JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  December 2009

PHD-DESIGN December 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Form and Structure of the Doctorate in Design -- Eight Kinds of Doctorate

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:41:07 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (438 lines)

Dear All,

Fil Salustri's note on different kinds of doctorates raises valuable
points. At the time of the La Clusaz conference on doctoral education in
design, I identified eight kinds of doctorates in the literature and in
debates. 

Below, I post my paper from the conference proceedings, "Form and
Structure of the Doctorate in Design: Prelude to a Multilogue." 

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia 

--

Form and Structure of the Doctorate in Design: Prelude to a Multilogue

--

Friedman, Ken. 2000. “Form and Structure of the Doctorate in Design:
Prelude to a Multilogue.” In Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations
for the Future. David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Proceedings of
the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. Staffordshire, United
Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, 369-376.

--


From Ohio to La Clusaz

The 1998 Ohio conference on “Doctoral Education in Design”
occasioned a serious international discourse. “Global in extent and
pluralist in character,” (Doordan 1999: np) the conversation has
continued in online debate and dialogue, at research conferences in
Helsinki and Milan, and now in La Clusaz. 

One of the most important aspects of the Ohio meeting was that it
enabled international community of design educators to find each other.
Some of us already knew one another by email or through writing. Some of
us had met earlier at conferences. We were already interested in one
another and in mutual areas of concern. 

Even so, this often seemed to be a relatively remote interest. It
involved one-to-one relationships among a few friends. It involved
gleaning ideas and material from meetings and conferences that we could
apply to our own work in teaching, research, or writing. After each
meeting, most of us returned to a local environment with little
encouragement for pursuing the core issues of design research. 

While no one discouraged our interest in design research, good research
demands a context. Those of us active in the day to day work of teaching
design generally find ourselves immersed in a milieu oriented toward
teaching and practice. Those of us who in other research fields face the
demands and challenges of research programs in a different context.
Despite a good research environment, we pursue design research on our
own. 

The context of research is vital to a field. Even in strong research
universities, the demands of teaching and practice in any field take
from the time that research requires. In the context of a research
environment, however, the perpetual pull of collegial challenge and the
push of the requirement for research and publication keep us active.
This has not been the atmosphere of departments in design and art
(Friedman 1983a, 1983b, 1997). Alternatively, better said, this has
rarely been the atmosphere until recently. Things are beginning to
change, and the Ohio conference served as a vital fulcrum for that
change.

In Ohio, we began to identify important ranges of common concern.
Participants shared diverse experiences and insights on the challenges
arising from the development of doctoral programs in design around the
world, and considered the benefits these offer to the field of design.
Beyond this, we came to realize several issues that are vital to a
goring field.

Among these issues are,

* The way in which doctoral education is inevitably linked to the
development of a maturing research field

* The need for doctoral candidates to staff the research endeavor,
contributing their own vision to the field while building their own
research programs

* The importance of doctoral programs as a social context within we can
focus our own research

* The vital importance of a demanding research milieu to keep our
research lively and honest through the concern of colleagues who
challenge our findings and discuss our work

* The healthy effect of a lively research program on the teaching
programs, practitioner programs, and professional development programs
in a department

* The need for doctoral candidates to staff the research endeavor,
their own vision to the field while building their own research
programs

* The value of a network of doctoral programs in creating the larger
field

* The central importance of such a network in hosting and maintaining a
rich network for scholarship and contribution to the larger field

* The need for a network out of which a range of field-wide activities
can grow

* The need for a rich range and variety of journals, conferences,
associations, research projects, and other nodes that serve to anchor
the network and provide the content of the discipline

All of these are linked to the growth of doctoral education.

Klaus Krippendorff (1999: 213) identified the importance of a field to
doctoral education in a paper that identified a growing field with
paradigms, institutional infrastructure, new kinds of problems, jobs, a
body of literature, a community of scholars and practitioners, and
professional associations. He noted that “Ph.D. education [is] only
one feature in these concerted developments. . . . it cannot succeed
without parallel efforts to build institutional, literary and community
support.”

I will propose a parallel equation. These other attributes of a rich
field cannot succeed without doctoral education. Doctoral education is
necessary in creating the larger context required by the field and it is
necessary if we are to develop the scholars and practitioners who will
staff that growing field and become its population. 

The research field specifically requires education for the Ph.D. The
field as a whole requires other forms of doctorate. I will discuss eight
of these below.

One important aspect of the Ohio conference was the way that it seemed
to signal a sea change in the growth of our field. After Ohio, loose
networks began to form slightly tighter bonds. We observed communication
in the field grow richer. New media, new communications vehicles, new
organizations, a new sense of purpose started to appear. Some of these
had long existed, for example, the Design Research Society. They began
to internationalize and attract new members. Others were new, for
example, the European Academy of Design, and the Design Journal. 

Although these existed before the Ohio conference, the time was right
for developments in the field. The Ohio conference became an important
symbol of new development through good timing, a wise choice of issues
and the publication of a monumental proceedings (Buchanan et al. 1999).


At the Milan conference, the organizers (Manzini et al. 2000) drew
frequent attention to the vital new network that has emerged. Within
this “network of designers, researchers, producers, and users, the
design research community constitutes a network of individuals and
institutions. This network connects individuals and creates a platform
of interaction to encourage continuing dialogue among researchers who
operate in different ways and in different domains. What this community
has in common is a commitment to building a design research culture,
which can contribute to a deeper understanding of design itself.”

The line from Ohio to La Clusaz frames these issues. It embraces a
richer network of colleagues in so many places that to name a few will
neglect the many. In this summary paper, I will instead draw attention
to the network – and to the future we are building together – as the
background to a consideration of the form and structure of the doctorate
in design.


The form and structure of the doctorate in design 

Over the past two years on DRS and elsewhere, four themes have
repeatedly verged on into the next. This has partly been the case in
this debate. These four themes have been (1) philosophies and theories
of design, (2) foundations and methods of design research, (3) form and
structure for the doctorate in design, and (4) the relationship between
practice and research in design. 

This spring, the DRS discussion list saw a major debate on one variety
of doctorate, the kind of doctorate offered in the UK under the rubric
of the “practice-based Ph.D.” Because he debate at times involved
all of these themes, it makes for interesting reading (DRS 2000). My
posts addressed many specific issues on form and structure of the
doctorate.

At this point, debate has had the healthy function of beginning a
clarification of issues. It is clear that the doctorate has different
forms, structures, and meanings in different disciplines, different
fields, and different universities. What has also become clear is that
doctoral traditions vary by nation and region, and that colleagues from
different domains may use the same words with quite different meanings.

The task we now face is answering unanswered questions, clarifying
unclear issues, and establishing a common vocabulary of knowledge and
understanding. In this sense, I am not calling for unanimity on all
issues. I am asking for clarity and attention to meaning. There are many
ways to achieve the many goals of a community that is, necessarily,
“global in extent and pluralist in character,” (Doordan 1999:
np). 

One foundation for the future is a basis in common understanding. It is
not necessary to agree with each other on every point. It is necessary
to understand what we are saying when we raises the points we raise.


Challenges and questions

At this point, I want to introduce a number of challenges and questions
that deserve consideration.

1. Nature and definitions of doctoral degrees

In the literature and in recent debates, I have been able to identity
eight general models for a doctorate in design (Friedman 000604). These
are: 

1.1 The traditional or “old” Ph.D. 

1.2 The innovative or “new” Ph.D. developed for the demands of
design. 

1.3 The technical doctorate with a title such as Dr.Tech, Dr.Eng., and
so on. 

1.4 The professional doctorate in the practice of design with a title
such as D.Des. 

1.5 A studio doctorate awarded for fine art or design practice with a
designation such as DA or DFA.

1.6 A practice-based Ph.D. in art or design as a variation within the
framework of the traditional Ph.D. 

1.7 The studio Ph.D. awarded for studio practice in fine art and design
supported by some form of explanatory essay or contextual document.

1.8 A practice-based Ph.D. in design distinct from both the studio
Ph.D. and the traditional Ph.D. 

Of these, the first six are valid. The last two are questionable, one
because the idea makes little sense and one because it doesn’t seem to
exist at all.

Each of these degree has specific qualities, characteristics and
attributes. To develop doctoral education in design, we must examine
these. While unanimity is never possible, in this area of defining
degrees, we can and should begin to develop common definitions.

Form and structure does not merely involve the form and structure of
the degree itself. It also involves the form and structure of the
departments and programs that offer the degree. Thus, we must consider
the challenges facing doctoral programs in design. 

While this list is far from exhaustive or inclusive, we must begin by
focussing on the capacity to handle and support doctoral students
(Friedman 000425, 000428). 

2. supervision, advising and administrative support.

2.1 A solid, supportive faculty

2.2 A well-trained research faculty for advising research doctorates

2.3 General faculty support for doctoral education

2.4 A department organized to provide proper curriculum development,
seminar management, and research supervision

2.5 Available support from other departments and programs if needed

2.6 An environment with senior doctoral students and post-doctoral
researchers

2.7 Rich administrative support from experienced administrative staff

2.8 Good academic administration by program coordinators, program
heads, and department heads as well a good academic administration by
professors whose responsibilities embrace coordination and headship.

2.9 Administrative and program support at the college and university
level 

Finally, we must begin to untangle the rich but difficult web of
research issues and method. 

Richard Buchanan has distinguished three kinds of research. These
differ from each other by level, by purpose and by scope. They are

1 Basic research
2 Applied research
3 Clinical research

To progress in our field, we must begin to understand the varieties of
research we undertake, and recognize the reasons for any specific
choice.

It is also vital to begin a tradition of investigating method (Friedman
000606). This involves not merely the study and application of research
methods, but the higher level study of methodology.

Design is an interdisciplinary and integrative process constituting a
professional field and an intellectual discipline. The six-domain model
of design (Friedman 000418) clarifies the nature of design as a
discipline. Design draws on (1) the natural sciences, (2) the humanities
and liberal arts, and (3) the social and behavioral sciences and as a
field of practice and application drawing on (4) human professions and
services, (5) creative and applied arts, and (6) technology and
engineering. If this model is reasonable, this also opens the design
field to methods from all these sources.

To date, only one scholar has attempted a survey of the rich scope and
scale of design research methods. Pirkko Anttila (1996) describes the
variety of methods can be applied to design research, demonstrating the
uses of dozens of specific methods from a wide range of disciplines. She
shows their application in design research, and she proposes a
systematic series of tests and choices on the basis of which the
individual researcher can adopt, apply and – if need be – adapt
specific methods.

Anttila’s pioneering work must be extended in years to come to offer
design research – and doctoral candidates – an encyclopedia of
methods on which to draw.

Beyond this, we must deepen the comparative study of methodology.
Despite a growing interest in method in our field, the study of method
in a comparative and analytical sense has barely begun. Methodology is
the study of method. Mautner (1996: 267) defines methodology as “1.
The discipline which investigates and evaluates methods of inquiry, of
validation, of teaching, etc. 2. a theory within that discipline. Note
that methodology is about method and not the same as method.”

Research is at the heart of the doctoral enterprise. To meet the
challenge of appropriate form and structure, we must establish a solid
foundation for research methods in design by developing a systematic
inventory of methods. To do that, we must also engage in the systematic
and analytical study of methodology for our field.


Call to a multilogue

A multilogue is a neologism that extends to the members of fields or
networks the sense of a larger, durable conversation implicit in
dialogue.

When co-chairman David Durling asked me to prepare a short paper for
the conference on the issues of form and structure I began by assembling
and summarizing my notes in the various studies and debates. At the end,
however, I realized that these are the opinions of one scholar in a
field. While I have worked to organize the issues and pose questions in
a systematic way, I am far from convinced I have not yet developed the
issues as fully as the field requires.

As I struggled with this task, I realized that we would have among us
at La Clusaz a powerful assembly of scholars, researchers, and
practitioners. Among us all, a systemic inquiry will begin to produce a
rich overview of the questions and issues, and the beginnings of a rich
range of robust solutions to the problems we identify.

In this presentation, therefore, I have tried in a reasonable but not
comprehensive way to identify the central questions we must now address
in developing robust forms and structures for doctoral education in
design..




References


Anttila, Pirkko. 1996. Tutkimisen taito ja tiedonhankinta. Taito-,
taide-, ja muotoilualojen tutkimuksen tyoevaelineet. Helsinki: Aakatiimi
Oy.

Buchanan, Richard, Dennis Doordan, Lorraine Justice, and Victor
Margolin, editors. 1999. Doctoral Education in Design. Proceedings of
the Ohio Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Pittsburgh: The School of
Deign. Carnegie Mellon University.

Doordan, Dennis. 1999. “Introduction.” (In) Doctoral Education in
Design. Proceedings of the Ohio Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Richard
Buchanan, Dennis Doordan, Lorraine Justice, and Victor Margolin,
editors. Pittsburgh: The School of Deign. Carnegie Mellon University, no
page numbers given.

DRS. 2000. Archive of the DRS discussion list. Sponsored by the Design
Research Society. Conall O Cathain, moderator. Archived at URL:
<www.mailbase.ac.uk>.

Friedman, Kenneth S. 1983a. Art and design programs in North American
colleges and universities. Unpublished study. Questionnaires and notes
filed in the Ken Friedman Papers, Alternative Traditions in Contemporary
Art, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Friedman, Kenneth S. 1983b. “Mis-Education by Degrees.” Art and
Artists (New York), vol. 12, no. 4 (March 1983): 6-7.

Friedman, Ken. 1997. “Design Science and Design Education.” In The
Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art
and Design Helsinki UIAH. 54-72.

Friedman, Ken. 000425. “Eight Theses on Advising and Supervising the
Ph.D.” DRS. Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:47:20 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 000428. “What is required to administer a doctoral
program?” DRS. Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:10:11 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 000604. “2 more theses in response to Jean Schneider
[Long post]” DRS. Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:25:30 +0200

Friedman, Ken. 000606. “Varieties of research methods [Response to
Jean Schneider, part 3]” DRS. Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:55:36 +0200

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1999. “A Field for Growing Doctorates in
Design?” (In) Doctoral Education in Design. Proceedings of the Ohio
Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Richard Buchanan, Dennis Doordan,
Lorraine Justice, and Victor Margolin, editors. Pittsburgh: The School
of Deign. Carnegie Mellon University, 207-224.

Manzini, Ezio, Tomas Maldonado, Victor Margolin, and Silvia Pizzocaro.
2000. Themes from the Milan Conference. Closing statement of the
organizers. Design (plus) Research. 18-20 May, 2000. Politecnico di
Milano

Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.


Copyright © 2000 Ken Friedman.

All rights reserved.

Permission granted to quote or reproduce in part or in full provided
that this copyright notice is preserved and proper acknowledgement
given.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager