Friends,
Sitting here on a rainy day in Melbourne -- where Daria Loi recently
presented a terrific seminar on her thesis in a suitcase at Swinburne Design
-- I do want to note two facts.
The "Dance Your PhD" contest did not involve PhD theses in unusual forms, or
even research in unusual formats. It involved researchers interpreting or
communicating their research in the form of dance.
This is science communication, not science. The difference here is that
instead of Simon Singh writing about Fermat's Last Theorem or Prof. Paul
Davies explaining cosmology to the layman, this contest invited budding
researchers in "any scientific field, such as physics, chemistry, biology,
psychology, anthropology, or in science-related fields such as mathematics,
engineering, linguistics, bioethics, the history of science, etc." to make
their own "PhD dance" about their research.
One condition for entries is that these scientist-choreographers should
already have a PhD or be in the process of earning one. The PhD itself would
have to be -- or would have to have been -- a standard PhD using the
standard thesis model.
The dance would use choreography and the human body to communicate the work
that these scholars had done in the field, the lab, or even behind a desk.
For more on the conest, visit:
http://gonzolabs.org/dance/
See also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5865/905b
Without getting back to the debates, I'll point out the problem in a series
of concept maps or pictures. These lack two qualities required in a PhD
thesis. One is the metanarrative of research in which we explicitly state
the reasons for our research choices that we undertake in the process of our
research. The other is the reasonably explicit articulation of data that
allows others to understand what we have done. In some fields, such as
mathematics, chemistry, or logic, this would allow people to replicte the
research. In other fields, such as history, philosophy, or theology, this
would allow people to understand the issues and evaluate the key data and
crucial choices for themselves.
Design research involve both kinds of research -- we can replicate or build
some kinds of designed artifacts for ourselves to see if they work. In some
cases, we can only think about it to see if it makes sense. Let's avoid the
old argument here about research being retrospective. We often engage in
research to seek what we do not know, and in design research, this often
means shaping or selecting problems that design forward into new situations.
When we ANALYZE the research that others have already done, that analysis is
always retrospective because someone has already done the research. In
considering research by others, questions such as metanarrative and
examination of their choices and solutions is the issue.
In this sense, the organizers of the dance contest state that dance is
"perhaps not as data-rich as a peer-reviewed article, but far more
exciting." The expressive value rises dramatically. It does so at the cost
of both the meta-narrative and the ability of viewers to examine the data
for themselves.
To the dance contest, I say "rock on!" It's a wonderful idea, and this
offers excited ways to reflect on, consider, engage in, and explore research
thinking and research issues. This is much like Einstein's metaphoric
question of what the universe would look like if he could ride the front end
of a beam of light as a 19th century railroad planner might ride on the
cowcatcher of a steaming locomotive.
But as it was for Einstein, so it is for our scientist choreographers. They
do both parts of the scientific dance -- the dance of discovery and the
dance of analysis. We usually do the dance of analysis on paper so that
others may dance with us.
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Telephone +61 3 9214 6755
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:02:33 +0000, David Durling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Long term PHD-DESIGNers will remember debates here about innovative
>ways of disseminating the results of PhD research. Topics have
>included artefacts, talking [and non-talking] pots, a panoply of
>multimedia techniques, websites, research exhibitions, creative
>writing etc.
>
>Now the scientists are showing us the way. The weighty tome is not
>exactly under threat, but it is certainly challenged.
>
>Enjoy.
>
>http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1120/2
>
>David
>_______________________________________________
>
>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.org
>_______________________________________________
|