Thank you for the support!
Have a Happy Easter,
At 07:23 PM 4/22/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>I agree with Oliver Haas's view that a designer may take a Ph.D. in many
>subjects, not merely a doctorate in design. There are, nevertheless, three
>provocative issues in his post to the list.
>This list was not established as a general forum for discussing all the
>issues that might be involved in designers undertaking doctoral work. The
>list was established after the 1998 Ohio State University Conference on
>doctoral education in design. The specific purpose of the list is to
>consider issues related to the Ph.D. in design. The welcome message we
>received on subscribing reads:
>Welcome to the PhD-Design discussion list.
>This discussion list has been established for the exchange of
>views and information about research training leading to the
>degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Design and cognate
>The term 'design' is identified here principally with the
>following fields: industrial, interior, theatre, automotive,
>furniture, graphic, multimedia, jewellery, fashion, and textile
>design, together with design management, crafts, ceramics and
>The genesis for this discussion was an international conference
>titled "Doctoral Education in Design" held at the Ohio State
>University, USA, in October 1998. Delegates felt that the
>business of the conference might best be continued by email
>discussion in the intervals between future conferences.
>It seems to me that the discussion may become livelier and broader because
>of the La Clusaz conference. There is nothing wrong with discussing the
>subject of designers who take a Ph.D. OUTSIDE design. While it isn't the
>list subject, it should probably be included here regardless. It is fair to
>point out that Lubomir was discussing the list subject, the Ph.D. IN design.
>As it is, I don't think Lubomir has driven anyone away. This has always
>been a quiet list. In the year and a half from November 1998 to March 2000,
>the list received 70 messages. April 2000 was unusual, with the highest
>number of posts ever, 24 messages. Nevertheless, it's a quiet list. If
>anyone has something serious to say, nothing Lubomir has written should
>have intimidated him or her.
>Most important, Lubomir never wrote that designers should not earn Ph.D.
>degrees. He distinguished between a doctorate in design practice such as
>the degree offered at Harvard University and a philosophical doctorate in
>the subject of design.
>Lubomir Popov is himself a practicing designer and engineer. He is also a
>research scholar. One issue that Lubomir raises in the debates here and on
>DRS is a call for clarity of distinctions.
>Those of us who are practicing artists and designers ought to welcome a
>colleague who raises useful distinctions. Like Lubomir, I am one of this
>group. I appreciate his distinctions. It seems to me that those of us who
>have earned our Ph.D. in other fields have nothing to fear from
>distinctions. Like Oliver, I am also a member of this group.
>Nothing in Lubomir's comments suggests that professional practitioners
>should not earn the Ph.D.
>Lubomir simply states that WHEN a professional practitioner earns a Ph.D.,
>it ought to be a philosophical doctorate with all that the Ph.D. implies.
>He distinguishes this from the doctorate in professional practice.