 |
 |
Folks, I have found the discussion on this theme to be very useful and interesting. I believe we are seeing the fundamental alternatives presented in this brief discussion, as if distilled from the collective discussions of the past recent years. For my own part, I find each of the alternatives reasonable and useful in their own context. Each is directed toward important kinds of problems and may have valuable results. I may be a bit more sympathetic to Sharon's ideas about a broader impact on knowledge building, but I think I appreciate, as does she, the potential value of other kinds of work. (By the way, the range of alternative that have been discussed are in accord with the range of alternatives that exist in other fields of inquiry. Some are tightly focused, others reach out in excellent ways.) Gunnar's excellent provocation about the relationship between practice and doctoral research is always a background issue for us to consider. I continue to believe that the Master's degree is the terminal degree of design practice, but it seems clear to me that doctoral work could very well make long-term contributions to practice. Doctorates in "graphic design" may well have great value for practice, particularly in exploring some of the areas of complex new work that are emerging in areas of kinetic typography, information design, and so forth. In addition, there can be great value for history, criticism, and theory in "graphic design" or communication design. I believe this is what Jacques is suggesting. I continue to see doctoral education as a terminal degree for design research and design education, with many new opportunities for employment in design practice. But the core of doctoral work is not, itself, a "practice" of design--though design practice and design projects may very well be part of the work. But in saying this I am simply rehearsing the arguments that we have presented in other contexts. We discuss this in some detail in the doctoral program description for our work at Carnegie Mellon. As an aside, I have learned that architecture programs in the US will move to a new standard by 2010. At that time, the BArch degree will no longer be regarded as the entry level degree for architectural practice. To be sure, i have not seen the documents describing this, but it is an interesting development that we should watch. Personally, I do not see this happening in any of the design professions that directly concern most of us, and I would be troubled if it occurred. But Architecture has its own special problems. So, there are many issues of concern in developing doctoral education--and I have several of my own specific concerns--but we do not really have a choice of whether to go down the path of doctoral education. It will happen whether we like it or not. The real issue for us is to think carefully now about how each of our programs will take shape. just some thoughts Dick Richard Buchanan School of Design Carnegie Mellon University