Greetings, 

Karel, David, Mauricio, João, many thanks for your useful posts. I agree with all your points. 

João, your point highlights for me that a research thesis is a form of communication between the author and the reader. In my view, this point supports thinking about research as a form of dialogue-speech where the aim is to convince a reasonable critic by presenting arguments. In contrast, efficacious-speech, such as poetic flattery or magic spells, aim to act on reality directly (see: Gaukroger, 2021; also see: Detienne, 1996).  

Karel, I appreciate your point about researchers needing to explain the motivations that back up their decisions. As I see it, this point is about judging that the candidate is thinking like a researcher, rather than, say, merely mechanically applying a predefined research process. Since research involves scarce resources and unforeseeable events, the capability to respond effectively to changes in circumstances is an indicator of research ability. 

David’s and Mauricio’s posts suggest to me a third point, one which is a bit trickier. Here point refers to theses where the flaw is in the claim. However, as I see it, this flaw is not exclusive to a particular field of research. Rather, arguments with flawed claims are field invariant, meaning that, for example, they might occur in design science research as much as in artistic research.

A flawed claim is one where the thesis makes a contribution, but the contribution is either not original or not a contribution to the knowledge of the field. This flaw is tricky because the flawed thesis appears similar in most respects to a sound thesis. The flaw is not that the evidence is defective or missing, but that the link between the evidence and the claim is unjustified. Consequently, the flawed thesis seems persuasive despite being unsound. Specifically, the flawed thesis appears similar to a sound thesis, except that the warrant that authorises the step from the evidence to the claim is assumed to have firm backing when in fact it does not. 

An example of a flawed warrant is when the evidence is relevant but not directly relevant to the claim. Consequently, the thesis may lack currency (i.e. it is not original) or authority (i.e. it is not integrated with prior knowledge of the field).

To illustrate this point, imagine a thesis that uses a warrant backed by out-of-date knowledge. Take, for example, Aristotle’s geocentric account of the universe. A key part of Aristotle’s geocentric account of the universe is the generalisation that all bodies move toward their natural place. In Aristotle’s account, earth sinks in water because the natural place of earth is the centre of the universe. Bubbles rise in water, because, in the geocentric universe, the natural place of air is a concentric shell surrounding water.

Imagine the following dialogue between an author who is asserting a claim and a critic who expresses doubt about the author’s argument:

Author: I claim that the natural place of earth is the centre of the universe.
Critic: What evidence do you have?
Author: My evidence is that I observed that earth sinks in water.
Critic: How is your evidence relevant to your claim?
Author: I offer the generalisation that all bodies move toward their natural place.
Critic: But what backs up your generalisation?
Author: Whatever Aristotle says about nature can be accepted as true without reservation (i.e. appeal to authority).

In this dialogue, the generalisation (i.e. the warrant) that connects the evidence to the claim is not firmly backed, because Aristotle’s geocentric account of the universe lacks authority and currency.

To extend this to a hypothetical example of a flawed thesis in design research, we can imagine the following thesis argument:

Author: I claim that I have created original knowledge for the field of design.
Critic: What evidence do you have?
Author: My evidence is these objects I designed.
Critic: How does your evidence support your claim?
Author: I offer the generalisation that all design activity embodies knowledge in objects.
Critic: But what backs up your generalisation?
Author: Professor X says so and whatever Professor X says about design research can be accepted as true without reservation (i.e. appeal to authority).

Two further kinds of flawed backing might be:

Appeal to the people: Whatever most people I know say about design research can be accepted as true without reservation.

Or,

Poisoning the well: Real design researchers say design activity embodies knowledge in objects, only phony design researchers say the opposite.

If the flawed thesis’s warrant and backing are explicitly articulated, then it is plain to see where the argument goes wrong. If the warrant is not firmly backed, then the researcher is not capable to qualify the originality of the claim or show how the thesis integrates the claim with the prior knowledge of the field. 

Flaws in claims are not exclusive to particular fields. Although the flawed thesis makes a contribution, the contribution is not an original contribution to the knowledge of the field.


Best,
Luke


Marcel Detienne, The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece (New York; Cambridge, Mass.: Zone Books; MIT Press, 1996).
Stephen Gaukroger, Failures of Philosophy: A Historical Essay (Princeton University Press, 2021).


Luke Feast, Ph.D. | Senior Lecturer | Learning & Teaching Advisor | Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies | Auckland University of Technology | New Zealand | https://academics.aut.ac.nz/luke.feast/
 


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