Hi Gavin,

You might be aware of the paper:

Pedgley, O., & Wormald, P. (2007). Integration of Design Projects
within a Ph.D. Design Issues, 23(3), 70-85.

The authors cite and analyse a few completed PhD projects in Design.
They use the projects to support the idea that PhDs in Design can be
based on practice.

Cheers

The paper:
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/desi.2007.23.3.70


On Feb 12, 2008 1:59 PM, David Sless <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
>
> I recall one such thesis to do with illustrating chemical production
> processes at Coventry University. Get in touch with Clive Richards at
> Coventry. He can probably help. My recollection is that the student
> was European.
>
> David
> --
>
>
>
> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO • Communication Research Institute •
> • helping people communicate with people •
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
>
> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
>
>
>
>
> On 12/02/2008, at 11:03 AM, Gavin Melles wrote:
>
> > Hello PhDisters
> > I would appreciate it if anyone knew of completed PhDs in Design
> > fields
> > (hopefully available as digital dissertations or contact details to
> > request this and discuss) with a practice based material focus
> > (including the production of artefacts or studio projects as part of
> > the
> > submission - so I don't want design history etc., as the focus), which
> > make any theoretical claims about pragmatism (Dewey, James, Rorty)
> > and/or use mixed methods. I don't particularly care what designerly
> > discipline it is from architecture, built environment, through to
> > interior, industrial etc. The aim, in addition to other things I am
> > attempting to pull together in writing, is to illustrate and
> > exemplify a
> > point. Appreciated.
> >
> >>>> David Durling <[log in to unmask]> 24/01/2008 9:17 am >>>
> > I thought that this article, which apparently appeared in the 2
> > November 2007 issue of the USA Chronicle of Higher Education, may be
> > of interest to members of phd-design list too.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > HOW EDUCATED MUST AN ARTIST BE?
> >
> > By Daniel Grant
> >
> > Job security is a relatively new concept in the ancient field of
> > teaching art. Historically artists have created, and been judged
> > on, their own credentials - that is, their art. And the master
> > of fine-arts degree, often described as a "terminal degree," or
> > the endpoint in an artist's formal education, has long been
> > sufficient for artists seeking to teach at the college level.
> > But significant change may be on the horizon, as increasing
> > numbers of college and university administrators are urging
> > artists to obtain doctoral degrees.
> >
> > We shouldn't be surprised; the M.F.A. has been under attack for
> > some time now. The M.F.A. has become a problem for many
> > administrators, who are increasingly uncomfortable with
> > different criteria for different faculty members. They
> > understand the lengthy process required to earn a doctorate - of
> > which the master's degree is only a small, preliminary part -
> > and see hiring a Ph.D. over an M.F.A. as the difference between
> > buying a fully loaded showroom automobile and a chassis.
> > Administrators like the background Ph.D.'s have in research,
> > publishing, and grant writing (though if their principal concern
> > were the teaching of studio art to undergraduates, they wouldn't
> > focus so much on the doctorate).
> >
> > Holders of M.F.A.'s - often adjunct instructors or would-be
> > instructors at universities - have noticed the trend, and many
> > believe that their degree holds them back in a realm where
> > advancement and larger salaries go to Ph.D.'s.
> >
> > The most recent development in the studio-doctorate trend is the
> > creation of the new Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual
> > Arts in Portland, Me., which offered its first classes this past
> > May for a Ph.D. program in philosophy, aesthetics, and art
> > theory. A studio M.F.A. is a prerequisite for admissions, and
> > the institute's president claims that the program "will provide
> > rigorous training that will help artists expand their studio
> > practice." His aim is to turn artists into theoreticians of art,
> > fully versed in critical theory and able to teach it at the
> > college level, but still be practicing artists.
> >
> > Other doctorate programs can be found at the University of
> > Rochester, Ohio University, and Texas Tech University (though a
> > large percentage of their students have performing, literary, or
> > studio-art backgrounds). More may be on the way: The School of
> > the Art Institute of Chicago, the California Institute of the
> > Arts, and the Rhode Island School of Design are expected to be
> > offering studio doctorates within the next several years.
> >
> > Studio doctorate programs do have high-minded and practical
> > aspects. They try to make artists better versed in critical
> > theory, which would presumably be helpful for their art, and to
> > help graduates get and keep university jobs. Another benefit of
> > a doctoral degree, artists and university administrators say, is
> > the ability to teach a wider variety of courses, such as classes
> > in art theory and history, previously the province of art
> > historians. However, the first goal has yet to be achieved - can
> > anyone name a great Ph.D. artist of our time? - and the second
> > merely indicates what is wrong in academe, which is that it
> > elevates credentials over everything else.
> >
> > And what of the students? Students by and large want their
> > studio instructors to be working artists. In fact, art schools
> > and university art departments promote their studio faculty
> > members to prospective students in terms of those
> > artist-teachers' presence in the art world, their commissions,
> > or their work in the realm of nonprofit and for-profit
> > galleries.
> >
> > I am not opposed to artists who want to pursue doctoral programs
> > in critical theory. My complaint is that, without a doctorate,
> > professional artists are finding it increasingly difficult to
> > get and keep a full-time job with benefits teaching B.F.A. and
> > M.F.A. students.
> >
> > M.F.A. and Ph.D. programs move in different directions. Earning
> > an M.F.A. means spending another year or so in the studio,
> > developing a body of work that, ideally, prepares students to
> > enter the art market. The program is a timeout from the world of
> > galleries and selling that helps graduates re- enter that world
> > more successfully after graduation. Doctoral programs, on the
> > other hand, are research-based.
> >
> > Pushing artists toward doctoral programs fundamentally changes
> > their focus and goals. The Ph.D. says to the university, "I am
> > committing myself to aca- deme," whereas the M.F.A. primarily
> > reflects a commitment to developing one's skills as an artist.
> > Requiring studio artists to become researchers as well would
> > diminish their ability to keep one foot in the exhibition world.
> > Some might be able to do it all - teach studio art, research,
> > publish, and exhibit - but not many. There are only so many
> > hours in a day.
> >
> > Devaluing the M.F.A. or making the doctorate the fine-art
> > world's terminal degree is likely to drive away professional
> > artists who have a lot to offer in terms of guidance and
> > example. Having active, commercially viable artists working in
> > colleges and universities is something that should be
> > encouraged. Are we likely to have artists of high caliber
> > employed at the college level if they are required to undergo an
> > academic program that takes five or six years, rather than just
> > one or two? Requiring a Ph.D. is also likely to drive artists
> > away from art, as time spent working on the dissertation equals
> > time away from the studio. Some artists may leave the field of
> > fine arts entirely, becoming theoreticians, historians, and
> > fine- arts scholars instead of practitioners.
> >
> > Inevitably, the years spent focused solely on theory will
> > diminish other areas of instruction. The training of artists has
> > already largely moved away from techniques and skills - how many
> > artists now can mix their own paints or even know what is in the
> > paints they buy? - and toward theory. Concept-based art is what
> > a good many schools already encourage their students to create.
> > The current training of artists barely maintains a delicate
> > balance of studio practice and art history, criticism, and
> > theory. Could such a balance be maintained with professors whose
> > education is weighted so heavily on the side of theory? It
> > hardly seems possible.
> >
> > Another scenario is that the same type of instruction currently
> > offered will continue to exist but will be provided by
> > overqualified instructors. Aestheticians, rather than working
> > artists, will teach basic drawing. Performing-arts faculties at
> > some universities are already seeing plenty of this. (A friend
> > of mine, a pianist who studied at the Juilliard School, Oberlin
> > College, and the New England Conservatory, needed to obtain a
> > Ph.D. in music to get a job as an adjunct teaching students at
> > the University of Vermont how to play the piano.) Writers, too,
> > are being told to get doctorates in order to teach college
> > students. The M.F.A. in creative writing is losing its hold, as
> > more and more writers seeking college-level teaching work are
> > choosing doctoral programs that have a "creative dissertation"
> > requirement.
> >
> > The shift toward requiring Ph.D.'s is likely to be slow and
> > uneven, as some institutions will balk at the trend while others
> > jump in with both feet. But ultimately more graduate schools
> > will have to create studio doctorate programs to meet the
> > demand.
> >
> > We are already on the slippery slope. Before we slide any
> > farther, we should set out what is actually desired in the
> > education of artists; what is the balance of manual, perceptual,
> > and conceptual skills that artists need to have; and to what
> > ends are those artists being trained. Judging artists on the
> > basis of their academic credentials rather than of their art,
> > and devising programs that lead them away from making art, is
> > absurd and ahistorical. University departments of art history,
> > the likely employers of this new hybrid group, should reconsider
> > this focus on academic qualifications. Do we really want to turn
> > the creation of art into a thing of the past?
> >
> > Daniel Grant is a contributing editor for American Artist
> > magazine and author of Selling Art Without Galleries: Toward
> > Making a Living From Your Art (Allworth Press, 2006).
> >
> > Copyright (c) 2007 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > David Durling PhD FDRS  |  Professor of Design
> > School of Arts & Education, Middlesex University
> > Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK
> > tel: 020 8411 5108  |  international:  + 44 20 8411 5108
> > email:  [log in to unmask]  |  [log in to unmask]
> > web: http://www.adri.org.uk |  http://www.durling.info
> > http://www.dartevents.net
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > -----
> > Swinburne University of Technology
> > CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
> >
> > NOTICE
> > This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for
> > the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is
> > privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use
> > is
> > strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail
> > and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be
> > corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any
> > attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have
> > received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214
> > 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept
> > liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay,
> > interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> >
> >
>



-- 
edgar rodriguez
lecturer
industrial designer, phd candidate
school of design, victoria university of wellington
po box 600, wellington
new zealand

office: +64 (0)4 463 6245
mobile: +64 (0)21 0561515