As I've been reading along this discussion, I think it's important to remember that PhD programs are designed. A PhD program does not exist in a vacuum, and academic departments shape what the PhD looks like.

I consider my PhD to be a very practical degree. As a PhD student in Engineering Education, I am expected to display competence as an engineer and as an engineering educator. My PhD program has 10 core competencies where each student builds a portfolio to assert his or her experience and expertise related to each competency. Further, my PhD program emphasizes authentic assessment. The core deliverable for my instructional design course was a research-supported syllabus. When I went to teach my first class in engineering design last summer, I relied heavily on the skills I developed in my instructional design course and could identify where I needed to modify my approaches.

Because my PhD has such a strong practical component, I regard it to be a very outstanding degree even as I look to make an original research contribution in engineering design epistemology. My program is unique and innovative. Unlike just about every area of scholarship, PhD programs preceded BS programs in Engineering Education.

In my opinion, academic departments have options to honour (and should honour) the expertise of skilled practitioners in PhD programs. PhD programs do have some responsibility to ensure that the degree carries levels of professional competence. Departments awarding the PhD have latitude to consider what they want graduates to know and to be able to do. Reflecting critically on the various skills necessary could create routes to more readily recognize practically-gained expertise.

Best regards,
Lindsey Nelson

Lindsey Nelson
PhD Student
Engineering Education
Purdue University

MA Poverty and Development 2010/2011
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lamere, Kate [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are PhDs a threat to design education?

All:

This thread is quite interesting, and contains many sub-themes related to design and design education. There were mentions of the role of the PhD in Design in relation to higher education and its changing contexts/definition/roles, the PhD in relationship to learning, the PhD in relationship to practice, and more.

There is another important role that the PhD plays. Ken (in response to a comment by Teena) hinted at this when he said:

[snip]
This is an important dimension that involves educating individuals rather than contributing to the body of knowledge of a field.
[snip]

The distinction between educating individuals and contributing to a body of knowledge is an important one. My current research stream focuses on defining/documenting the profession of graphic design's body of knowledge. As you might imagine, this is an expansive research project, of which I am only in the first stage (of many). Part of this research involves considering the issue/concept of professions and professionalization. Sociologist Andrew Abbott's (1988) work on the system of professions is particularly illuminating when asking these sorts of questions.

In particular, Abbott discusses the role of abstract knowledge in the system of professions. I find his definition particularly useful when trying to understand the role of design research for education, practice, and the profession (of graphic design, in particular). I am currently working on a paper focused on this subject, so I'll quote from my manuscript here:

"Abbott (1988) defines abstract knowledge as the formal ordering of professional knowledge. Abstract knowledge has three roles in the system of professions; it legitimizes the profession by tracing its foundations to cultural values (e.g. rationality, logic, science); through research it develops new ways of treating and diagnosing the problems/clients of professional practice; and it provides instruction to aspiring professionals via hyper-rationalized conceptions of professional work. However, a profession’s ability to retain jurisdiction, and therefore remain a ‘profession,’ lies partly in the power and prestige of its academic/abstract knowledge. This is because the public mistakenly believes that abstract professional knowledge is the same as practical professional knowledge. For the public, thus, prestigious abstract knowledge implies effective professional work. Academics, as the counterpart to practitioners, play a critical role as well. To quote Abbott, “Academic professionals demonstrate the rigor, the clarity, and the scientifically logical character of professional work, thereby legitimating that work in the context of larger values (1988:54)."

In actuality, abstract academic knowledge is more symbolic than practical. Only in the academy do students and instructors work in the arbitrarily complete system of abstract knowledge that exists in textbooks, lectures, and projects. Abstract knowledge also excels at innovation because it can make comparisons or connections that seems to be nonsensical in practical professional work. Effective abstract knowledge creates a full and fully-rational system, leads to similar conclusions for the practical application of knowledge, is complete in its classification of the problems of practice, and defines the borders of professional jurisdiction with clarity."
(from LaMere, 2011)

Abbott's definition of abstract knowledge helps, in my opinion, understand the need for PhD study in design. It also adds a new dimension to many of issues that arise when doctoral studies in design are discussed, such as the PhD's lack of relevance to design practice and design education. I view the PhD in design as critical to growing abstract knowledge within (graphic) design, that is specifically focused on contributing to a body of knowledge (as Ken stated). This involves philosophical studies that delve into areas of research (and perhaps practice) that are far beyond the purview of undergraduate design education as well as design practice. Without this type of research and abstract knowledge, graphic design will risk the fate (if it is not already there) of being delegated to those work areas that are perceived as routinizable and thus not professional (to paraphrase Abbott).

With a "profession"—design discipline, even—as young as graphic design, the field lacks a solid foundation of abstract/academic knowledge. There is the urgent need to grow the PhD in graphic design, as well as reflect upon its role(s), format(s), and outcome(s). Many of the pitfalls of poor PhD study in design —and some of the benefits, too—have already been put forth here, so I won't regurgitate.

My 2 cents today.

Best,
Kate.


Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kate LaMere, PhD
Assistant Professor and Area Coordinator of Graphic Design
School of Art and Design
Mail Stop 502
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858 USA

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
(+1) 252.328.5180


This message is for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IDS.

Institute of Development Studies
at the University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE
Tel: +44 (0)1273 606261; Fax: +44 (0)1273 621202
IDS, a charitable company limited by guarantee:
Registered Charity No. 306371; Registered in England 877338;  VAT No. GB 350 899914