Dear Keith, Chuck, Jean

Well... I actually don't mind teaching students who choose higher degrees to put off having to think about a proper job and who enjoy getting creative by practicing their 'skill-complementary technologies'. That's obviously what capitalist economies need to achieve the 'value-added' (so governments hope!) and maybe it's a perfectly fine reason for doing a Masters or PhD. Just as in any other academic field. Supervisors can always attempt to throw a little higher education across the path along their way.

What I don't like is seeing art and design practices calling themselves 'research' just because they have to, in order to access institutional funding.  But that could be OK too, so long as we could develop an understanding and appreciation of the strengths and weakness of 'practice-based' research positions, just as we have for 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' research. That task seems worthy of a few more PhD design projects -as David Sless shows in his recent comment on typographic research and practice. Maybe this is where we need to be putting in more effort?  Not so much inventing a new position, Jean, but building upon a position we already have?

Amanda






On 18/12/09 12:21 AM, "Jean Schneider" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Amanda, Keith and Chuck,

I have been watching the thread with some perplexity, and I think
that Amanda's addition and Keith and Chuck comments pushes me to add
my 2 cts.

My impression is that the discussion has been rather "conservative",
if I may say so. What I mean is that the values that are being
discussed (roughly stated : status of knowledge, research abilities,
abstraction vs. embodied, form of the final synthesis and proposal
etc.) are not radically different from what is expected in the other
faculties.
The (slight) problem seems to me to be more "economical" than
"substantial". In other words, there is an administrative pressure
(rather than, in my opinion, a market demand) for awarding PhDs in
design (as well as in art). And, for those of us who have or have had
a foot in teaching, we have been discussing how we could fit, into an
extended curriculum, the current practice in the continuity with the
MA education pattern (which is often a continuation of the BA
education format). Of course, this is a bold statement, but I do
believe that it is not so wrong... Or : even bolder : we suddenly
expect students to read (a lot), write (in the academical style), and
experiment (with a somehow Popperian ideal), when they have been
doing models, listening to people (and themselves) and worked had to
become creative employees for the (not so) creative businesses and
industry.

There are two ways of awarding more degrees in any field : one is to
have a long terms plan with a slow, monitored, careful mentoring and
selection process. The second is to change the selection and awarding
criteria. The first approach is favoured by highly skilled
activities : e.g. sports (where you go on training, selecting at the
youngest age, provide specific support), performing arts. The second
seems to apply more to the rest ! Where design sits, or wishes to sit
(and maybe in none of these) is still a subject for discussion. But
when the institutions require that you award X% more Masters or PhD
in ten years time, and if you say yes, the route is narrow.
What I can say, when talking to colleagues that work (not necessarily
in design) at the college or university level is that, roughly
speaking, the second route leads to a substantial change in the
capacities and levels of the students. It is not uncommon to have
Master students who do not master the basics of academical writing
(if not writing at all). But they have other skills, definetly.
I believe that, for some of us (including me), there is a kind of
loss. Certainly, I have been brought up with an idea of research,
knowledge construction and access that is often challenged if I teach
students at a Master's level !

If I could agree to what Keith is saying, I am just wondering whether
nother position should not be invented. One in which other (key)
attributes of design than formalism could become the core of
education (not necessarily of the PhD), and one that would
deliberatly (if not cynically) build on the requirements of the
ministries of education statistics officers and the skills of the
students. But of course, I see this, at this point, as a "gedank
experiment" rather than anything that I would dream seeing happening.
But this helps me then to better understand (and justify) the reason
why reading the classics can make sense for today's and the future
society !

Regards,

Jean