Dear Jean,
The material artifact embodies knowledge. When making discourse at this level, I am pretty much aware of various approaches to knowledge production and constitution. Things look different from each vantage point.
The big issue is with externalizing and explicating the knowledge embedded or encoded in the artifact so that it is ready for dissemination. Not every user can reconstruct properly the knowledge embedded in the material artifact. By the way, such things are done very often in reverse engineering and that activity is considered a serious work of its own. Further, it is even more difficult to reconstruct the process. This is not a simple endeavor. I explicitly accept the knowledge value of the new artifact. But I would go one step further and ask the designer to externalize, explicate, and codify this new knowledge according to particular standards and norms of an intellectual activity like the Ph.D. By the way, engineers do that and do not complain that it is useless. In fact, it is part of their culture of documenting the process and submitting it for review and approval.
I was thinking today that the whole issue with the Ph.D. in design stems from the award and promotion culture in academia. The Ph.D. is a award and a promotion requirement. There is no similar award for design work. When such a award is institutionalized and it becomes a ground for promotion, designers will stop dreaming for Ph.D. degrees. They will be crazy about their own reward system.
I still believe that designers in academia should make a bit more effort and develop their doctoring/teaching potential. The dissertation process is a good tool for that. Designers will become more self-conscious, more reflective, more capable to explicate, externalize, and present their visual ideas in verbal format. In many cases this is important for teaching laypeople (students). Also, design professors will become better in developing their own design philosophy, their theories of action, design methodology, etc. Of course, they will have to put some time in reading. The doctoral training, and in particular training in philosophy and theory, will enhance their communication capabilities, both for interpersonal communication and reflection. I can say the same for the continuing research record that is required by many universities. There are some exceptions that deserved to be noted: very narrow topics, positivist methodologies, topics that intersect too much with the sciences, etc. For example, if a good designer spends his life studying the effects of particular paint chemical on building users, he/she will enter in an area that probably will stagnate his/her design potential. This might be a great service to health, safety, and wellbeing of people, but I don't think such engagements will increase the design potential of university faculty.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
From: Jean Schneider [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:51 PM
To: Lubomir Savov Popov
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On the PhD thesis
I would like to make a short comment on what Lubomir Savov Popov wrote :
"My idea is that the same model can be applied in the arts. Painting a great picture is still not knowledge production. Reflecting on the philosophy behind this picture, the method of thinking of the artist (dissertator), and so on, can constitute the philosophical part/dissertation. I have nothing against great artists. Actually, I admire them more than the researchers. However, I have a problem when someone paints a picture and wants to get a Ph.D. Here we face several questions: is it necessary to have a Ph.D.; does it helps in the artistic professions; etc. My personal opinion is that particular types of topics might facilitate the development of artistic philosophy and understanding, while other topics (and methodologies) might stagnate it. We can argue about this. However, let's look at a couple of precedent situations. If Corbusier, Wright, Gropius, and several other landmark architects have reformatted their publications, they could have easily complied with the highest requirements for obtaining a Ph.D. in architecture. They have created a new way of thinking, they have reflected on it, and they have critically analyzed past architectural developments. Even Mies van der Rohe who hasn't published much could have written down on paper all his talks and discussions and could have left us an example of dissertational excellence."
I could possibly agree on the fact that painting a great picture might not be knowledge production. But of course, the artistic activity (or the architectural activity, to stick to the examples at the end) is not captured by "a great picture", neither would architecture be captured by one single building.
I believe Dilthey has done a great job in demonstrating that the artistic activity is also knowledge production. He actually came to that conclusion by observing artists at work. I also did a couple of studies of material (e.g. notes, sketches, instructions, texts) of some craftsmen, and I would argue that there is, indeed, knowledge at stake (and I do not mean by that : technical skills, etc.). I also recall a presentation (that was very badly received) in which I was trying to examine the status of some (mostly architectural) sketches, and how they were indexes of a process of knowledge creation.
Best regards,
Jean
|