Dear Chuck,

Thanks for your note. I am not arguing that the PhD is a vocational training
course for researchers and research supervisors. In contrast, I do argue
that the PhD is _in part_ a PROFESSIONAL training course for researchers and
research supervisors. 

The PhD is taken as a de facto license for those who conduct, teach, and
supervise research. Since this is so, the degree must serve these purposes.

Similarly, I do not argue for irrelevant research methods. I argue for
relevant training in research methods and research methodology. To supervise
research, one must know about research methods one may not use in one's own
work. This does not require expertise -- I doubt that most of us really
masters more than a handful of methods anyhow. What is vital is that we know
ABOUT a rich array of methods, so that we understand when a method in which
we are not skilled is important to a student that we advise. We must also
know enough about enough methods to know who is good at them so that we can
get our students the expert help they need when they need something with
which we cannot properly help them.

We all of us agree that a PhD thesis must represent an original contribution
to knowledge. The research done for the PhD must therefore be substantive
and original. The thesis is always put forward as done "in partial
fulfillment of the requirements." Neither the thesis nor the research on
which it is built is the entirety of the work done to earn a PhD, especially
not at the better universities.

My posts speak to the full range of issues required for the PhD without
listing them all. I did not intend to limit the discussion to those issues.
The issues I raised were necessary without being complete or sufficient.

While it is useful to think of far reaching ideas that a PhD candidate
should develop, demonstrate, evaluate, and disseminate, most fields are
happy to see a serious brick added the the wall of what we know. In fact,
many fields are happy with the PhD thesis that simply adds some mortar
between key bricks, showing how they hold together and helping to lay part
of the course for the next row. In other fields, we expect that the
development and dissemination will take the next five or six years after the
PhD. 

It is unlikely that most PhD theses will involve far-reaching ideas. Back in
the 1970s, I did a massive study on PhD thesis projects. Only 5% or so had
much of a half-life -- they got people started on their research careers and
fell by the wayside. 25% of the authors never published anything after the
thesis. 50% published once and only once. The remaining 25% went on to
serious research careers. A small number of THEIR thesis projects led to
articles, and roughly 2 to 2.5% led to books or monographs.

Given what I have seen in many PhD projects in design, I'd be satisfied with
a solid, competent project. A doctoral student who delivers a solid
competent project while gaining a rich foundation in crucial skills for
research and research supervision has the best chance of moving into the 25%
of PhD graduates that become research active scholars. In today's academic
world, that is vital.

In a profession that will increasingly demand designers capable of
understanding and conducting research, it is also useful.

The field has little use for PhD graduates that lack the Rugg and Petrie
skills, together with a rich enough range of methodological skill and
knowledge to do research, teach research, or supervise research students.
The day when an MA was enough for a successful university career is over in
Australia, and I doubt that it has much future anywhere outside North
America. Even in North America, designers able to engage in robust research
will go farther than those that lack research skills and knowledge.

What I'm calling for is the necessary -- and the sufficient.

Warm wishes,

Ken

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

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia


On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:01:43 -0500, Charles Burnette
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Ken, David, Chris and colleagues
>
>I am aware of institutional needs to improve the quality of PhD’s and  
>PhD supervision. But I have become disturbed by what seems to be a  
>growing tendency to see the PhD as vocational training for researchers  
>and research supervisors. While excellence, rigor (rigour) and quality  
>of argument and exposition are not at issue, there seems to be less  
>emphasis on the contribution to knowledge, and its development,  
>demonstration, and dissemination. 

--snip--

>We need not sector off specialist degrees for such  
>things as practice based research, pure scholarship, theory building,  
>or system building if we understand the PhD as a contribution to  
>knowledge in its field and adapt its supervision accordingly. There is  
>a real danger in forcing instruction in irrelevant research methods in  
>order to train PhD supervisors. I believe that training in research  
>methods should be closely coupled to the goals of each PhD. The  
>highest degree should foster far reaching ideas - and assure that they  
>are properly developed, demonstrated, evaluated and disseminated to  
>those who could most benefit from the new knowledge they should  
>convey. 

--snip--