I assume that everyone knows that I have no hostility toward design research (or design researchers) in general. I, of course, agree with Karel that we need more designers with a variety of analytical skills (for many reasons) and some PhD studies are a good path toward gaining some of those skills.

It is possible (maybe even likely) that I over-interpret or even misinterpret some of Terry's comments. He often clearly writes to be provocative and those of us who try to be provocative should not be surprised when others are provoked. 

In the American vernacular, the phrase "a PhD" can mean a degree or a person who holds said degree. Perhaps Terry meant the latter when he wrote: "Litigation, legal pressures and financial claims against designers will drive Art and Design design professions towards desperately needing PhDs as they have in every other professional discipline" (thus he is saying that we need some researchers around.) I assumed the former and interpreted that as a claim that gaining a PhD (defined as a research degree) was the reasonable, perhaps inevitable future for all design practitioners. Furthermore, the research he was pushing was clearly mathematical (which doesn't fit with my view of the graphic design world) and PhD study seems to be a remarkably inefficient path toward a legal defense.

Ken is clearly right when he says:
> There are and should be some people whose
> job it is to do those kinds of research. That is
> what a PhD is for. Our field needs more people
> with a PhD to undertake serious research. But
> the majority of serious practitioners probably
> don't need a PhD, and wouldn't want one

Terry's recent positions appear to be based on mistaken assumptions about what certain designers (graphic designers specifically) do for a living but they also seem to have a basis in contempt for certain designers and design fields. His values and choices make him believe that the fields should abandon what they do in favor of activities and approaches he appreciates. (Many people think that if law schools would just emphasize baking, we'd have fewer nasty lawsuits and more delicious cookies.)

It would be hard to argue against Ken's position that:
> professional practitioners of different kinds
> including designers ought to be able to read
> and understand research issues well enough
> that their practice can be informed and
> improved by research findings.

It is worth noting that, unlike the medical profession he compares designers to, design research is squirreled away in a variety of places and is not easily accessible (in several senses of the word.) Little of it is written to allow graphic designers (I'll stick to characterizing graphic design issues since this list loses too much in the overly broad) to answer the "Why should I care?" question. Some seems to deliberately alienate working designers. 

The graphic design profession (including designers, design firms, and design organizations) needs to grow up. This includes supporting research (in several sense of the word.) Design education and design educators need to embrace relevant (let me repeat--relevant) research and a variety of analytical thinking approaches. And design researchers need to take a big part of the responsibility for the problem. 

Ken also says:
> It is the peculiar nature of life at university that
> we do expect many of our teachers to be able
> to understand research at a high enough level to
> teach, so many universities now expect all staff
> to hold a PhD. 

I hope that this is an explanation rather than a defense. Auto mechanics should understand business but if we expect them to have MBAs, we should also expect them to know less about how to fix cars. 

Ken tell us that:
> Only when more designers and artists have a
> solid research foundation will we see designers
> and artists rising into university leadership roles
[snip]
> designers who also conduct research have a
> role to play in university governance.
 
I think we need to reconsider the notion that universities are all about research in the sense that Ken seems to be defending in his objections to broadening the definition of a PhD. If this sort of research is the exclusive mode, the role of design in universities becomes more like the role of military strategy in a history department--a subject of consideration but hardly central. Someone who wants to be an army officer might do well to get a degree in history but if we lead students to believe that the path to battlefield glory is a history degree, we do a disservice to history and contribute to an incompetent military. (Some may object to the analogy and you're right: If West Point would just emphasize baking, we'd have fewer wars and more delicious cookies.)

There has been much discussion here about what a PhD is or should be. I suspect that nobody wants to defend adding a concentration in faculty governance to the list of competencies the degree should imply.

And to everyone who is setting "nomail" and going off to a holiday, see you next year and best wishes from just south of the Great Dismal Swamp.

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA

[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006

at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839 
[log in to unmask]