I sometimes ask PhD students "what is a PhD". I am looking for a reduced stripped-down blunt statement that would be unambiguous to relatives, neighbours, the person in the street, possibly the cat. Invariably answers include something of 'contribution to knowledge' or 'undertaking a research project' or perhaps 'investigating a subject deeply'. In essence, it seems to me, the PhD is a training in how to do research. Of course, there's much more to it than that, but in essence, if I were looking to employ a PhD holder I would expect a certain competence in undertaking research independently and to a good quality. It might also help to have transferable skills, from one project to another.

The notion of a curriculum for PhD students has been mentioned a couple of times recently. I note that across institutions and cultures, such a curriculum might vary widely, arising from what is expected of the PhD award and consequently of the student and their post-study employment. This is sometimes referred to as the training component of the PhD. The rest may be learning by doing.

I thought it would be helpful to this PhD community to come together with sound advice about the training that a design PhD student should undergo, or how such a curriculum should be designed to provide the necessary skills and understanding that are required post-doctorally. I am looking for contributors to such an enterprise, with the intention to provide a comprehensive report that can be fed back to all those engaged in PhD education.

The term 'training' is here meant to convey those parts of the study that are devoted to learning about relevant generic things which may include use of the library, literature search/review, appropriate writing, ethics, and study skills. Additionally, more specific training may be provided including research methods, and various forms of data collection and analysis perhaps including statistics.

Mindful of the wide range of possibilities as soon as the term 'design' is used on this discussion list, the term 'design' as used here, is less concerned with the established fields for example engineering design, and is focused more on design arising from design schools in the art and design sector (for example industrial design, fashion, crafts, graphics, interiors). It is recognised that this is an incomplete description and has a fuzzy boundary which may include design in cognate subjects such as architecture, interaction, communications etc. This is seen as a focus rather than a limiting boundary.

Presumably there should be some generic and/or specific training associated with studying for a PhD. The nature of, and requirement for, this seems to vary considerably between national traditions, and even between educational institutions in the same country. 

Generalisms are dangerous, but some suggested generalisms might usefully be a starting point for some comparisons, however crude these may prove to be. Please correct me if I am way off course.

For example, the USA appears to have a distinct training component early on in the PhD, often comprising classes that have to be taken and passed before the main research is undertaken. Supervision is often by a committee. One American colleague insisted that ALL PhD students should undertake a class on statistics.

In Europe - and particularly perhaps the UK - the PhD may be seen as a more personalised journey. There may be some generic training that is undertaken formally, but specific topic-related training may arise more through self-study and the focused priorities of supervisors. 

In Asia, perhaps the locus of study is more towards design science, with appropriate concentration on scientific method.

Perhaps some disciplines have a body of initial PhD training that is concise, unambiguous, and uncontested. This may be so in many of the more established research intensive disciplines, sometimes developed over centuries. Design, as a younger and less mature field, may not yet have such an established body of PhD training.

There are further factors. Design is seen by some as an integrative subject that, in research terms, draws upon other major research traditions. This makes for a very wide range of design research. It is not unusual to see studies utilising for example a number of social science techniques, materials science, management studies and the like, and explored through a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods. Research positions and their assumptions may be manyfold. Design may also be seen to be developing its own tools for research. This is perhaps most obvious in the development of practice-based investigation in its many forms, where design practice is seen as an investigative method. Perhaps postdoctoral employment not in the academic world should be considered. Additionally, there are challenges to the written word as the only form of exposition of research results. Delivery of a training component may be best in the first months of PhD study, or may be preferred as drip feed throughout the period of enrolment. There may also be issues around the ways design students learn, and therefore appropriate or novel forms of delivery. The PhD is but one kind of research award - others may include masters degrees and professional doctorates - the focus here is on the PhD award.

So - given the relative youthfulness of design research, the different traditions of PhD across cultures, and the complexities of many different research traditions - what should the curriculum look like for a design PhD, and what training should be a requirement? This could be expressed both generically and specifically, or be suggested as best practice.

If you have:

- examples of best practice
- case studies of successful application of PhD training programmes
- an excellent curriculum that you use at the moment
- a firm philosophical position used in doctoral teaching

please make your suggestions here, or write to me off-list (to [log in to unmask] ). I am less interested in hypothetical programmes, and more in those programmes that have been tried and worked well. However, you may also have experience of teaching/learning that did not work. For example, I have heard of some online training that failed, either to recruit or to gain student satisfaction. Such examples of what to avoid would also be welcomed. 

It is accepted that some information may be sensitive. In the final report, nothing will be published without the permission of the original sender. Links to current publicly available programmes of study, courses etc. will be particularly welcome.

This request is not confined to academics who provide PhD education. I am also most interested in hearing the highs and lows of PhD training experienced by current and recent PhD students. Your actual experiences could be illuminating. Whatever you say, you will not be identified without permission.

I'd like to think that together, we the members of this unique community, can bring together the results of our combined experiences for the benefit of the field.

best wishes
David Durling


___________________________________________________________________

David Durling  HonFDRS PhD 
Professor of Design Research
Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Coventry University, UK
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>   http://durling.tel <http://durling.tel/> 
Vice President IASDR  iasdr.org <http://iasdr.org/>  









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