Dear Lubomir,

The percentages I use to clarify Flexner's report are a restatement
of Flexner's findings. It is hard to see anything wrong with that.
Percentage statements give a clear, simplified model of the
phenomenon. Models simplify. (For nice discussion of this issue, see
Varian 1997.)

You are right to criticize my rough approximations on
university-level design education. They were too general and I failed
to distinguish among the different fields and disciplines. I used an
overly general approximation to make a reasonable point. Let me try
to clarify my views. If you disagree with my clarified position, I
would be curious to know your view of the situation.

One of the critiques made against Flexner's report was that he seemed
to condemn most of the schools in an entire field. There was much
nitpicking on details because there was so little to criticize in
Flexner's view of the field as a whole. The field was in poor
condition.

The book review in this month's Design Research News offers a more
nuanced view of the details than I expressed in my response to
François-Xavier. I am aware of a many specific problems and cases.
However, until there is a major study of our field as a whole with
school-by-school survey and reports, it is inappropriate to discuss
specific schools. Without enough data on the many individual schools
to permit reasonable comparisons, it is also inappropriate to offer
specific cases in comparison.

Nevertheless, I do have a good general overview of how the occurrence
of problem cases, and I am aware of the problems that occur and where
they occur. This information, and my knowledge of education history
led me to compare design schools offering research degrees with
medical education at around 1908.

I agree with your critique of my broad generalization. The detailed
analysis of such a broad generalization is bound to reveal flaws. The
position is nevertheless reasonable on core issues.

Let me clarify my criticism of research and research training in
design schools.

First, I did not criticize studio programs, guild education,
vocational education, or practitioner training. My note to
Francois-Xavier addressed problems in art and design schools that
offer research degrees. This includes research degree programs
offered at independent schools of art and design, and research degree
programs university faculties or schools of art and design.

Second, I did not criticize research programs in the design
disciplines OUTSIDE art and design schools. I did not criticize
university-level research education in informatics, information
science, engineering, policy studies, architecture, urban planning,
or the several other fields that may be labeled as design disciplines.

The rare exceptions that fall within my critique are cases where a
research degree program that would generally be located in a school
of art and design is offered in a school that bears another label. If
ceramic design is offered in a college of engineering, and if the
ceramic design program offers a PhD, it would constitute an
exception. This is also the case for some industrial design and
furniture design programs in architecture schools that offer a PhD.

My sweeping generalization applied ONLY to universities or
independent art and design schools that offer research degree
programs in design or offer a PhD in design. In some circumstances,
this included research degree programs in art.

Two kinds of cases require detailed clarification. The generalization
does cover studio programs in the case of otherwise-excellent studio
program that award a PhD for studio work.

Several programs in the UK now give a PhD for studio work. One
notable example is a recent PhD awarded for what would have been an
admirable MFA. The thesis offered a fine summary of the specific
technique used by the designer, along with a nice essay on history.
It included a so-called contextual review in lieu of a literature
review, and the contextual review offered a useful dip into the
literature locating the candidate's interests in terms of the field.
This would have been an admirable MFA thesis and a fine degree.

The degree was not an MFA, however. It was a PhD. It would have had
many virtues as a studio degree supported by a fine practitioner
thesis. Instead, it had severe flaws as a research degree. There was
no foundation in the extensive literature that should have been
reviewed for a research degree. There was no methodological inquiry
and no presentation of research methods. Most important, there were
no findings beyond the presentation of artifacts.

My generalization also covers art and design schools that offer
acceptable research programs in one design department while
permitting severely flawed projects in another.

If a university permits questionable research degrees in furniture
design, the very fact that such degrees are permitted sheds
questionable light on the school. Even though research degrees in
industrial design may be fine where the PhD in furniture design is
dodgy, the general problem of dodgy degrees places that university in
question as an institution offering research degrees in art and
design.

One of the general principles of North American research universities
is that all doctoral programs and research training programs must
meet a certain general standard of excellence on a university-wide
basis. This is why most North American universities are taking such
time to gear up their doctoral education in design. This is not the
case everywhere else in the world.

The empirical basis of my general views involves four major studies
and two smaller studies on university-level art and design schools,
along with one major study on art and design professionals. These
seven studies - and many consultancies and other projects - span
three decades from 1972 to 2003. I will summarize these [see footnote
below] if you wish to consider my empirical data and personal
experience. My views involve more than a subjective perception. My
views are based on thirty years of careful fieldwork, documentary
research, and inquiry. At different times, I studied nearly every
college or university art and design program in North America by
direct visit, interview, survey, or documentary review, and I later
studied many schools in Europe.

One of the challenges of participating in an academic discussion list
involves transparency and accountability. When does a post require
accountability? When must we distinguish between statement of
personal belief or subjective perception and statements that entail
truth claims? If we are offering our views or perceptions, we require
nothing more than our direct statement. We all post views of that
kind from time to time. Others are entitled to challenge our views by
posing their views against ours.

When we post statements that offer historical claims or truth claims,
others are free to challenge us or question us in different ways. My
view is that the preferable response to such a challenge or question
involves substantiating historical claims and truth claims with
reasoned argument and evidence. I also believe that a serious
challenge or question requires reasoned argument from evidence. I do
not demand that anyone else accept this view or participate this way.
In some cases, a good question or a pointed comment is perfectly
fine. I prefer to work the issues though and provide sources for
those who want to review the evidence to reach their own conclusions.
I dislike argument by assertion. I do not ask anyone to believe me
simply because I say that something is so. I would rather lay out the
case and let people reach their own conclusions.

Francois-Xavier asked some fair questions. He also made a few truth
claims that seemed wrong to me. While I agreed with François on
several principle issues, I disagreed on certain issues. I posted a
response on those issues.

In the course of clarifying my views, I drew an analogy to the
Flexner report. This first involved stating Flexner's findings in
statistical form. This was reasonable and accurate. I also
generalized some issues and suggested that the same figures roughly
hold for research, research training, and research degrees in art and
design schools. Since I clearly cannot substantiate those exact
figures in an analogy, you are right to challenge me.

Despite the rhetorical device, however, I suggest that I have good
reasons to draw parallels. Perhaps the figures are different, but
many of the issues find reasonable parallel. Please review the
footnote summary below for an account of my direct experience and
documentary and survey research into these issues.

I will close by agreeing with you on an important point. You write,
"the design discourse is more about philosophy and principles as well
technical ingenuity rather than journeymen's pride." Fair enough.

The reason I addressed those other issues is that they came up in
specific reference to the book review I wrote in this month's Design
Research News. It seemed to me that transparency and accountability
suggested a clarification. The other issues developed naturally in
the course of my response.

Best regards,

Ken


--


[Footnote]

Summary of research projects and experience

Between 1974 and 1976, I made a major study of North American art and
sign schools as part of the work for my own PhD dissertation. I
visited a couple hundred schools, I reviewed the complete university
catalogues and course catalogue of over 4,000 colleges and
universities, and I conducted surveys and interviews with a several
hundred art and design professors.

My focus at that time was the sociology of art, so I did not
distinguish design programs as a specific field or discipline.
Further, there were few research programs in art or design outside
the history fields, so my broad and reasonably deep knowledge of
these departments did not cover the issues I discussed in my note to
Francois-Xavier. Nevertheless, this research gave me a solid
background on the field. Some of the documents and field notes from
this work  [study 1] survive, located in the ATCA collections at the
University of Iowa.

In the late 1970s, I studied recruiting and hiring practices in
college and university art departments as part of a College Art
Association committee on these issues. In relation to this, I
communicated with a great many art departments and individual job
seekers. This work was focused on committee issues rather than
general, and it was not as broad in scope as the earlier work.
Documents and notes from my part  [study 2] of this project may be
located in the Archives of American Art.

Between 1972 and 1981, I served as a consultant and editorial advisor
to several standard reference works covering art and design education
in North America and around the world. These included the
International Directory of the Arts and The American Art Directory.
In this work, I reviewed every entry in each volume during my
consultancy at each book, often comparing the entries against
specific catalogues and other sources. This work was the equivalent
of an eight-year longitudinal study  [study 3] that gave me an
overview of the field covering the years 1968-1980.

Between 1972 and 1980, I also served as a consultant and editorial
advisor to several biographical reference books on individual
artists, designers, art and design historians, curators, and others.
The books included Contemporary Artists and Who's Who in American
Art. This afforded me a massive overview of individual career
patterns and achievements across the fields, and it gave me a deeper
insight into the level and quality of staffing at individual schools
where specific biographical subjects were on staff. This project also
functioned as a longitudinal study  [study 4] of the field. Surviving
documents and working papers from my work on these reference book
projects are partially located at the Archives of American Art and
partially at the University of Iowa. This includes working drafts,
proofing sheets, and finished books.

Between 1983 and 1985, I undertook a massive survey of North American
art and design schools for a new reference book on the field. As it
happened, collecting and calibrating the data in a comparable form
was so difficult that we never completed the book. Nevertheless, I
did collect and study catalogues and extensive surveys on some 1,400
colleges and universities  [study 5]. The surviving completed survey
forms are housed at the University of Iowa.

In the early 1990s and again in the late 1990s, I made a less
detailed survey of art and design schools. This time I covered both
North American schools and European schools, and this time, I DID
focus on design education  [studies 6 and 7]. I discuss some of my
conclusions in the paper "Design Science and Design Education"
(Friedman 1997a).

While this study did not focus on design fields outside art and
design schools, there was a substantial response to this paper from
schools outside art and design. The Norwegian School of Management
produced an edition of this paper as a research report. We received
over 1,500 requests for paper copies of the report. I also received
nearly 2,000 requests for the electronic version I made available on
request to several elists and discussion groups. The vast majority of
these requests came from design disciplines OUTSIDE art and design
schools. The report was of wide interest across more of the design
fields and disciplines than those located within traditional art and
design schools.

While "Design Science and Design Education" addressed many issues of
professional education in the design fields today, I did not focus on
research training at the doctoral level in a specific sense.
Nevertheless, the work required to write this paper helped to shape
my general views, and the research I did enriched my view of the
different schools and programs. The notes and research material for
this project addresses specific themes and topics. Coverage was
extensive but focused, and selective rather than a general review of
the field. Some of the material for this paper is now housed at the
University of Iowa.

Some of the moe recent work has been published by the European
Academy of Design (Friedman and Ainamo 1999), Curtin University
(Friedman 2000), and the Center for Learning and Teaching in Art and
Design (Friedman 2002).

In recent years, I have consulted on the development of a new design
school. I have been asked for advice on different aspects of doctoral
programs and research training at several universities, and I have
served as a referee on research projects, faculty appointments, and
promotions. Some of this work involves formal consulting and
refereeing. Some involves informal advice to committee members,
professors, heads of school and deans. The material for this work is
confidential and it is not open for review.

I have also looked at the issue of research training and research
degrees from the perspective of accreditation and general standards.
While this was in management studies rather than in design, many of
the standards issues are similar, particularly in terms of
research-based professional education. I was involved in structuring
and gaining accreditation process for a master's degree program at
the Norwegian School of Management (sivilmarkedsfoerer), and I was
active in the university-wide application for high-level EQUIS
accreditation awarded to university-level business schools.

Finally, I have been an active participant, presenter, and keynote
speaker for numerous conferences and seminars on graduate-level
research training and doctoral education in design. I organized the
second international conference on doctoral education in design with
David Durling. We have also edited two special journal issues on
aspects of doctoral education in design.

--


References

Friedman, Ken. 1997a. "Design Science and Design Education." In The
Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of
Art and Design Helsinki UIAH. 54-72.
Friedman, Ken. 1997b. Design Science and Design Education.
Forskningsrapport No. 7, 1997. Sandvika, Norway: Norwegian School of
Management.

Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Design education in the university.
Professional studies for the knowledge economy." In Re-inventing
Design Education in the University. International Conference 1-13
December 2000. Conference Proceedings. Cal Swann and Ellen Young,
editors. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology School of
Design, 13-27.

Friedman, Ken. 2003. "Design Curriculum Challenges for Today's
University." [Keynote conference lecture.] Enhancing the Curricula:
Exploring Effective Curricula Practices in Art, Design and
Communication in Higher Education. Center for Learning and Teaching
in Art and Design. First International Conference at the Royal
Institute of British Architects (RIBA) London, UK, 10th - 12th April
2002. Co-sponsored by ELIA (European League of Institutes of Arts)
and ADC-LTSN (The Art, Design and Communication - Learning and
Teaching Support Network). London: CLTAD, The London Institute, 29-63.

Friedman, Ken. and Antii Ainamo. 1999. "The Problem Comes First:
Establishing Design as a Science-Based Profession," Design Cultures.
Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University, 294-316. European Academy
of Design Conference. 30 March-1 April 1999, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield, UK.

Kroelinger, Michael D. , and Jacques R. Giard. 2000. "Initiating an
Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program. Perspectives from a New Program."
In Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the Future.
Proceedings of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. David
Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United Kingdom:
Staffordshire University Press, 329-336.

Kroelinger, Michael. 2002. "Issues for Initiating Interdisciplinary
Doctoral Programs." Art, Design, and Communication in Higher
Education, Vol. 1, No. 3.

Pizzocaro, Silvia. 2002. "Re-orienting Ph.D. Education in Industrial
Design: some issues arising from the experience of a Ph.D. programme
revision." Art, Design, and Communication in Higher Education, Vol.
1, No. 3.

Varian, Hal R. 1997. "How to Build an Economic Model in Your Spare
Time." Passion and Craft. Economists at Work. Michael Szenberg,
editor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Also available at
Hal R. Varian Home Page. URL:
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/papers.html
Accessibility confirmed 2003 August 9]




--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University