Dear Terry,

We are in agreement on this. I didn't limit the criteria to those I stated -- rather, I stated that all PhD degrees include those criteria.

As it is, I think your first criterion is stated in my note, though in different language. If not it is clearly implicit: "As an assessment of whether a PhD candidate is able to identify, design, create and epistemologically justify appropriate data collection and data analysis methods for the research problem they are addressing." You can;'t do what Rugg and Petre require or what I state without being able to demonstrate these skills.

The second criterion works in some fields, but not in others. Very few theologians or philosophers find employment as researchers in private industry. Om the other hand, relatively few theologians justify their data epistemologically. Though I may be wrong on that. Systematic theology is argued from epistemology even though the key premises are ontological. A question to be considered over beer -- in the words of A. E. Housman, "malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man." Of course, he goes on to say, "Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink for fellows whom it hurts to think." 

Golly ... I've suddenly remembered the title of the poem containing those lines: Terence, this is stupid stuff. I shall stop now lest I write myself into an inexplicable corner.

Either way, God's or man's, Milton or malt, I share your views on added criteria for the PhD in many but not all cases.

Yours,

Ken

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



 
>>> "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> 05/04/09 11:24 AM >>> 
Hi Ken,

Good post.

I think you miss out two of the main purposes of the PhD. These  emerged
over the last decade and its perhaps seen at its strongest in the radical
changes to research funding and pre-PhD training of the ESRC in the UK
around a decade ago (much design research that is not in the Art and Design
arena is funded under the ESRC - Economic and Social Reseach Council).

These other two practical purposes of a PhD are:

1. As an assessment of whether a PhD candidate is able to identify, design,
create and epsitemologically justify appropriate data collection and data
analysis methods for the research problem they are addressing. In essence
this defines a crucial difference between a PhD and a Masters. For a Masters
one is only expected to be able to implement an already defined data
collection and analysis suite, rather than start with the problem and
identify, design, create and epistemologically justify (the hard bit) which
methods one will use.

2. As an assessment of whether a PhD candidate is at the stage in their
skill development where they can be employed, nowadays usually outside
university, to provide research services in a self managed way. In other
words, whether they can set up their shingle as a research provider. In most
cases, it is the meausre by which a business, say for example a design
company  could employ a PhD and say to them, please evaluate our services
(or any other research task) and to expect that because the person had a
PhD, they would be able to identify the necessary justifiable data
collection and analysis methods to provide a professional evaluation.

For many of us, the core and only reason for the PhD is its role as an
assessment of competence in research skills. The formative process is
incidental as in the old, old days where the teaching and learning of a
candidate for  a  PhD was a private affair and completely separated from the
university's role in assessing it. That is why it makes excellent sense to
be able to award honorary doctorates like your own!

This raises up a particularly difficult issue in relation to practice-based
PhDs which I'll put up in a separate post if I get time later today.

Best wishes,
Terry

Dr. Terence Love, FRDS, AMIMechE, PMACM