 |
 |
I prefer to think of two problems here. One is "what is a PhD." The other is the entrenched assumptions of how a PhD compares to other degrees. There's nothing stopping us developing a definitive document - a charter, or manifesto, or some such thing - that outlines the academic community's position on PhDs vs other doctorates. It might take years to get it accepted by a majority of academics. Given such a document, one can then envision an educational program for the public at large. There's a lot of history and societal baggage to fight, but nothing worth doing is easy. ...hey, at least you can't accuse me of "thinking small." :-) Cheers. Fil 2009/12/8 Swanson, Gunnar <[log in to unmask]> > There seems to be a fair amount of agreement that a PhD is a research > degree and that a PhD should be granted as the result of a contribution to > knowledge and that the contribution needs to be explained in a manner. The > pressure to grant a PhD for other than research/analytical contribution to > knowledge seems to be attributable to ignorance or jealousy. I'm wondering > about another explanation (or another source of ignorance.) > > This is related to Fil's comments in favor of non-PhD, practice-based > doctorates. Most people (at lest here in the US) believe that there are two > kinds of doctors--people with MD degrees (AKA "real doctors") and those with > PhD degrees. Most people will tell you about someone getting "an honorary > PhD" when the honorary degree is almost invariably another sort of doctorate > (usually one the university does not grant on a non-honorary basis. Stephen > Colbert makes a big deal about having an honorary DFA. I don't think anyone > in the US grants an earned DFA.) > > Despite the fact that people at universities should know better, the same > attitude is prevalent. The Master of Fine Arts is the terminal degree in > graphic design practice. I get addressed as "Dr Swanson" by administrators > and staff who are not part of the School of Art and Design. (That's not the > practice in the School of Art and Design because it is dominated by people > with MFA degrees. The art historians have PhD degrees and the art education > people split between PhD and EdD degrees but studio artists have the power.) > It is assumed by many that anyone with a tenured teaching position must have > a PhD. It's very common that university teaching jobs require a PhD degree > even though they are primarily teaching positions and in areas without a > research concentration. > > The PhD and other degrees are not generally seen as different; they are > seen as unequal. In many (most?) universities (at least from what I've seen > in the US), the people with PhD degrees are the "real" doctors. Even though > an MFA is the terminal degree in a variety of practice fields, a PhD is the > de facto requirement for administrative positions in most universities. It > is also often the requirement for being taken seriously. > > Lubomir has it right when he says " the whole issue with the Ph.D. in > design stems from the award and promotion culture in academia." If the PhD > is limited to being a research degree (I don't have a dog in that fight) > then other degrees have to gain similar respect. > > I heard a discussion on the radio a couple of days ago where an advocate > for more science in psychology practice was objecting to PsyD degrees > instead of the PhD. His claim was that psychologists need to be more > scientific in their approaches and that the PhD teaches how to be > scientists. But if the PhD teaches how to be a scientist and researcher and > the PsyD spends the same time and effort on the practice of psychology, > wouldn't the latter likely be better and more thorough training for a > practitioner? I have no idea whether he was right about the comparative > quality of PsychD and PhD degrees but his attitude was clearly that the PhD > was "real" therefore whatever a PhD entailed was superior. > > The School of Communication here at East Carolina University has several > people hired to teach video production. They are filmmakers with MFA > degrees. They figured out that getting tenured and promoted was going to be > impossible. (Some communication research people suggested that they should > each make several films a year and then write articles about them as a > starting point, for example. Making a film is, from some comm faculty's > perspective, a trivial aside.) They are in the process of moving their > program to the School of Art and Design for various reasons including > general compatibility issues. > > If a university wants to teach filmmaking, it may make sense to have > students spend some of their time with film researchers but I hope it goes > without saying that they need to learn to make films from people who are > good at making films (as opposed to people who are good at conducting > film-related research.) The attitude toward degrees and worthwhile > activities of the School of Communication at ECU is not unlike the attitude > of many universities as a whole. > > It does not surprise me that some people see it as an easier project to > broaden the definition of the PhD than to broaden entrenched assumptions > that include the PhD being the only "real" professorial degree. > > Gunnar > ---------- > Gunnar Swanson Design Office > 1901 East 6th Street > Greenville, North Carolina 27858 > USA > > [log in to unmask] > +1 252 258 7006 > > at East Carolina University: > +1 252 328 2839 > [log in to unmask] > -- Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Ryerson University 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 Fax: 416/979-5265 Email: [log in to unmask] http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/