Dear Terry,

You offer bad advice to doctoral students at the end of the post to Sonia Vieira.

You wrote, “For new PhD researchers, this is now an opportunity to break with the past mess of design theory and create successful new forms of design theory. … It will be a challenge to stand up to supervisors and examiners trying to reshape everything backwards to protect themselves.”

This approach is likely to derail the PhD for any student who adopts your position. You do not understand the responsibilities of a PhD student, the role of the supervisor, the role of the examiner in the Anglo-Australian system, or the role of the PhD committee member in North America.

Many of us question aspects of the university systems and we work to improve it. You left the university system. You state that you do not believe in universities as they now function. You do not believe in the university research system. You do not believe in peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps this is not the case, but your advice seems calculated to destroy the university career of anyone who takes it. This approach will push any PhD student who takes it out of the university system.

Let’s be clear about the responsibilities of a PhD research student and what the PhD degree signifies. The PhD program is a research training program. PhD students master research skills. A new PhD research student must learn how to do research while developing specific research skills. Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre (2004: 6-7) describe these skills [see 1, below]. The PhD degree signifies that the graduated doctor is prepared to do independent research AND to help train other researchers. 

The PhD thesis demonstrates that one has completed one’s apprenticeship and is prepared to undertake independent research work. The criterion of an original contribution to the knowledge of the field marks the difference between an apprentice researcher and a new-fledged journeyman researcher. Rowena Murray (2002: 52) and Phillips and Pugh (2000: 63-64) list ways to demonstrate originality [see 2, 3, below]. The list does not include overturning the entire theoretical foundation of a field.

Your advice will not help research students attempting to earn a PhD for in any program that adheres to the standards described by Rugg and Petre (2004: 6-7), Murray (2002: 52), or Phillips and Pugh. Those who fail to complete a PhD will not help the field in the future, because they will not have the kinds of jobs that give them time and resources to advance design theory. 

A PhD student is a person who undertakes a program to learn the skills required for independent research. You are telling PhD students to declare that all research contributions until now are only the “past mess of design theory.” Making such a decision requires the skills and knowledge that students have just begun to learn. Nearly no PhD student is qualified to make such a declaration. 

You yourself make three mistakes in this declaration. 

1) You assume that the prior literature of the field amounts to nothing more than the “past mess of design theory.” This is a claim you have never managed to substantiate. In the 16 years since you finished your PhD, you have been unable *demonstrate* that all prior contributions amount to nothing more than the “past mess of design theory.” You have merely *repeated* the claim in a variety of formats and media, mainly posts to the list, self-published notes, and blog entries. If you can’t demonstrate this to be the case, you can’t expect a PhD student to do so. 

2) IF the claim that all design theory is a mess were true, a PhD student would have an impossible load of work to demonstrate this. The PhD thesis would require a literature review of several hundred pages. Even if the claim were true — and it is not — the amount of reading and synthesis required to demonstrate this would be impossible.

A doctoral student would have to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the full past literature of the field. When Russell and Whitehead (1923) attempted to put mathematics on a sound theoretical foundation, they spent more than a decade synthesising past mathematics to produce a three-volume book of 1,994 pages. While a comprehensive literature review of design theory might not take take a full decade, it would take far more time and far more work than most design students could manage. This would be unlikely in a North American PhD program running 5 to 7 years. It would be impossible in the 3-year PhD that is standard in the UK, Europe, or Australia. A serious literature review of *all* design theory to date would be a major contribution to the knowledge of the field. No one has done it yet.

3) IF it were true that all prior work is only the “past mess of design theory,” AND IF a student could master the past literature in the time available for a PhD, it would still take a high order to theoretical capacity combined with serious empirical research to develop and demonstrate  “successful new forms of design theory.” This is generally beyond the scope of a PhD student.

This is typically not thesis work, not even for geniuses whose work transforms a field. Albert Einstein’s PhD thesis (1998: 29-70) is a case in point. Einstein originally submitted his PhD thesis to the University of Zurich in 1901. He withdrew it soon after, and resubmitted it a few years later. The thesis demonstrated a new way to determine molecular dimensions, published in 1905 as an article in Annalen der Physik. This was a solid piece of journeyman work by a serious working physicist. Einstein’s thesis built systematically on serious prior work. In four other great papers of 1905, Einstein helped to revolutionise theoretical physics. He wrote these several years after doing the work on which he built his PhD.

Einstein's PhD is a solid piece that builds on all the prior work. Jeremy Bernstein (1993: 27) notes that "All of us who have tried to work in a deep science know just how hard it is to get to the frontier — just how much devoted training is involved. Even Einstein went through this apprenticeship. The notes he took in H. F. Weber's l887-88 lectures at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich still exist. They are the notes of a conscientious student with a clear understanding of the physics that preceded his own.”

Design students often like to point to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thesis as another case in point. This, too, is a mistake. Wittgenstein took several years to write the Tractatus, with some notes dating back to the First World War. The Tractatus was published in 1921. When Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge to teach in 1929, the university required him to hold a degree, and he did not. It was determined that his earlier years in Cambridge would meet the residency requirement. The Tractatus was already famous, and it was suggested that he submit the Tractatus as his thesis. G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell examined the submission. Moore wrote, “I myself consider that this is a work of genius; but, even if I am completely mistaken and it is nothing of the sort, it is well above the standard required for the PhD degree.” Perhaps there is a new Wittgenstein waiting to revolutionise the design field. If so, he or she will doubtless publish the Tractatus we are waiting for. Since PhD by prior publication is increasingly common at many universities, it should be possible to determine whether such a work of genius reaches the standard required for the PhD.  

It’s clear from your recent post to me that you aren’t yourself entirely clear about what is required to determine the validity of a theory or proposition. You wrote, "Where people want to check the validity of any design theories and analyses (including the reasoning about them) I recommend the meta-theoretical analysis tool I devised in the late 1990s … [Love 2000] … one of the reasons that I personally know the theories of the design research literature are a mess is I have tested most of them over the last 40 years. The Meta-theoretical Analysis Tool (MTA) was developed to help me to do it more efficiently and effectively. From my experience, it works well” (Love 2015: np).

The tool you describe in Love (2000) is a taxonomy. It does not enable you to test theories or propositions. You propose no tests whatsoever. You place kinds of design theories within a taxonomy of theoretical levels. You have proposed a useful taxonomy of design theories (Love 2000: 305-306). You do not demonstrate how to test the validity of any given theory. 

This is like those versions of medieval scholasticism that confuses naming things with describing them. Richard Feyman (2007 :11-18) gave a lovely explanation of with problem in his discussion on the making of a scientist. Taxonomy is one step in theory construction, and an important step (see: Friedman 2003: 518). Taxonomy does not allow you to test the validity of a theory or proposal.

You are mistaken in your claim that all design theory is a mess. Making a claim and repeating it does not demonstrate the truth value or facticity of your claim. Such simple confusions as the difference between a taxonomy tool and a tool to test the validity of any theory suggest that your opinion on all prior work as the “past mess of design theory” is wrong. 

But I don’t believe that you have actually *tested* most design theories of the past 40 years. You have never published the results of these tests in any reliable peer-reviewed forum — not even when you worked at a university that paid you to do research and to publish your findings. 

My guess is that you took a superficial tour of books and articles, skimming the pages to declare author after author mistaken. I do not believe that you systematically demonstrated that any specific group of theories was wrong, false, or incorrect in the way that a mathematician, an engineer, or a scientist would demonstrate that a theorem, hypothesis, or finding is wrong. 

If you can demonstrate that a theory published in a peer-reviewed journal article is wrong, that demonstration is of interest to the field. A peer reviewed journal will publish the demonstration, either the original journal or another. But you are making a massive claim. You aren’t saying that one theory is wrong. You claim that you “personally know the theories of the design research literature are a mess [because you] have tested most of them over the last 40 years.” 

Either the entire field is wrong or you are. If the *entire* field is wrong, prove it. Prove it with serious publications, not blog entries, discussion list posts, or papers at regional conferences. If you have tested most of the theories of the design research literature over the past 40 years, publish your tests and your findings.

At this point in these debates, you usually explain that you don’t have a job that pays you to do this kind of research or to publish it. I accept that. This fact does not render your claims correct. If you can’t demonstrate the truth value or facticity of your claims, there is no reason to accept these claims.

You’re done with your education, Terry, and you’re off in the world. No one can require you to substantiate your claims. You can post what you wish to an open discussion list. 

The rest of us can challenge you if we wish — and you have the right to repeat your claims again, again, and again — without ever demonstrating that what you say is so. 

That’s not how it works in a research community, and that’s not how it works at university. People argue, people dispute, and people are often wrong. Progress is slow. Every field moves forward through debate. 

It is the responsibility of the university to educate research students and induct them into the research community. That’s why PhD students enrol in a PhD program. It is the responsibility of the university to ensure that PhD supervisors are equipped to guide students.

People who really revolutionise the fields start by learning from their supervisors. Read a few biographies of people who really did create successful new forms of theory. James Gleick’s excellent biography of Richard Feynman is one. Abraham Pais’s biography of Albert Einstein is another. 

There is a key difference between Feynman, Einstein and you. When Feynman and Einstein developed revolutionary theoretical ideas, they published. Einstein was not paid to do research with a university position when he published the papers of 1905. He was a patent clerk with a family to support, doing research and writing in his spare time, just like you.

So I’d propose that you do what Einstein did: revolutionise the design field by publishing your 40 years of tests. Demonstrate that the “past mess of design theory” is wrong. 

But don’t expect a PhD student to do in 3 years or 5 years what you have not been able to do it in 40 years. 

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia

—

References

Bernstein, Jeremy. 1993. “How Can We Be Sure That Albert Einstein Was Not A Crank?” Cranks, Quarks and the Cosmos. New York: Basic Books. pp. 15-27.

Einstein, Albert. 1998 [1905]. Einstein’s Miraculous Year. Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics. Edited and introduced by John Stachel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Feynman, Richard. 2007. What Do You Care What Other People Think? Further Adventures of a Curious Character. London: Penguin.

Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria, Approaches, and Methods.” Design Studies, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 507-522.

Love, Terence. 2000. “Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical Structure for Design Theory.” Design Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 293-313.

Love, Terence. 2015. “Re: Can Machines Design?” PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design. Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:19:37 +0800. 

Murray, Rowena. 2002. How to Write a Thesis. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Phillips, Estelle M., and Derek S. Pugh. 2000. How to Get a PhD. A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors. Third Edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press. 

Whitehead, Alfred North, and Bertrand Russell. 1923. Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—  

[1]

Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre (2004: 6-7) offer a list of the skills for which we look in someone when we award the PhD degree: 

[Use of academic language] “correct use of technical terms; attention to detail in punctuation, grammar, etc.; attention to use of typographic design … to make the text accessible; ability to structure and convey a clear and coherent argument, including attention to the use of ‘signposting’ devices such as headings to make the structure accessible; writing in a suitable academic ‘voice’; [Knowledge of background literature] seminal texts correctly cited, with evidence that you have read them and evaluated them critically; references accurate reflecting the growth of the literature from the seminal texts to the present day; identification of key recent texts on which your own PhD is based, showing both how these contribute to your thesis and how your thesis is different from them; relevant texts and concepts from other disciplines cited; organization of all of the cited literature into a coherent, critical structure, showing both that you can make sense of the literature – identifying conceptual relationships and themes, recognizing gaps – and that you understand what is important; [Research methods] knowledge of the main research methods used in your discipline, including data collection, record keeping, and data analysis; knowledge of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in your disciplines, and of what is acceptable as a knowledge claim; detailed knowledge – and competent application of – at least one method; critical analysis of one of the standard methods in your discipline showing that you understand both its strengths and its limitations; [Theory] understanding of key theoretical strands and theoretical concepts in your discipline; understanding how theory shapes your research question; ability to contribute something useful to the theoretical debate in your area; [Miscellaneous] ability to do all the above yourself, rather than simply doing what your supervisor tells you; awareness of where your work fits in relation to the discipline, and what it contributes to the discipline; mature overview of the discipline.” 

Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre. 2004. The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press. 

--

[2]

Rowena Murray (2002: 52) gives this list of criteria for an original contribution to the knowledge of the field:

—snip—

• You say something no one has said before.
• You do empirical work that has not been done before.
• You synthesize things that have not been put together before.
• You make a new interpretation of someone else's material/ ideas.
• You do something in this country that has only been done elsewhere.
• You take an existing technique and apply it to a new area.
• You work across disciplines, using different methodologies.
• You look at topics that people in your discipline have not looked at.
• You test existing knowledge in an original way.
• You add to knowledge in a way that has not been done before.
• You write down a new piece of information for the first time.
• You give a good exposition of someone else's idea.
• You continue an original piece of work.

—snip—

Murray, Rowena. 2002. How to Write a Thesis. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

—

[3]

Phillips and Pugh (2000: 63-64) offer a useful list of 15 different kinds of original contribution.

—snip—

1. Setting down a major piece of new information in writing for the first time.
2. Continuing a previously original piece of work.
3. Carrying out original work designed by the supervisor.
4. Providing a single original technique observation, or result in an otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research.
5. Having many original ideas, methods, and interpretations, all performed by others under the direction of the postgraduate.
6. Showing originality on testing somebody else's ideas.
7. Carrying out empirical work that has not been done before.
8. Making a synthesis that has not been made before.
9. Using already known material but with a new interpretation.
10. Trying out something in [one] country that has previously only been done in other countries.
11. Taking a particular technique and applying it to a new area.
12. Bringing new evidence to bear on an old issue.
13. Being cross-disciplinary and using different [methods].
14. Looking at areas that people in the discipline have not looked at before.
15. Adding to knowledge in a way that has not been done before.

—snip—

Phillips, Estelle M., and Derek S. Pugh. 2000. How to Get a PhD. A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors. Third Edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

--


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------