Dear Martin,
There is already a good precedent that resolves this situation of the PhD in Art and Design.
Engineering used to be regarded as an art. Some time ago when it had just been brought into universities - it was regarded by engineers as practice-based art and even after a few years in universities research was in its very earliest stages.
The development of Art and Design fields in universities now pretty well exactly maps onto that precedent of how engineering developed when it started to become included in universities.
I suggest that EXACTLY the same key factors apply in the inclusion of Art and Design in universities now as applied in the inclusion of Engineering in universities then.
The successful solution that emerged for Engineering is straightforward and simple and has three parts:
The first part is awareness and clarity of the difference between research and professional practices. On the 'research;' side, the focus is on skills in the use of evidence and tough tight logical reasoning and deep philosophical logical analysis to be able to identify unambiguous theory findings that can be critically replicated. On the 'professional practices' side the focus is on skills in the use of creative methods to identify beneficial solutions and skills of explaining and justifying why these are good solutions in terms of the context.
The second part is the use of the PhD primarily as an assessment of those skills in 'the use of evidence and tough tight logical reasoning and deep philosophical logical analysis to be able to identify unambiguous theory findings that can be critically replicated'.
The third part is the use of the Engineering Doctorate, Deng, (DDes in Design) as the top level assessment of the skills in ' the use of creative methods to identify beneficial solutions and skills of explaining and justifying why these are good solutions in terms of the context.'
The engineering precedent seems to be an exact fit for the situation (and an excellent solution) for Art and Design at the moment in universities.
When Engineering arrived in universities, many engineering academics complained that the real need in the teaching was for practice-based skills. They argued that the PhD should be changed to also be awarded for practice-based skills.
What happened, instead, however, was far more wonderful.
Driven by the insistence of universities that the PhD focused focused on research, the Engineering disciplines massively improved in almost all aspects. The improvements occurred across the board as a result of highly increased amounts of research and theory-making being undertaken in line with the classic PhD format. The outcomes in turn improved engineering practice much faster than the traditional practice-based evolution.
At the end of the day, through conventional research, Engineering became transformed and engineering outputs massively improved in quality and creativity.
The traditional practice-based views of engineering still exist but the locus of university study has moved much more in the direction of research-based theory.
Doctoral assessment is available for practice (the DEng) and amongst professional engineers it is often more highly valued than the PhD. Amongst academic engineers, the PhD remains more highly valued because it represents assessment of skills of research and logical reasoning that are more use in academia.
So important and effective has been the transformation of engineering art into research and evidence-based theory development to support practice that memory of those early arguments claiming engineering was a practice-based art has almost disappeared.
It is now widely accepted and easily demonstrated that a conventional research approach drives engineering creativity forward much more effectively.
The same, I suggest, applies and is true of the Art and Design disciplines, and that the current discussions about the PhD in Art and Design exactly follow the precedent of Engineering - and the best solution is the same.
I suggest that the current claims that the PhD in Art and Design should be changed to be practice-based assessment are part of the turmoil in the transition as it was in Engineering. The precedent of the Engineering Art indicates, however, that the outcomes will be better if the PhD is not changed.
Of course, the above analysis may not be correct. I find it difficult, however, to see how the Art and Design case is significantly different form that of Engineering.
I welcome your thoughts.
Warm regards,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
Director
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----Original Message-----
From: Salisbury, Martin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2018 5:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: What is a PhD...curriculum?
Hi Terry,
If you cast your mind back to the earlier exchanges, the whole point was that these are perceived to be of inferior status when it comes to academic careers.
Best
Martin
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cambridgemashow.com
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
________________________________________
From: Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Salisbury, Martin; 'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design'
Subject: RE: What is a PhD...curriculum?
Dear Martin,
From what you wrote, it sounds like a professional or practice doctorate, something equivalent to a DEng or DBus, would match with the situation you describe, rather than a PhD.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
Director
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Salisbury, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2018 5:03 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: What is a PhD...curriculum?
Dear Ken,
I realise that this subject has been left behind but I am finally finding a moment to respond.
Many thanks for the thorough response. Much of the factual material that you state is correct and helpful. But it is the conclusions that you draw that i find problematic income instances. I'm afraid time restraints make it impossible for me to respond as fully as I would like. So I apologise in advance for an attempt to organise my thoughts into a 'bullet point' reply. I'm a great believer in brevity anyway! I should also say that my answers are only really informed by experience of the UK system.
KF- "I'm still of the view that a PhD should be a program of research training"
MS- OK. But, assuming that we can all agree that there isn't, or shouldn't be, a hierarchy of subject disciplines within universities, and we can all agree that the PhD is seen universally as the highest qualification for academic employees of those universities, then we have a problem with the subject area of Art & Design.
KF- "... I don’t see why everyone who teaches design, art, or professional skills such as illustration should have a PhD."
MS- I don't see why they should either but that is now tantamount to saying that lecturers in art & design should not expect the same career progression as those in the sciences.
KF- "Research universities have generally required the PhD for those who will later work in universities. The reasonable premise for this policy is that people who work in research universities must be able to do research."
MS- I'm afraid I still don't know what a 'research university' is (though pleased to see that the 'serious' has been dropped!). As far as I am aware in the UK, we have not yet divided universities into 'teaching universities' and 'research universities'. The last national research assessment round confirmed that world-leading research could be found distributed across the sector, though of course there is often a concentration in the older universities, where money brings in more money.
KF- "A reasonable comparison might be a medical school"
KF- "In North America, many first-rate research universities decided that they do *not* require a PhD to teach in such subjects as art, design, or illustration. This is even the case where top-ranked scientific and professional schools require illustrators. One is not required to have a PhD to become a lecturer or professor of medical illustration or technical illustration. There are relatively few programs in medical illustration. This is a specialized professional skill, with few high level practitioners. I’ve checked several programs in medical illustration. I find professors without a PhD, including full professors."
MS- This is the key. I fear that it reveals a misconception that may be at the root of your, and many others' misunderstanding. That is to say, a belief that there is 'knowledge' and there is 'skill' ('a word to start an argument' as Chris Frayling would say). If these are subjects that are delivered within the university sector, it should have long been accepted by now that art & design subjects are knowledge-based like any other. These are not training programs in technical skill for industry. Yes, there are skills involved but students experience a wide-ranging university education and are educated THROUGH the subject as well as IN the subject. How we express and disseminate that knowledge may however be different from other subjects.
KF- In my view, governments that decided to force skilled practicing professionals to earn a research degree to teach advanced professional practice made a serious mistake. That’s something we cannot unravel.
MS- As above- the fact that some subjects/ disciplines require 'skilled professional practice' does not automatically mean that they are not 'knowledge-based'.
KF- The result is often a PhD degree (third cycle level 8 doctorate) for people who may be excellent at what they do without being able to do research. This is an unfortunate outcome with problematic consequences for the world.
MS- I'm not sure if there is evidence to back this statement up but once again this seems to perpetuate the idea of a skill-based state of 'being excellent at what they do' (i.e. being in possession of a god-given magic skill).
My view is that 'being able to do research' is part and parcel of creative practice-based PhD. It is possible to be a practitioner-scholar-researcher.
Warm wishes,
Martin
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cambridgemashow.com
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ken Friedman [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 8:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is a PhD...curriculum?
Dear Martin,
Thanks for a sensible and useful post. You raise a significant issue. There are professional careers that do not — and should not — require a PhD.
I’m still of the view that a PhD should be a program of research training. Those who engage in research require a number of common skills. Research universities have generally required the PhD for those who will later work in universities. The reasonable premise for this policy is that people who work in research universities must be able to do research. They must also be able to teach research skills to the next generation of researchers. Nevertheless, I don’t see why everyone who teaches design, art, or professional skills such as illustration should have a PhD.
Requiring everyone to have a PhD simply because they teach at a university involves government policy decisions that do not always seem to make sense.
These issues are bound up in further questions. If you ask the “five whys,” you get back to a number of reasons — some of these explain why without making the answer reasonable.
In 1950, there were probably around 2,000 or 3,000 universities in the world. Today, there are between 14,000 and 22,000 universities, depending on whose figures you use.
In 1950, however, there were many different kinds of institutions for tertiary education that were not universities. These institutions were engaged in what the European Union now labels third cycle education. In most nations, the professional training for artists, designers, and illustrators took place in specialized institutions of higher education such as polytechnics, design schools, art schools, art academies, colleges of art, colleges of design, art and design schools, architecture academies, and technical institutes. Many teachers’ colleges and normal schools also included art programs to train people who would teach art, design, and illustration in primary schools and secondary schools.
To teach in those schools, one did not require a PhD. One required other kinds of degrees — together with evidence of professional achievement in the fields in which one might teach. For genuinely skilled professionals, a degree might not be required at all. People who had created and managed successful design firms or strong advertising agencies, or people who had illustrated numerous books, might be offered a professorship with no degrees at all. Their experience, skill, and reputation were the basis of an academic teaching appointment.
A reasonable comparison might be a medical school. One would expect a professor of surgery to be a skilled surgeon. The general qualification for a surgeon would be an MD or even a BMed, depending on what nation the surgeon studied and worked in. It would not be a PhD. One would expect a researcher in anatomy to hold a PhD, but the anatomy professor would dissect corpses without performing surgery on a living patient.
In the past few decades, many of the world’s governments merged all the many forms of higher education into the institutions now called universities. In the process, important issues were lost. One such issue involves the distinction between different *kinds* of education.
In most nations, these many kinds of education have all been merged into the single institution labeled by the term university. Unfortunately, this means that many policies have been stretched to cover kinds of education for which they were not originally intended — and for which they are unsuitable.
Not all universities require a PhD to teach art, design, or medical illustration, not even research universities.
In North America, many first-rate research universities decided that they do *not* require a PhD to teach in such subjects as art, design, or illustration. This is even the case where top-ranked scientific and professional schools require illustrators. One is not required to have a PhD to become a lecturer or professor of medical illustration or technical illustration. There are relatively few programs in medical illustration. This is a specialized professional skill, with few high level practitioners. I’ve checked several programs in medical illustration. I find professors without a PhD, including full professors.
In my view, governments that decided to force skilled practicing professionals to earn a research degree to teach advanced professional practice made a serious mistake. That’s something we cannot unravel.
My view of the PhD curriculum has been based on the principle that the PhD degree is a research degree that trains people to do research. They should gain the skills that will eventually lead to a research career. Along the way, those same skills — together with added skills — should permit those who work at university to teach others. These skills are necessary for — but not sufficient to — become PhD supervisors.
This is parallel to the principle that one must be a successful illustrator to teach illustration. Solid skills and professional experience are necessary for those who supervise advanced illustration students in their final degree projects. These are necessary, but not sufficient.
To me, the question is not what a PhD degree should be. The question is whether every set of advanced skills should be labeled as research and jammed into the model of the PhD. I don’t think it should.
Unfortunately, this position doesn’t conform to government policy. The nations in the Bologna accord have fitted all university education into a common set of standards labeled the “third cycle.” The degrees awarded in the third cycle are *also* labeled with the designations “PhD,” “doctorate,” and “level 8.”
The general European Qualifications Framework appears here:
http://ecahe.eu/w/images/3/34/EQF.pdf
The document for specific qualifications, including the third cycle level 8, or the PhD, or doctorate, can be found here:
http://ecahe.eu/w/images/7/76/A_Framework_for_Qualifications_for_the_European_Higher_Education_Area.pdf
Producing administrative documents that harmonize what were once variable and different national university systems required a certain level of structural abstraction. To make it general and abstract, it was necessary that the document did not ensure that the *content* of these structures was genuinely equivalent.
To make the Bologna system work, it was necessary to harmonize structures in a way that would allow everyone within those structures to transfer across and between the university systems of the different nations. This required an abstract kind of language that would permit systems to obscure and often disguise different cultures, different educational systems, and the different mind sets that emerged from living and working in these different systems.
The Bologna system sometimes disguises different sets of skills and understandings under common terms. As a result, people may read the same words while interpreting them in quite different ways.
This also affects nations that have in turn harmonized their educational system to fit the Bologna System. Australia and New Zealand built their university systems on the British model. Because UK universities participate in the Bologna system, the universities of Australia and New Zealand have also come to harmonize with the Bologna system.
Added to this is the fact that there is often a confusion between very different modes of knowledge creation and advanced skill. All research requires knowledge creation, but not all knowledge creation constitutes research. There are many different modes of knowledge creation. Conducting research and demonstrating research skills at the level of a PhD involves a specific range of issues.
Peter Murphy, former Head of the School of Creative Arts at James Cook University, describes some of the key issues and common confusions in an article titled, “Design Research: Aesthetic Epistemology and Explanatory Knowledge.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872617300655
While I agree with Murphy’s views, these views partly run counter to the policy at many universities in the Bologna system. This is especially the case for new universities that used to be independent art and design schools. It also affects universities that have absorbed other kinds of institutions.
It seems to me that current third cycle policy means that many valid and important creative practices will ultimately be conflated with research, often with problems. The result is often a PhD degree (third cycle level 8 doctorate) for people who may be excellent at what they do without being able to do research. This is an unfortunate outcome with problematic consequences for the world.
Mats Alvesson of Lund University describes some of these consequences in a recent (2014) book titled The Triumph of Emptiness: Consumption, Higher Education, and Work Organization. Here is the Oxford University Press overview:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-triumph-of-emptiness-9780199660940
You can buy the book at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Triumph-Emptiness-Consumption-Education-Organization/dp/0198708807
https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Emptiness-Consumption-Education-Organization/dp/0198708807
The problem of requiring a PhD to teach design, art, or illustration is nicely illustrated by the draft of an article I have been reading. The authors report on the experience of artists in a nation whose government mandated the PhD for art and design teachers in 2008. The mandate required artists who taught at universities to enroll in and earn a PhD or be fired from their teaching jobs.
This nation has roughly 60 universities. Over the decade sine 2008, a dozen of those 60 universities launched PhD programs in art and design from scratch. The people who developed and managed these programs were not themselves researchers. Even in the traditional research disciplines, however, many of the 60 universities would hardly be recognized as universities in the UK, Europe, or North America.
In trying to find out the content and curriculum of these PhD programs, I found university web site after university web where it was impossible even to find a description of the school or faculty that awards the degree. One or two web sites had little more than the welcome page and a page where students can pay tuition online. Even so, these are accredited universities that award a PhD in their home country.
Perhaps this is an acceptable situation if the primary purpose of the PhD is to provide a work certificate. If, however, the PhD degree should provide research training, this raises important curriculum issues that seemed to me the major question in this thread.
I do *not* think that skilled professionals in such fields as art, design, and illustration should require a PhD.
The leaves us with a genuine problem. This problem arises from higher education policies enacted by the governments of the world. As a result of these policies, the PhD degree means many different things in the world’s 14,000 to 22,000 universities.
As you note, the decision to require a PhD of everyone arises from policies that force people to make career choices that enable them to work at university — including university art and design schools. These policies may, in fact, deprive professional schools of genuine professional expertise amongst the teaching staff.
Warm wishes,
Ken
Ken Friedman | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
—
Martin Salisbury wrote:
—snip—
Thank you for your important contribution, which brings welcome balance to this crucial topic. I also feel that I 'inhabit a different world' and it is reassuring to read that I am not alone. Fortunately, in the UK, research in Art & Design is evolving to embrace and employ creative practice. But the increasing blanket insistence on a PhD qualification for university posts in subjects that require high levels of professional experience and skill remains anomalous, particularly I feel in many of the creative applied arts subjects such as Illustration. I am often asked to speak about illustration in various countries in Europe and beyond, at universities and at publishing fairs. I meet many illustrators who also hold posts at universities, where they are greatly valued, revered even by their students, but who are now required to gain a PhD qualification in order to continue in post or to have any chance of academic career progression. They are teaching illustration practice at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Anecdotally, my impression is that their research topics often seem to involve spurious scientific, quantitive analyses of some obscure aspect of the subject, using little or nothing of their wealth of experiential knowledge as high level professional artist-academics.
The idea of a specifically tailored research degree for Art & Design/ Design is interesting. But I cannot help but feel that, in the university sector, such an award would be regarded as an inferior qualification to the 'holy grail' of the PhD. Many would therefore be forced to opt for the PhD, which might bring less to their subject knowledge-pool but might be more beneficial to individuals' careers (and would allow them to perpetuate the PhD as a 'training for training' cycle).
—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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
TAKE CARE: this message originates from an email service outside of our University. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and are absolutely sure that the content is safe
--
Please click here to view our e-mail disclaimer http://www.anglia.ac.uk/email-disclaimer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
