Responding to the Indeterminacy of Doctoral Research in Design
Meredith Davis (North Carolina State University)
Luke Feast (Aalborg University)
Jodi Forlizzi (Carnegie Mellon University)
Ken Friedman (Tongji University)
Ali Ilhan (University of Cincinnati)
Wendy Ju (Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute)
G.W. Kortuem (Internet of Things)
Maria Hellström Reimer (Malmö University)
Carlos Teixeira (Illinois Institute of Technology)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
The Future of Design Education working group on doctoral education included doctoral supervisors from nine programs around the world and addressed the indeterminacy of standards for the PhD in Design. Internationally, “contributions to knowledge” under the PhD degree title range from evidence-based investigations documented in a dissertation to personal reflections on making artifacts. In some programs, quantitative and qualitative research methods are taught; in others, there is no instruction in methods. The working group suggested that reflection on one's own creative production is the role of the professional master's degree and recommended standards for two doctoral programs—the PhD and the Doctor of Design (DDes). The group defined the PhD as addressing unresolved problems with the goal of generalizable knowledge or theory for the field. It described the DDes as a professional practice degree in which research is done in a practice setting to frame a specific opportunity space, guide in-process design decisions, or evaluate outcomes. DDes findings do not claim generalizability and result in “cases.” The working group discussed methods, sampling, standards of evidence and claims, ethics, research writing, and program management.
help_outline