciences) is due to the less-narrow range of choices for research approaches available to those with firm "laboratory traditions"?

(As an isolated American, I have relatively little experience direct with folks with many folks with design PhD degrees and most researchers I know well deal in their academic specialties so that's an actual question, not a rhetorical one--in case that's not clear.)

—snip—


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------