----- Original Message -----
From: Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]>
> What Ph.D. programs and subsequently the dissertations should be about
depend on
> what purposes they are supposed to serve.
Yes- contribution to an identified body of knowledge. That's the bottom line
of a PhD, if you like. It's a very impersonal objective. Of course there
are a whole host of accompanying benefits to pursuing a PhD, many of them
based on personal fulfilment. The rewards extend far beyond the written
words of the final submission.
> 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?
The additional rewards for completing an MPhil will be different to those
for a PhD. I think this is inevitable since one must apply oneself deeper
and wider (and for longer) to reach a Doctoral level. In so far as MPhil
and PhD degrees are *both* intended to contribute to an identified body of
knowledge (and hence both covering similar ground), it would seem to me that
the difference would inevitably lie in the 'weight' (or else there would be
no need for both). However, perhaps there is a more fundamental difference
between the MPhil and the PhD that I am missing? Perhaps, as you suggest,
they exist to serve different purposes?
> 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.
What is a PhD 'program'? Is this a course of pre-chosen elements (relating
to design) for students to cover as route-markers in their PhD? If it is,
it's not the kind of independent student-led PhD work seen in the UK. I can
see that there may be dangers of a 'get that piece of paper' mentally
forming if PhD degrees start to become formulaic (and hence predictable,
manageable and probably less intellectually challenging). It is easier to
follow a path than to make one's own way across rough country, but far less
fun and stimulating. I've not come across roll 'em out PhDs. Do they even
exist?
If people want to pursue a PhD for an ego-trip or to get a piece of paper,
that's up to them. It doesn't leave a good impression. But if we uphold
the ultimate test (whether a contribution to knowledge has been achieved)
students' motivations for PhD research are largely irrelevant. They won't
get the degree if they don't deliver. Of course, they're unlikely to get
the degree if their attitude is skewed either.
> 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.
PhD and MPhil work is carried out primarily to benefit the public domain.
MDes work (as with Bachelors) is carried out primarily to benefit oneself.
This is the qualitative difference.
Best regards,
Owain
---
Dr Owain Pedgley, R&D Industrial Designer
Sports SET Network: www.sportsetnet.org.uk
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|