 |
 |
I have followed the numerous threads regarding the doctorate and it's relationship to practice. As Jacques has indicated, re: our faculty and programs here at ASU, we have many faculty (myself included) that pursued the Ph.D. after extensive time in practice and after completion of professional degrees in our discipline(s). The same is true for many of our participants in the ongoing dialogue that this thread represents. In short, many of us freely move back and forth between work that is "traditional practice", usually in a specialized area, and work that is funded research. Often, we may do research on issues related to, or directly linked to, practice in part because we have unique specialty areas of expertise gained from our doctoral work. This work enables us to combine our professional degree/professional experience background with the ability to do rigorous research. I make (as I'm sure others make) a conscious attempt to link the two when possible. Often, scholarly rigor for research and the time required to complete the work are far different from the fast timelines required for the practice related work that we do. Those are distinctly different outcomes just as there are clearly differing needs and reasons for the research-based Ph.D. and the practice-based doctorate. These two degree structures have distinctly different purposes for existence and, therefore, outcomes of what kind of work they produce. At ASU, when initiating the doctorate, we chose the Ph.D. (we are a research 1 university), we elected to require a professional degree in one of our college disciplines and a masters as prerequisite to admission. The clear focus is scholarly, interdisciplinary research. While we do not currently have a studio-based practice doctorate, we recognize the value of that model and often discuss whether we should have BOTH degree structures as options. The goals of the two paths (research doctorate; practice doctorate) are significantly different as noted in many of the posts, including Ken's (below). Institutions struggling with focus of doctoral work and roles of faculty in delivery of doctoral programs need only look at the goals of the institution, academic unit, and of individual faculty to establish a clear long-term strategy for an appropriate academic model. I'm sure we all accept the fact that there are differing models. To recognize the differing models and select a long-term strategy for our institution, we must recognize the difference between a research degree and a degree model that prepares students for, as Ken's thread points out, advanced practice. mike -------------------------------------------- Michael D. Kroelinger, Ph.D., AIA, FIIDA, LC Professor College of Architecture & Environmental Design Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-2105 480.965.5561 (O) 480.965.9717 (F) -----Original Message----- From: Ken Friedman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:14 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Ph.D., MFA, research, and practice Dear Colleagues, Since Gunnar opened this thread with a note from a post I wrote in an earlier thread, I would like to render my thoughts more precise. The Ph.D. is a research degree. It is not a degree in advanced practice. There are important and serious issues to be considered regarding the kinds of research, and the nature of research needed for design, but this is another issue. I find myself in agreement with most of what I read here. There is no conflict between a dual track career in professional practice and research. A skilled practitioner whose already holds a degree in professional practice may well go on to earn a Ph.D. we have many good examples of this career path in our field. Lorraine Justice, David Durling, Nigel Cross, and Klaus Krippendorff are all examples of skilled practicing designers who hold a Ph.D. A second career path is often neglected in our list discussions. That is the professional doctorate. There are good doctorates in the professional practice of design. These include D.Des., and D.Arch., as well as D.Eng., Dr.Tech., and others. In saying that the MFA is and ought to be the highest professional PRACTICE degree in specific design field such as graphic design, I want to draw a distinction. The distinction is that there seems to be little need for a doctorate in a SPECIFIC FORMS OR MEDIA of design practice. A doctorate in graphic design practice does not seem useful. In contrast, there is much value in a professional doctorate in the general practice of design. This is a doctorate in the general and applied principles of the design process, with application to a specific field of practice. In past debates, some designers have argued that these are lesser degrees than the Ph.D. I argue that they are different kinds of degrees. No one would argue that a physician with her MD or a lawyer with his JD is a lesser person than a mathematician with his PhD or a philosopher with her PhD. Quite the contrary, the physician and the lawyer are typically held in high esteem and paid far more than scholars. In general, the research degree and the advanced degree in the professional practice of design are and ought to be distinct. Consider the MD degrees. This is a doctorate in the professional practice of medicine. One does not earn an MD in thoracic surgery or psychiatry. One earns a doctorate in the general practice of medicine. Later, one goes on to specialize. Given the structure of design education, it is clear that some specialization - graphic design, interior design, industrial design, and so on - may be done before the professional doctorate. Nevertheless, the doctorate should be an occasion to examine and work with design as a general process. It is precisely the need for advanced practitioners with doctoral education who may not be research centered that justifies the importance of a professional doctorate. This includes training in clinical and applied research, as it does for the medical doctorate, and it includes training in reading and rendering pure research applicable. In contrast with the Ph.D., it does not require basic research training with the broad and deep training in research methods, general research skills, and a generalizable thesis that typify a good Ph.D. Ken -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Technology and Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University