On 7 Aug 2009, at 6:29 am, Christopher Kueh wrote:
> Thank you all for the responses to my email. While the debate/
> discussions are important and interesting, i might need to lead the
> conversation a little bit back to my actual question - structure of
> practice-led PhD. I'm just wondering should practice-led PhD be
> treated any differently from traditional PhD, in terms of candidacy
> process, research methods, to examination?
Chris,
It seems to me that in beginning to answer your question, we must be
careful about what you and I might mean by the terms we use. As you
use the term 'practice-led' PhD I am wondering what exactly you mean
by it? To me, all PhD study is research-led, whether or not there is
designing, whether or not there is a project (in this sense perhaps
all professional doctorates are practice-led?) Terms such as
'practice-led' have long seemed to me to have arisen mainly from the
needs of design practitioners to legitimate their practice as
research. Thankfully, in design, there does not seem to be a push
towards 'practice as research' in quite the same way as we have seen
in say the fine and performing arts. A major part of the problems in
discussing this subject over the years has been the use of terms that
perhaps nobody really understands. The paper by Stokes and Niedderer
that I mentioned in an earlier post, set out most of the terms
commonly used, and demonstrated their vagueness and inadequacy.
I have always found it more helpful to start from a firm position of
form and structure of a PhD, then think about the special conditions
that may apply should there be designing or other practical project
work.
The conditions that I apply are that the designing must be set in a
research framework, that the argument is made in words backed up where
it is helpful by the full range of media - drawings, photographs,
audio, video, exhibitions and so on - but the whole must be captured
and explained with great clarity in the thesis as an enduring record
and the published basis for interrogation by following scholars.
I agree with those who believe that undertaking a PhD with designing/
making is rather more difficult than a PhD without, for a variety of
reasons that include resource issues as well as the candidate's
abilities as a designer. We must also be very clear at the outset
about what is the purpose of the designing/making in answering the
research questions - framing these questions over time is also an
often neglected aspect of learning to undertake research at a
professional level.
I have seen some silliness about the role and timing of a related
exhibition. It is important to be clear about the purpose of an
exhibition of the work in supporting the thesis, its timing in
relation to the viva, and its capture in a suitable enduring record. I
agree with Ranulph's stress on the role of the viva, perhaps
especially important where exhibition/performance/building happen at
different times/locations to the viva.
David (an old Anglophone, but still forming an angle on research)
.........................................................................
David Durling FDRS PhD http://durling.tel
.........................................................................
|