 |
 |
From John Langrish Chris said < It's not about evaluating different practices to a common standard. In research the only practice that counts is research (as John Langrish famously said in 2000).< Thanks Chris. I should make it clear that the above comment applies to the sort of research that is done for a PhD. It does not apply to grown up research as done by people who have a PhD. There are many kinds of research. Only some of them are suitable for a PhD. Chemists (in Germany) invented the PhD and in chemistry you are not supposed to do 'proper' research until after you have finished your apprenticeship by getting a PhD. The PhD is like an apprentice's 'master piece' that qualifies the apprentice to become a master craftsman. A PhD shows that someone has learnt the craft of doing research - so the only practice that matters for a PhD is the practice of research. Other doctorates exist for other practices - the doctors of music, law, literature etc are awarded for practice in those fields but the PhD in all subjects is for the practice of research. The connection between research and practice has been discussed for many years in areas such as law, Eng Lit, education etc. Trouble with art & design is that it seems unaware of the wider academic debate which decided many years ago that you don't get a PhD for practice. That's why the CNAA regulations for PhD referred to the 'candidates own creative work' being used as evidence. I have written lots on this topic. If anyone wants to read more, send an email to [log in to unmask] (Note there is no dot in jlangrish!)