Hi Rosan and others on the list,

I would like to expand Rosan's helpful question to ask not only what 
separates a PhD from a Masters but what differentiates a Doctor of 
Philosophy from a Doctor of Design. This may have been extensively argued 
at the La Cluaz conference, which I did not attend from far-away Australia, 
but I would like the list members, if possible, to clarify the debate on 
this as well as the distinction asked by Rosan.

I am an architect and interior designer, and currently embarking on the PhD 
journey - my research is to develop a theory / methodology of a hybrid 
installation art / architecture practice through examining my own practice. 
In my university, there is a growing tradition of obtaining a Doctor of 
Philosophy by artists analysing their own practice. The requirement is a 
minimum 50 000word exegesis (v. 100 000) and an artwork, though I am unsure 
if I will be doing this...I could not contemplate doing this without 
supervisor's beyond the architecture school, as there appears no tradition 
in Australia of a Doctor of Philosophy which involves the production of art 
/ design.

However I am still unsure of the ACTUAL distinctions between PhD and 
Doctor's of Design, perhaps even the master and PhD (beyond the time frame, 
and beyond the reality that many people can convert to PhDs anyway during 
Masters) and would really appreciate entering into this discourse on this list.

Thankyou all, Cathy Smith.

At 07:49 PM 7/08/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Dr. Pedgley
>
>Thank you for having taken the time to reponse so thoughtfully. Being a 
>student, I tend
>to ask many questions in order to understand. So, please bear with me and 
>correct me if
>I am mistaken.
>
>I would think that each level or type of education serves particular needs 
>and functions
>to suit historical circumstances. Take a look at the Ohio and La Clusaz 
>proceedings on
>doctoral education in design and we can have a glimpse on how all sort of 
>realities and
>arguments influence its development.
>
>What Ph.D. programs and subsequently the dissertations should be about 
>depend on
>what purposes they are supposed to serve. Although you have outlined the 
>requirments
>for obtaining research degrees, they are not reasons for having Ph.D. 
>programs nor do
>they characterize the nature of Ph.D. education. Do you not think that it 
>is illogical to
>use the fulfillment of these requirements to argue that the difference 
>between Ph.D.s
>and Masters is the 'weight' only?
>
>I may have assumed that a Ph.D. degree is on a 'higher' level than a 
>Masters degree, but
>I think I was actually after something qualitative not quantitative. I 
>question the'weight' by itself
>as you suggested can sustain the health of Ph.D. programs in design and 
>not let them
>degrade into something like "get that piece of paper" type programs or 
>serve the purpose
>of ego enhancement as pointed out by L. Popov in one of his previous postings.
>
>I would think that in order to justify the needs for Ph.D. programs in 
>design, they have
>to offer something qualitatively different from those of MDes,
>MPhil or DDes in order to serve some serious lack in the design education 
>and education in general.
>What do you think? What do you all think?
>
>Best Regards
>Rosan Chow
>
>
> > Rosan Chow wrote:
> >
> > >What I am going to say may sound offensive but I am actually sincere. We
> > have seen at the
> > >conference some research work done by Masters students that are very
> > similar to yours in
> > >terms of subject matter, quality, origin ality and possibly 
> independence.  I
> > would like to hear
> > >your response as how your work distinguish itself as a doctoral
> > dissertation. I think your
> > >answers will definitely make a contribution to the current debate. Look
> > forward to hearing
> > >fro m you.
> >
> > Rosan,
> >
> > I don't take any offence from your posting. You've raised a good point- and
> > one that is probably best addressed by first looking at the general
> > requirements for all research degrees, irrespective of subject area.  I'm
> > referri ng here to Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy
> > (PhD) degrees awarded for independent, self-directed research.
> >
> > 1. Students must register for a research degree with an academic
> > institution, prior to commencing their work.
> > 2. The final degree submission (e.g. thesis, artefact, CD-ROM, exhibition)
> > must form a contribution to a body of knowledge.
> > 3. The contribution to knowledge must be unambiguously stated.
> > 4. Training in research methods should be demonstrated in the final
> > submission (indicating competency to undertake supervision of future
> > research projects).
> >
> > The assumption in your note is that Doctoral research is in some way at a
> > 'higher level' than Masters research.  I think few people would disagree
> > with t his basic surmise, but quite what the term 'higher level' means in
> > practice is not clear to me for a number of reasons (and is what your post
> > is alluding to...).
> >
> > In my view, MPhil and PhD research in design should be no different to 
> other
> > subje ct areas in satisfying *all* of the listed criteria.  The distinction
> > between Masters and Doctoral work, to my mind, lies in the 'weight' of the
> > submission: in the depth of analyses forming the contribution to knowledge,
> > in the breadth of penetratio n of the subject matter and in the 
> significance
> > of what has been achieved.  For me, the distinction doesn't hinge on the
> > shear time spent, the volume of primary data collected, the amount of 
> effort
> > that has been involved or the thickness of the fina l thesis.  Nor, in my
> > opinion, do the variables of subject matter, quality, originality or
> > independence distinguish MPhil research from PhD research.  All academic
> > research submitted for a Degree should have such characteristics and 
> I'm not
> > sure t hat any particular subject matter should be deemed unsuitable for
> > Doctoral level research.
> >
> > So, to a direct answer to your question.  I consider my thesis to be of a
> > Doctoral standard because not only were my findings and conclusions
> > 'weighty' in themselves (they contributed plenty which was previously not
> > known), they also opened the door to many more opportunities for further
> > research (rather than just pointed to the door).  Perhaps the latter is a
> > suitable analogy for the 'higher level' that is Doctoral research: leaving
> > new doors open as well as closing previously open doors?  I'd be interested
> > in other people's views and trying to turn the analogy to plain English.
> > I'm sure plenty of people have written about these matters from all 
> kinds of
> > backgrounds.  Also, along the way, maybe we'd also benefit from trying to
> > pinpoint exactly what is meant by 'a contribution to knowledge in design'?
> >
> > Finally, in passing, the time constraints of the different degrees 
> (MPhil is
> > norma lly one year full time, PhD is normally three years full time) to a
> > large extent dictate what can practicably be included.  Plenty of time is
> > usually needed to make a weighty contribution.  For a MPhil, a contribution
> > to knowledge may be best achiev ed by way of a novel synthesis of what has
> > been written in the past but up until now has not been combined.  For a 
> PhD,
> > time allows for extensive empirical data from fieldwork and experimentation
> > to be gathered and provides opportunity for wider-ranging, more penetrative
> > literature reviews.  The resultant analyses and contribution to knowledge
> > will be more probing and more significant.
> >
> > Owain
> >
> > ---
> > Dr Owain Pedgley, R&D Industrial Designer
> > Sports SET Network: www.sportsetnet.org.uk
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
>
>–



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%