Hi Luke,
Thanks for your analysis and for the pointers to the work of Trafford and Lesham, and Hocky and Collinson.
I suggest that the acquisition of 'doctorateness' can be considered as a 'negative' concept rather than something to be learned - the process being more of the dropping of an unhelpful way of thinking and unhelpful tradition of educational culture and practices, rather than acquiring a new one.
From observation, one of the biggest problems of education is the enculturation of primary school teaching methods and educational habits and the repeating of them as the dominant style and practice of learning and teaching through secondary school, undergraduate and then postgraduate and doctoral education.
I'm referring to the educational structure of the teacher/lecturer giving/teaching the student something to learn by memory and then testing whether they have successfully memorised it - and if relevant, whether they can apply the information that was memorised. In this context, 'research' primarily refers to projects intended to reinforce and assess the student's learning in the same memorised information style of education.
There are a small number of learners who instead of the above conventional form of school/university education are subjected to the more useful problem-based learning (in which the learner individually investigates and obtains the knowledge to address a problem and develops ways of using that knowledge to solve real problems - in effect conducting novel research activities), or are autodidactic (in which case they have typically effectively learned to build a theory of knowledge by their own research). In both these latter cases, 'doctorateness' is already of the essence of what they do.
For those coming through the conventional education system, however, they must first learn to drop the educational habits and taken for granted assumptions that they have spent 20 years of daily practice acquiring. It is also important that the lecturers and supervisors of doctoral students have already done the same - not evidently true in the case of many doctoral supervisors whose main time is spent teaching undergraduate courses.
From observation, the dropping of the conventional school style of learning and educational culture is the hardest part of making the epistemic shift to being a doctor. Once the school style of thinking has been identified and dropped (which can take a couple of years!), the candidate's learning of a problem-based doctoral research approach (doctorateness) is relatively quick and easy, and easy to identify whether it has been acquired.
This idea of the necessary epistemic shift to a more adult, professional way to acquiring and using knowledge (the hallmark of doctorateness) is found in most fields - even in the sciences and technology. Many professional fields draw the same distinction as 'doctorateness'. For example, in mathematics, the ability to do mathematical thinking is considered different from having rote learned mathematics. Same is true for systems practitioners, engineering designers, social worker.... If Hocky and Collinson (2005) are correct in their analysis, Art and Design students should find it effortless to make the transition to 'doctorateness', because they are introduced to conventional tropes of school education later in their educational career (p81). (What I found most worrying and weird in Hockey and Collinson's work was the assumption doctoral candidates didn't have an identity independent of their making and research and that making or research was their identity or sense of self.)
In short, I suggest that school education practices projected into university are the main difficulty in helping candidates acquire 'doctorateness' that instead requires a more adult perspective on acquiring and using knowledge, and are indefensible when used in doctoral education.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love,
School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Western Australia
CEO, Design Out Crime and CPTED Centre
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
==
Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. (2005). Identity Change: Doctoral students in art and design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(1), 77-93. doi:10.1177/1474022205048759
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Luke Feast
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are the aims of doctoral education in design compatible?
Dear Ken, and all,
Thank you for your useful reply to my post on the aims of education. Although the three aims I identified in my original post were conceived for general education, I believe they also provide a useful conceptual framework with which to map the inter-concept conflicts within doctoral education.
Ken, your reply helpfully identified the limitations of transferring the knowledge-individual-society conceptual framework from general education to doctoral education. Furthermore, your reply identified particular intra-concept tensions, for example within knowledge development between creating new knowledge and preserving past knowledge, and within socialization between professional specialization and the need to educate citizens. I think there are good reasons to believe that the individual development aim also applies to doctoral education in design and, furthermore, that there are intra-concept tensions with this aim.
Trafford and Leshem (2009, p. 311) argue that when a doctoral candidate can demonstrate “doctorateness” it indicates they have accumulated learning about the processes that are involved in doctoral-level research, which shows they are thinking like a researcher. Trafford and Leshem (2009, p. 312) argue that until a candidate acquires understanding of “doctorateness” they may experience being stuck, feel self-doubt, or be unable to make progress. Acquiring “doctorateness” is a threshold concept that leads not only to transformed thought but to a transformation of the candidate’s identity into a researcher (also see: Meyer & Land, 2005). As I see it, Trafford and Leshem’s research illustrates the educative aim of individual development in doctoral education.
Hockey and Collinson have published several papers on identity change in doctoral candidates in art and design (Collinson, 2005; Hockey, 2003; Hockey & Allen-Collinson, 2005). Hockey and Collinson describe the sense of shock some students encounter when they enter the domain of research. The candidates may struggle not only with acquiring training in research skills, but also in the shift in their identity as a practitioner and their new identity as a researcher. Hockey and Collinson’s research points to the intra-concept tension within the educative aim of individual development in doctoral education in art and design. Burland et al. (2017) link Hockey and Collinson’s research on practitioner-researcher identity change and the concept of “doctorateness”.
In my original post I asked whether the aims of doctoral education in design are compatible. This discussion has been useful in testing the knowledge-individual-society conceptual framework. Not only are there inter-concept conflicts between the three aims, there are also intra-concept tensions within each aim. These conflicts and tensions are useful for understanding the debate on doctorates in design.
Regards,
Luke
Burland, K., Spencer, M., & Windsor, L. (2017). Exploring, enhancing and evaluating musical 'doctorateness': perspectives on performance and composition. In F. Nilsson, H. Dunin-Woyseth, & N. Janssens (Eds.), Perspectives on Research Assessment in Architecture and the Arts: Discussing Doctorateness (pp. 114-128). London: Routledge.
Collinson, J. A. (2005). Artistry and analysis: student experiences of UK practice based doctorates in art and design. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), 713-728. doi:10.1080/09518390500298196
Hockey, J. (2003). Practice-Based Research Degree Students in Art and Design: Identity and Adaptation. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 82.
Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. (2005). Identity Change: Doctoral students in art and design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(1), 77-93. doi:10.1177/1474022205048759
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 305-316. doi:10.1080/14703290903069027
Luke Feast, Ph.D. | Industrial Design | Senior Lecturer | Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies | Auckland University of Technology | New Zealand | Email [log in to unmask] |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|