 |
 |
Dear Stephen, Stephen B. Allard asked, “As I read more and more of your words I repeatedly come across your use of the word "serious" (i.e, serious research, serious research universities, serious inquiry etc.). … In my limited reading of academic writings, I do not come across this distinction when referring to research in design or any of the other disciplines. Would you care to add some further qualification to the descriptor “serious” that you use so often in your writings? … Are there examples of non-serious research or universities that we should be aware of?” This question involves four issues. 1) What does the word “serious” mean? 2) Do I use this word more often than other writers do? 3) What does the word “serious” mean with respect to research, research universities, or inquiry? 4) Are there examples of unserious research or unserious universities? Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate defines the word “serious” as: “1 : thoughtful or subdued in appearance or manner : sober — 2 a : requiring much thought or work <serious study> b : of or relating to a matter of importance <a serious play> — 3 : not joking or trifling : earnest — 4 a : not easily answered or solved <serious objections> — b : having important or dangerous possible consequences <a serious injury>” The Oxford English Dictionary concurs, in greater detail. [See note 1, below.] The word “serious” does not occur frequently in my articles on universities and research. If you do more reading, you’ll find that other writers use the word “serious” more often than I do. Don’t take my word for this. Check for yourself. You’ll find four of my articles on research and universities on WeTransfer. https://we.tl/JI5A8EFAN7 If you analyze these articles, you’ll see that I use the word “serious” 5 times in 127 pages. [See note 2, below.] To compare this with other writers, I examined a selection of 200 books on research and universities. I use the word “serious” less often than most writers. [Details on 15 books appear in note 3, below.] Discipline-specific books in world history, history of science, philosophy, economics, sociology, physics, and mathematics show similar usage patterns for the word “serious.” In many fields, the word occurs with greater frequency. Now comes the key question: What does it mean to use the word “serious” with respect to research, research universities, or inquiry? In this context, the word “serious” means that a process fulfills the claims made for it. When applied to an organization, it means that the organization meets its stated goals, and that it is suited for its designated purpose. I’ll give you an example of unserious PhD programs — and the unserious research schools that offer them. Many universities now award the PhD degree in design. The PhD is a research degree. At the same time, many journal editors have noticed a significant increase in articles from people with a PhD degree who can’t write an article up to the level of competence that one expects in a research article. The qualities required for a serious PhD thesis should enable the PhD graduate to write a competent research article. These are comparable to the list of qualities that Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre list in their 2004 book, The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. [The list appears in note 4, below.] Eric Arnould offers a good description of what a serious research article ought to be in a 2006 article titled: “Getting a Manuscript to Publication Standard.” You can download it here: https://www.academia.edu/32760936/Arnould._2006._Getting_a_Manuscript_to_Publication_Standard._Design_Research_Quarterly_1.1 While I don’t think that a PhD student ought the be required to publish before completing the degree, I do think that a graduate with a completed PhD ought to have the skills required for a competent article. This doesn’t require a major empirical, conceptual, or theoretical breakthrough. It does mean demonstrating the skills that Rugg and Petre describe. While we are seeing more first-rate PhD theses than ever before, we are also seeing more theses that evidence problems. Some of these problems are so basic that the schools that award the degrees cannot be serious as I define the word. Let me compare this with a well established field such as physics. According to the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the University of California at Berkeley, Princeton and Harvard are there world’s best physics programs with such universities as California Institute of Technology, Cambridge, or Manchester in the upper echelon. Nevertheless, universities that hold lower ranks are also good: a PhD in physics from Baylor, Wayne State, or Trieste will also be solid. For that matter, nearly any university with an accredited physics PhD ensures basic skills. This holds true across most of the established disciplines. This is not the case for design. A few years ago, I saw a PhD thesis from a university that represents itself as a leader in design research, with the claim of a superior PhD program. This thesis used six completely different reference styles. This is more than the signal of an incompetent research thesis. Six different reference styles in an undergraduate paper is normally considered a warning sign of potential plagiarism. We advise undergraduate teachers to run such papers through a plagiarism checking program. The fact that any school could awarded a PhD based on such thesis raises serious questions in my mind. This is not the only problem thesis I saw at that specific school. I sat in on a viva at the same school in which someone presented an exhibition of large, excellent drawings — together with a confused and problematic talk. The candidate referred often to Freud’s ideas and work without anchoring the comments in Freud’s own writings. One member of the committee asked the candidate why there were no explicit references to Freud in the thesis. The candidate’s reply was, “I could have referred to Freud if I had wanted to.” Again, the thesis passed. A PhD program that awards the degree to candidates of this kind is not serious. This is an example. I hope it makes clear the kind of distinction that I make between the serious and the unserious with respect to research and research training programs. If you go to WeTransfer, you will find three articles by Don Norman and Scott Klemmer, together with four articles that I wrote. These offer many examples of unserious research and unserious research programs. https://we.tl/JI5A8EFAN7 The issue of unserious research universities is slightly different. This involves two distinct problems. In one case, there are universities with unserious PhD programs in design that offer serious PhD programs in such fields as physics or engineering, comparative literature or history. In the other case, many good art and design schools for professional practice degrees have been designated as universities. Many of these are more or less what they have always been — good studio schools, but the PhD programs they offer do not match the PhD programs at serious research universities. It is relatively easy to describe a serious PhD program. At a serious program, the program ensures that all students get the skills and foundation they need to graduate with a solid PhD. This is the basis of a reasonable research career. A young relative of mine recently did her PhD in geophysics at ETH Zürich. She is now doing a postdoctoral research fellowship at The Carnegie Institution. If you do a PhD at ETH, the program ensures that you get the education you need for a research career. No one expects every student or professor at ETH to win the Nobel Prize, though 21 people who studied or taught at ETH have done so. What they do expect is that every student should master the research methods and literature of her field before they award the degree — they provide the resources to make this possible, and they require that every thesis should demonstrate the skills that Rugg and Petre describe. There are now several hundred PhD programs in design around the world. Many of these are unserious, in the sense that the programs do not ensure that every graduate with a PhD gains the skills he or she will need for a research career. At some schools with problematic programs, fortunate students do well if they get a good supervisor. This is a matter of luck rather than a matter of serious and effective program design. There is a much smaller number of schools where every student is assured of a solid education leading to a serious PhD. It is a necessary consequence of a solid PhD program that students who cannot complete a solid PhD do not graduate with a degree that permits them to teach research students elsewhere. An unfortunate consequence of unserious programs is that unqualified students graduate with the same degree that a qualified student may have. I discuss the consequences of this programmatic failure in the article, “Now that We’re Different, What’s Still the Same?” Not long ago, I was talking with the recently retired dean of one of the world’s top ranked design schools. In addition to first rate programs in professional practice, this school offers one of the oldest and best established PhD programs in design. Because of my interest in this question, I asked for his opinion on serious PhD programs in design. It is his view that there are fewer than a dozen. Another distinguished colleague from a top-ranked research university thinks that there may be as many as twenty serious PhD programs in the design field, and several dozen more where lucky students can do well. In my view, it is difficult to put forward a specific number. What I do say is that you should be aware of the issues that make a PhD program and the university that offers it serious. My apologies to you for using the word “serious” 52 times in this post. That is a far greater number of times than I have ever before used this word in a single document. Then again, no one has ever asked me to discuss this word before, and no one has ever suggested that I use it more than others do. Until now, I have not done so. There must be a proverb that covers a case like this, but I cannot find it. Yours, Ken Ken Friedman | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/ Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn — [1] The Oxford English Dictionary provides these meanings: 1. a. Of a person: having a grave or solemn disposition, as a permanent attribute or tendency; of an earnest nature; having depth or solidity of character; (now) esp.thoughtful, responsible; not blithe or carefree. b. Of behaviour, thought, etc.: characteristic of such a person; grave, solemn, earnest; deep, not light or superficial. 2. a. Of an action, occupation, etc.: requiring earnest thought; demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application; performed with earnestness of purpose. In later use sometimes colloq. without implication of earnestness of purpose: intense, determined. 3. a. Weighty, grave; important, significant, of great consequence. b. Of an injury, condition, etc.: significant or worrying; giving cause for anxiety or concern; grave, threatening, or dangerous. c. Substantial, considerable, or impressive in quantity or extent; great, large, abundant. In later use sometimes colloq. or humorous. 4. a. Earnestly keen or determined on a particular object, occupation, etc.; dedicated, committed. Also occasionally colloq. or humorous. b. Of a romantic or sexual relationship: characterized by long-term commitment; not casual or temporary; (of a person) (with about) intending to have a long-term relationship with a specified person. Also: designating a partner with whom one has such a relationship. 5. a. Of features, demeanour, looks, etc.: expressing earnestness, seriousness, or concern; solemn, grave, thoughtful. Of a person: having such a demeanour; displaying solemnity or seriousness. b. Chiefly poet. and literary. Inducing or associated with grave or solemn thoughts. Now rare. 6. Dealing with or regarding the grave side of a subject; not joking or playful. Of a person: acting or speaking sincerely, rather than in a joking or half-hearted manner, in earnest; (of a comment) delivered with earnest intention, not light, superficial, or joking. 8. a. Of literature, art, music, etc.: that deals with deep, grave, or profound matters; not intended simply to amuse, please, or entertain; requiring or meriting deep reflection. Opposed to comic, light, popular, etc. b. Of a writer, performer, etc.: engaged in this type of literature or art; not working in a comic, light, or popular style. [2] Friedman (1997) “Design Science and Design Education” — 0 [zero] times in 39 pages. Friedman (2002) “Design Curriculum Challenges for Today’s University” — 2 times in 37 pages. Friedman (2012) “Models of Design” — 1 time in 22 pages. Friedman (2014) “Now that We’re Different, What’s Still the Same?” — 2 times in 29 pages. In all, word “serious” (or “seriously") appears 5 times in 127 pages of text, roughly 1 time for every 25 pages. [3] 15 typical examples: Andrew Abbott’s (1999) Department & Discipline. Chicago Sociology at One Hundred runs 269 pages. The word “serious” occurs 39 times. Ernest Boyer’s (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered — 21 times in 165 pages. Stephen Brint (2002) The Future of the City of Intellect. The Changing American University — 20 times in 388 pages. Theodore Caplow and Reece McGee (1965) The Academic Marketplace — 13 times in 245 pages. William Clark (2006) Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University — 22 times in 677 pages. David Damrosch (1995) We Scholars. Changing the Culture of the University — 31 times in 245 pages. John Dewey (1997) Experience and Education — 3 times in 101 pages. Clark Kerr (1963) The Uses of the University — 2 times in 180 pages. Michele Lamont (2009) How Professors Think — 13 times in 341 pages. Alasdair McIntyre (2009) God, Philosophy, Universities. A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition — 13 in 245 pages. Martha C. Nussbaum (2010) Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities — 14 times in 193 pages. Walter Ruegg’s History of the University in Europe, Vol. 1 (1997) Universities in the Middle Ages — 22 times in 541 pages. Piet van der Zanden (2009) Dacilitating University — 9 times in 344 pages. Laurence Veysey (1970) The Emergence of the American University — 35 times in 525 pages. George Walker, Chris Golde, Laura Jones, Andrea Conklin Bueschel, Pat Hutchings (2008) The Formation of Scholars. Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century — 22 times in 257 pages. [4] Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre (2004: 6-7) offer a list of the skills for which we look in someone when we award the PhD degree: [Use of academic language] “correct use of technical terms; attention to detail in punctuation, grammar, etc.; attention to use of typographic design … to make the text accessible; ability to structure and convey a clear and coherent argument, including attention to the use of ‘signposting’ devices such as headings to make the structure accessible; writing in a suitable academic ‘voice’; [Knowledge of background literature] seminal texts correctly cited, with evidence that you have read them and evaluated them critically; references accurate reflecting the growth of the literature from the seminal texts to the present day; identification of key recent texts on which your own PhD is based, showing both how these contribute to your thesis and how your thesis is different from them; relevant texts and concepts from other disciplines cited; organization of all of the cited literature into a coherent, critical structure, showing both that you can make sense of the literature – identifying conceptual relationships and themes, recognizing gaps – and that you understand what is important; [Research methods] knowledge of the main research methods used in your discipline, including data collection, record keeping, and data analysis; knowledge of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in your disciplines, and of what is acceptable as a knowledge claim; detailed knowledge – and competent application of – at least one method; critical analysis of one of the standard methods in your discipline showing that you understand both its strengths and its limitations; [Theory] understanding of key theoretical strands and theoretical concepts in your discipline; understanding how theory shapes your research question; ability to contribute something useful to the theoretical debate in your area; [Miscellaneous] ability to do all the above yourself, rather than simply doing what your supervisor tells you; awareness of where your work fits in relation to the discipline, and what it contributes to the discipline; mature overview of the discipline.” Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press. [5] Friedman (1997) “Design Science and Design Education.” Friedman (2002) “Design Curriculum Challenges for Today’s University.” Friedman (2012) “Models of Design.” Friedman (2014) “Now that We’re Different, What’s Still the Same?” Norman, (2010) “Why Design Education Must Change.” Norman (2011) “Design Education: Brilliance Without Substance.” Norman Klemmer — (2014) “State of Design: How Design Education Must Change.” -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------