Global perspectives on structured research training in doctorates of design – what do we value?

C

Corresponding author:

Gavin Melles

[email protected]

ctives on structured research
Global perspetraining in doctorates of design e what dowe value?
Gavin Melles, Swinburne University, Faculty of Design, 144 High Street,

Prahran, Victoria 3181, Australia

The development of doctorates of design has generated debate about the

characteristics of appropriate doctoral curriculum, including structured research

training. While such training has long formed part of the North American

doctorate it has more recently appeared as a component of European and

Australian programs. Despite its significance, the global spread of structured

coursework in doctorates of design and faculty and student attitudes to this

remain unexamined. This study examined the significance of research training in

doctorates of design (n¼ 153) and attitudes to such training (n¼ 102) among

faculty and students. This study concludes with observations about the nature

and growing significance of research training in doctoral design and the need for

further detailed research of the issue.

rown Copyright � 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: design education, design research, research training, doctorate,

survey

Thenature and purposes of the doctorate has come under scrutiny in an

entrepreneurial environment of higher education (HE) provision

where industry and professional relevance have come to the fore-

ground (Hoddell et al., 2002; Usher, 2002; Boud and Tennant, 2006). Higher

education institutions have responded by developing practice-based and other

doctoral programs to challenge the hegemony of the traditional PhD (Katz,

1997; Neumann, 2002; Park, 2005; Wellington and Sikes, 2006). These alterna-

tive doctorates have placed a greater focus on workplace practice, creativity

and development of transferable skills (Pole, 2000; Demeritt, 2004; Gilbert

et al., 2004; Johnston and Murray, 2004). As a result of these developments,

the nature and purposes of the doctoral curriculum, including research

training, are being more narrowly scrutinized (McWilliam and Singh, 2002;

Denicolo, 2003; Gilbert, 2004).

In particular, debates around practice, project work and interdisciplinarity in

doctorates of design and visual arts have come to the fore. Those keen to le-

gitimate practice-based design research among the canons of established aca-

demic scholarship have argued that such degrees do not compromise academic

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 30 (2009) 255e271

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.09.003 255Crown Copyright � 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

256

rigour (Candlin, 2000; Prentice, 2000; Winter et al., 2000; Wood, 2000; Biggs

and Buchler, 2007). Nevertheless, it has been acknowledged that practice-

based doctorates of design present particular challenges to student identities

and supervision (Hockey and Allen-Collinson, 2000; Hockey, 2003). The in-

clusion of projects work as an expression of creative practice is also contested,

while some academics view the creative project work in practice-based and

professional doctorates as particularly appropriate to design (Newbury,

1996; Ball, 2002; Dallow, 2003; Hughes, 2006; Pedgley and Wormald, 2007).

Thirdly, despite the fact that disciplinarity for design remains a debated issue

(e.g. Cross, 1999), interdisciplinarity is often employed as an inherent feature

of design research (Pizzocaro, 2002; Harris et al., 2003; Kroelinger, 2003;

Tellefsen, 2003; Sutton and Kemp, 2006). These debates show a field still work-

ing towards consensus, regarding the institutionalized forms of doctoral design

research (Roth, 1999; Seago and Dunne, 1999; Buchanan, 2001; Bayazit, 2004).

1 Doctoral education and research training in designThree international conferences on doctoral education in design (1998 Ohio,

US; 2000 La Clusaz, France; 2003 Tsukuba, Japan) have explored the diversity

of offerings in doctoral design. Friedman (2000), for example, identified eight

different doctoral models with degrees of focus on Fine Arts, Engineering and

Technology, and professional and practice-based designations. Rust (2002),

however, cautions that doctoral degree distinctions do not necessarily trans-

late into substantive educational ones. Nevertheless, one area where ‘the

cultural context of graduate education writ large’ (Lovitts, 2005, p. 150) is

associated with differences is in approaches to research training in different

regional and disciplinary contexts. This variation has been the subject of

some previous analyses (e.g. Baird, 1990; Cresswell and Miller, 1997; Kyvik

and Tvede, 1998; Kiley and Liljegren, 1999; McWilliam et al., 2002; Pearson

and Brew, 2002; Demeritt, 2004; Manathunga et al., 2004).

2 Structured research trainingForms of training in research skills, such as literature review writing, methods

training, and research proposal writing, continue to be delivered in European

and Australian universities as optional student training; only recently has it be-

come a compulsory component of research training. Compulsory structured

research training through foundational and elective coursework has long

been a feature of the North American PhD model, and it has been argued

that the long tradition of cohort-based coursework in doctoral programs in

North America ‘ensures a high level of skills and the common education moves

cohorts through programs in a far more successful stream’ (Durling and Fried-

man, 2002, p. 196). Europe (including the UK) and Australia have been slower

to follow this tradition and it has been within the curriculum of professional

and practice-based (e.g. Studio) doctorates that these countries now integrate

coursework. In design, practice-based and other doctorates incorporating

coursework (and projects) have generated debate about the nature of design

Design Studies Vol 30 No. 3 May 2009

Global perspectives on s

scholarship and the importance of research training (Durling, 2002; Newbury,

2002; Rust, 2002; Radu, 2006).

Research training choices ‘reflect substantive judgements about the value of

particular content in the doctoral curriculum’ (Schwartz-Shea, 2003, p. 380),

and the first stage in a move from dependent to independent learning processes

(Schweinsberg and McManus, 2006). At this time ‘students are initially im-

mersed in mastering the knowledge base of their disciplines and speciality

areas, learning their disciplines theories and methods, and establishing rela-

tionships with peers, faculty and their advisor’ (Lovitts, 2005, p. 140). The

peer networks and group learning can provide an environment for students

to be initiated into relevant research communities of practice (Johnston, 1995).

For design specifically, Newbury (2002) sees research training preparing de-

sign students for research, developing research skills, and promoting method-

ological reflexivity. The extent to which design doctorates now incorporate

compulsory coursework, however, has not been examined, nor have the atti-

tudes of faculty and students to such training been examined. This paper ad-

dresses the extent to which structured research training is a significant feature

of the global doctoral design landscape and what values and characteristics the

field approves of in relation to this.

3 Significance of structured coursework in designIn a recent survey of doctoral programs in design, the author identified 153 dis-

tinct doctoral programs, including the more recent vocational design fields,

such as industrial, product, interior, and interaction design. A range of sources

were examined, including the recent Business Week D-School List of 60 top

design schools, and National Design associations in various countries. This

produced a list programs distinguished by a range of designations, including

PhD, PhD (Studio), DDes (Doctor of Design), DCD (Doctor of Communica-

tion Design), DVA (Doctor of Visual Arts), and DCA (Doctor of Creative

Arts).

In Table 1 below the first two columns list the number of faculties or schools in

the respective countries offering doctorates which include the newer design dis-

ciplines; schools rather than institutions were chosen because design disci-

plines may be split across schools, and where this is the case they are noted

as distinct programs. A CW superscript indicates that the degree has some ex-

plicit compulsory structured coursework even if this is not given specific credit

values (as in the USA). Coursework (CW), in this sense, is distinguished from

the provision of optional research skills or methods courses by departments or

other institutional units, e.g. schools of graduate studies. Where the super-

script is enclosed in brackets (CW) this indicates that some of the degrees

have structured coursework or fuller information was not available. A pro-

gram indexed with (Project) or (Studio) in brackets indicates that these are

tructured research training 257

Table 1 Distribution of coursework in doctoral design programs

Countries FAC Degrees Total

Australia 18 PhD, PhD (Studio)CW, DDesCW, DVACW, DCACW 21Belgium 1 PhD 1Brazil 1 PhDCW 1Canada 5 PhDCW 5China 1 PhD 1Denmark 4 PhD 4Finland 2 PhDCW 2Germany 6 Dr.Phil 6India 4 PhDCW 4Ireland 2 PhD, PhD (Project)CW 2Italy 2 PhDCW 2Japan 3 PhD 3Korea 2 PhDCW 2Mexico 1 PhDCW 1Netherlands 2 PhD, ProfDocCW 3New Zealand 4 PhD, DDesCW 5Norway 2 PhD(CW) 2Portugal 4 PhD(CW) 4Singapore 1 PhDCW 1Sweden 5 PhD 5Taiwan 4 PhDCW 4Turkey 7 PhDCW 7UK 26 PhD(CW), PhD (Studio)CW PhD (Project)CW 50USA 17 PhDCW, DDesCW, DCDCW 27

Totals 153

258

modes of PhD study which although not warranting a different degree desig-

nation, such as DDes, are in terms of process and submission distinct. Such

degrees are in many cases the equivalent of the so-called professional doctor-

ates (DDes, DVA, DCA) as they have coursework, a project component.

What is evident from this overview that in terms of geographic spread and

significance structured coursework is indisputably the dominant model for

doctoral curriculum. The common denominator among structured course-

work offerings is research methods courses but may also extend in particular

cases to other areas including design philosophy, topicrelated electives, disci-

plinary or specialist issues subjects (e.g. current issues in interior design),

and other matters.

4 Survey methodsAlthough curriculum surveys provide a measure of the significance of course-

work in the curriculum, it is faculty and students whose personal evaluation of

coursework is critical.

To explore this a convenience sample (n¼ 102) of faculty (research coordina-

tors, supervisors, and heads of program) and students from a range of


Table 2 Respondent demo

Country

AustraliaBelgiumCanadaDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceIrelandIndiaKoreaNorwayNew ZealandSingaporeSloveniaSwedenTaiwanTurkeyUKUSANot stated

Totals


institutions (n¼ 67) was recruited with the majority from the UK, USA, and

Australasia. In Table 2 below country of origin of faculty and research stu-

dents (including recent graduates), responding to the survey is noted. Recruit-

ment for the faculty survey over a nine-month period was through personal

contacts of the author and professional lists, and consent was by completion.

In the initial recruitment faculty (heads of department, deans, research coor-

dinators, and supervisors) were enrolled. In the second recruitment PhD stu-

dents were encouraged to respond.

The first section of the on-line questionnaire (delivered using Opinio�) gath-

ered a range of respondent institutional demographics, including academic

status, role, and institution.

The second section proposed a set of twelve five-point Likert scale

agreementedisagreement statements on coursework (see headings of Section

5 below). Questions were polarized negatively (e.g. 8, 9, 12) and positively

and each question had a text box for qualitative comments, allowing for meth-

odological triangulation. In addition to general discussion of the relevant

headings, qualitative comments are discussed below.

5 Survey results and qualitative commentsIn the percentages attached to pie charts, five-point Likert scale results are also

collapsed into three broad categories: agree, disagree, neutral and n/a. Percent-

age results are also given as adjusted relative frequency, excluding the

graphic spread and status

Institutions Faculty Students Total

9 11 7 181 2 0 24 2 2 43 3 1 42 1 5 64 1 3 41 1 0 11 0 1 13 2 1 31 0 1 13 2 1 34 6 2 81 n/a n/a 11 0 1 11 2 0 22 3 0 32 2 2 4

11 10 6 1613 9 10 18n/a n/a n/a 1

67 57 45 102


Figure 1 Coursework ensures

more students complete their

doctorate

260

percentage of unanswered questions. Given the convenience sampling proce-

dure (and size) and the exploratory nature of the survey, means, standard de-

viations were not deemed relevant. Despite the small sample size the

qualitative comments allow for a range of nuances to responses to emerge. Re-

gional differences meant that some respondents found certain questions un-

clear or contentious; future studies should address these limitations. In what

follows, general results are followed by qualitative themes, which emerged in

comments; where relevant I link these comments to previous studies and dis-

cussions in the literature.

5.1 Coursework and completionsIn North America coursework (Figure 1) is intended to ensure students have

a basis for independent research, a rationale now beginning to form part of

the European and Australian models (Moses, 1984; Baird, 1997). This ques-

tion also addresses whether the recent inclusion of coursework (in professional

and other doctorates) has increased completion rates, an issue little studied to

date but with some indications that it does (but see Stricker, 1994; De Valero,

2001; Martin et al., 2001; Neumann, 2002; McAlpine and Norton, 2006).

Smeby (2000), for example, has suggested that the resistance of the Humanities

and Social Sciences to structured guidance contributes to the lower completion

rates in these fields in relation to the hard sciences.

Although a majority supported this claim, many respondents pointed to how

the outcome of the coursework-completion link depended on the individual

project. Despite overall general approval, there was some scepticism about

the relevance of coursework with several respondents suggesting designers

only needed ‘professional experience’. Three respondents claimed there was

no evidence to link coursework and completion or it was difficult to test. A

number of respondents pointed to social benefits of building stronger student

communities (e.g. Johnston, 1995) through coursework, and its ‘obligatory’ or

‘methodical’ nature was an advantage to two respondents. Other comments

included the need for personal ‘self-reflection’ in coursework, the ability of

coursework to ‘weed out weak proposals or bring them up to scratch’, and

the value of coursework for making it possible for faculty skills to be exploited

and shared among students. Coursework could also be ‘an important catalyst’

to engage with research in ‘fresh ways’ and within ‘relevant contexts’.

55%

8%

17%

20%

AgreeDisagreeNeutraln/a


Figure 2 Most students have

no previous training in re-

search methods


5.2 Student backgrounds in research methodsWhile the level of understanding for the doctorate needs development

(Figure 2), where a Masters degree (as in the US) is a prerequisite for enrol-

ment in a doctorate it might be expected that students have addressed

research methods. Refresher courses for those having been in industry for

new recruits into practice-oriented doctorates might also be expected. A

significant number of respondents agreed with this claim although a near equal

number either disagreed or were neutral. Qualitative comments again revealed

interesting clarifications, including the regional particularities in curriculum

requirements, for example, in the UK,US,Germany, Denmark, and Scandina-

via. There was some debate about the levels of graduate and undergraduate

exposure to methods, and a frequent comment among respondents was the

lack of previous research training of students often due to their professional

but not academic background. Interestingly, there were a few comments about

the dismissive attitude practice-oriented design faculty could take to research

methods. Some specific claims were that overseas students were particularly

poorly prepared, that ‘students that do a good proposal have been researching

before’, and that lack of research training was more characteristic of profes-

sional doctorates compared to PhD candidates.

5.3 Coursework and research independenceThere was general disagreement with this claim (Figure 3), which reflects an

issue still debated in the UK, Australia and some other countries, where cour-

sework has only recently been introduced as a distinctive feature of profes-

sional doctorates (e.g. Trigwell et al., 1997; Bourner et al., 2001). A number

of respondents noted how the coursework-research relationship depended

on the project and the individual themselves. Several claimed that even course-

work involves ‘independent work’ and individual choice (of courses) and could

avoid an ‘unnecessarily painful’ trial and error approach to study. Many re-

spondents signalled their belief that coursework could contribute to students

developing as independent researchers by promoting ‘critical thinking and

open possibilities for the final doctoral thesis’. Some respondents emphasized

the fact that lack of background scholarship among students made course-

work unavoidable. Also this question elicited comments on the nature of the

PhD as communal apprenticeship in the formation of accomplished indepen-

dent researchers. Two respondents suggested that coursework could be ‘too

heavy’ and ‘hinder our students to other independent research work’.

46%

28%

21%5%



Figure 4 Students should

learn conventional qualitative

and quantitative methods

10%

63%

17%

10%


Figure 3 Coursework hinders

students from becoming inde-

pendent researchers

262

5.4 Qualitative and quantitative methodsTraining in research methods (Figure 4) and methodologies is a common de-

nominator in doctoral coursework and qualitative and quantitative methods

are often mentioned as dividing up this domain (Cresswell and Miller, 1997;

Kiley and Liljegren, 1999). In some fields there is a recognition of the value

of students addressing both approaches (qualitative and quantitative) and

even mixing methods (Kaplan and Duchon, 1988; Page, 2001). A clear ma-

jority agreed with this proposal and research methods that are taught in

PhD programs often address these two broad traditions or strategies of

inquiry. A number of respondents alluded to the fact that an exposure to

these two traditions was part of the general responsibility of research train-

ing to provide students with a basic grounding even if they did not then go

on to use such methods, e.g. ‘is certainly advisable in terms of personal de-

velopment as a researcher’. It was noted several times that design research

was not limited to these two inquiry paradigms. Some specific comments in-

cluded the value of multiple methods for ‘triangulation’ with other possible

methods as well and to avoid the ‘many mistakes in methodology that are

seen in the design area’. The value of learning such social science methods

as they could then be ‘transferred to other disciplines and complemented

within projects where several disciplines have to intervene’.

5.5 Design specific methods (e.g. research visualization)Although there was a clear majority in favour of this proposal a number of

respondents referred to such skills as professional skills students (Figure 5)

should have on entry to the doctoral program. Many respondents again

note training is dependent on the individual project. Multiple methods, includ-

ing visualization, were seen by one respondent as particularly relevant to

design and ‘a good help for the student to manage and communicate his/her

research project’. Several comments highlighted the intrinsic value of such

methods and their link with professional practice although the level of

74%

8%

14% 4%



70%6%

19%5%


Figure 5 Students should

learn design specific methods

(e.g. research visualization)

Figure 6 Coursework detracts

from the academic status of

the doctoral degree


instruction, e.g. ‘foundations should be taught’ was questioned. Two individ-

uals suggested the need for more attention to teaching such methods.

5.6 Coursework and academic status of the doctoral degreeA clear majority disagreed (Figure 6) with this claim which takes up the per-

ception in the European (and Australian) tradition that coursework does

not belong in a doctoral program, which should exclusively address indepen-

dent research. Several respondents acknowledged that this was a dependent

and subjective issue and somewhat mitigated by ‘new forms of doctorates’

which did include coursework. A number of respondents emphasized the

intrinsically academic status of coursework and the contribution to not detrac-

tion from academic status coursework gave, especially in the US, e.g. ‘not in

the US, not in the Ivy League’. One respondent noted the detrimental effect

of coursework-less degrees in some institutions. Several respondents also

pointed to the overall value of coursework to research efficiencies such as

‘time-efficiency’.

5.7 Amount of coursework in doctoral programDoctoral programs vary greatly in the coursework to research ratio (Figure 7).

This question produced the most indistinct pattern of all questions and results

were vitiated by the fact that many respondents found making a judgement

based on some existing experience difficult to answer, e.g. ‘more than

what?’. A number of respondents did refer to the specifics of their institutions,

e.g. ‘we already require too high amount of coursework: 80 full-time weeks’;

one respondent arguing that more was needed, e.g. ‘the coursework taught

should deal with design research methods and it does not’. Acknowledging

that the question was program and institution dependent, one respondent

claimed that in general doctoral design programs had too little coursework

‘partly because schools lack the teaching resources for such courses and partly

because they don’t usually make appropriate use of courses in other schools’.

10%

63%

15%

12%



25%

29%

35%

11%AgreeDisagreeNeutraln/a

Figure 7 Students should have

more coursework in their doc-

toral program

Figure 8 Coursework should

be individualized to the stu-

dent project and not generic

264

One respondent suggested more ‘specific’ was relevant e ‘not more but more

specific and related to the different disciplines and their different natures’.

5.8 Individualizing courseworkGroup or cohort delivery of coursework (Figure 8) at the initial and medial

stages of the doctorate means that learning and teaching are generic to some

extent. While there was general agreement with this claim many respondents

also pointed to the need for balance between generic and individual skills e

‘balance is important too’. Foundation level coursework programs typically

involves group teaching across disciplinary and research topic boundaries.

Several respondents highlighted the problem of providing such a balanced

program, for example, ‘in an ideal world, we should be able to offer dozens

of small seminars and narrow individual courses. The fact is that none but

the wealthiest universities can do this’. While highlighting the need for bal-

ance, several comments pointed to the need for some compromise towards

the individual project, e.g. ‘often the project has a very specific scope and it

may be difficult to find courses that serve this scope’. A minority focused on

the value to students of personalization, e.g. ‘makes it more independent

and more relevant’. Taking up comments made in previous questions, several

respondents highlighted the benefits of the community aspect of group course-

work, e.g. ‘it’s useful for collegiality to have a shared basis for discussion’; ‘it

gives you a sense of group and community’.

5.9 The transition from coursework to researchThe transition to independent research (Figure 9) from coursework is chal-

lenging for novice researchers (Lovitts, 2005; Schweinsberg and McManus,

2006). While a near majority agreed with this claim an equal number wither

disagreed or were neutral. This was again viewed as dependent but some gen-

eralizations were made, e.g. ‘the former [difficulty] usually occurs with students

from professional design backgrounds’. Many respondents suggested the op-

posite was true, i.e. that coursework could ease the transition to research.

58%17%

17%8%



Figure 9 Students find transi-

tion from coursework to re-

search difficult


Certain comments attempted to clarify the causes of the challenge, e.g. ‘no, I

think that some students have a problemmoving from surface learning to deep

learning’. Another comment reflected on limitations in a specific school con-

text, e.g. ‘they never received a formation in this sense. And for us (the profes-

sors engaged in this), this is hard also’.

5.10 Sharing coursework between Mastersand Doctoral studentsFor a variety of reasons, including institutional efficiencies, coursework

(Figure 10) is shared between both groups although typically the assessment

outcomes for the doctoral students are expected to be of a greater quality. A

majority found this statement problematic as responses are based on what

the meaning of the ‘same’ means. A number of respondents referred to the

shared and differentiated purposes of coursework. Among those who agreed

that overlap was possible, and others, there were clear statements about the

distinction between the two degrees including claims about the two levels,

for example ‘Masters, in part, is research training, and a PhD is about new

knowledge/design’.

5.11 Doctoral portfoliosPortfolios are a growing global phenomenon (Figure 11), common in certain

disciplines (including the creative arts), and particularly in professional doc-

torates in applied disciplines (e.g. Maxwell, 2003; Thyer, 2004). Although

many found this idea palatable some found the question difficult to interpret,

one referring to it as ‘jargon from your region’. Comments pointed to this

practice being an option for certain programs. A significant number referred

to the existing practice of ongoing publication as part of this process, e.g.

‘there is scope for all forms of written work to be included in the written sub-

mission, such as publications, chapters, posters and coursework’. Notwith-

standing, some respondents preferred a strict separation of coursework

and dissertation writing, e.g. ‘the PhD should be a whole entity. Anything

else leads to dilution of standards’. Others pointed to the general value of

ongoing writing through the process, e.g. ‘it should support supervision dis-

cussion’. A few respondents noted that such portfolios of work could con-

tribute to the US mid-point comprehensive exam, e.g. ‘we submit papers

from our coursework as the body of our comprehensive exam’.

44%

24%

22%

10%



22%

59%

13%6%


Figure 10 Coursework train-

ing and assessment should be

the same for Masters and

Doctoral students

Figure 11 Assessed course-

work (e.g. written assign-

ments) should be part of

a doctoral portfolio

266

5.12 Design projects and interdisciplinarityInterdisciplinarity is often suggested to be a distinctive characteristic of design

research (Figure 12) although it presumes the somewhat debatable fact of

whether design has a disciplinary structure (Cross, 1999; Pizzocaro, 2002;

Harris et al., 2003; Tellefsen, 2003). A clear majority found this claim to be

appropriate to design although dependent on the individual project. Confirm-

ing multiple meanings of the term, other respondents provided examples of

existing doctoral practices, including coursework, where interdisciplinarity

was defined, e.g. ‘designing should be researched within social, cultural, polit-

ical, economic, psychological and technological contexts’. One respondent

suggested a change to curriculum e ‘maybe a subject on contextualizing design

would be a good idea’. In general however, there was a general confirmation of

the significance of interdisciplinarity, an oft-cited term on institutional

websites regarding doctoral programs in design.

6 ConclusionThis study has examined the nature of structured research training in doctor-

ate of design programs. Compulsory structured research training through elec-

tives and foundation courses appears to be not just a North American

phenomenon and appears to be becoming the international norm, as Kyvik

and Tvede (1998) have suggested. This study suggests certain convergences

of opinion regarding the characteristics and quality of structured research

training, such as the need for qualitative and quantitative method training,

while also indicating some divergence on certain issues, e.g. portfolio. Qualita-

tive comments supplied by respondents provide critical caveats on responses

and the need to contextualize each question within a specific disciplinary

and regional context. Particular practices, such as the doctoral portfolio,

remain geographically distinct.

42%

27%

22%

9%



77%

3%

10%10%


Figure 12 Design projects are

interdisciplinary and course-

work should address this


There is, nonetheless, a consensus that coursework is a valuable contribution

to doctoral research and should in general address multiple methods and par-

adigms in a field characterized by interdisciplinarity. The communal and social

aspect of learning in cohorts through foundational and discipline specific

phases of research training was a repeated theme in responses to several ques-

tions. In addition, structured coursework was generally deemed a direct and

positive contribution to student independence as researcher. A significant

number of respondents identified limitations in existing practices in their insti-

tutions regarding the quality and need for a substantive structured research

program.

Further studies employing more qualitative methods and individual institu-

tional case studies should be conducted in the future to build on this prelimi-

nary analysis. Nowell (1988) has argued that the British tradition of doctoral

study should learn from the success of North American programs which pro-

vide structured coursework to ease the transition from coursework to research

studies. Kyvik and Tvede (1998) have also suggested that Europe and North

America are converging in terms of the characteristics of doctoral programs.

One reason for this convergence is that even the UK model in art and design

has had to move some way to incorporating research training, simply because

the various research councils are increasingly make it a condition for funded

studentships.1 This study suggests that the provision of structured coursework

in design doctoral programs is an indicator of this convergence. In its multiple

disciplinary affiliations it seems that some design fields must decide whether to

shift their allegiance from the humanities and arts to improve time to comple-

tion and structured coursework may prove to be the catalysts for this shift.

ReferencesBaird, L L (1990) Disciplines and doctorates: the relationships between programcharacteristics and the duration of doctoral study, Research in Higher EducationVol 31 No 4 pp 369e385

Baird, L L (1997) Completing the dissertation: theory, research, and practice, NewDirections for Higher Education Vol 25 No 3 pp 99e105Ball, L (2002) Preparing graduates in art and design to meet the challenges ofworking in the creative industries: a new model for work, Art, Design and Com-

munication in Higher Education Vol 1 No 1 pp 10e24


268

Bayazit, N M (2004) Investigating design: a review of forty years of designresearch, Design Issues Vol 20 No 1 pp 16e29Biggs, M and Buchler, K (2007) Rigor and practice-based research, Design IssuesVol 23 No 3 pp 62e69

Boud, D and Tennant, M (2006) Putting doctoral education to work: challenges toacademic practice, Higher Education Research and Development Vol 25 No 3 pp293e306

Bourner, T, Bowden, R and Laing, S (2001) Professional doctorates in England,Studies in Higher Education Vol 26 No 1 pp 65e83Buchanan, R (2001) Design research and the new learning, Design Issues Vol 17

No 4 pp 3e17Candlin, F (2000) Practice-based doctorates and questions of academiclegitimacy, Journal of Art and Design in Education Vol 19 No 1 pp

96e101Cresswell, J W and Miller, G A (1997) Research methodologies and the doctoralprocess in L F Goodchild (ed) Rethinking the dissertation process: tackling personaland institutional obstacles, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California pp

33e46Cross, N (1999) Design research: a disciplined conversation, Design Issues Vol 15No 2 pp 5e10

Dallow, P (2003) Representing creativeness: practice-based approaches to researchin creative arts, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education Vol 2 No 1pp 49e57

Denicolo, P (2003) Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria, QualityAssurance in Education Vol 11 No 2 pp 84e92Demeritt, D (2004) Research training and the end(s) of the PhD, Geoforum Vol 35

No 6 pp 655e660De Valero, Y F (2001) Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and comple-tion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution, The Journalof Higher Education Vol 72 No 3 pp 341e367

Durling, D (2002) Discourses on research and the PhD in design, Quality Assur-ance in Education Vol 10 No 2 pp 79e85Durling, D and Friedman, K (2002) Guest editorial e best practices in PhD educa-

tion in design, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education Vol 1 No 3 pp133e140Friedman, K (2000) Form and structure of the doctorate in design: prelude to

a multilogue, in Paper Presented at the Doctoral Education in Design, La Clusaz,FranceGilbert, R (2004) A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum, Assessmentand Evaluation in Higher Education Vol 29 No 3 pp 299e307

Gilbert, R, Balatti, J, Turner, P and Whitehouse, H (2004) The generic skills de-bate in research higher degrees, Higher Education Research and DevelopmentVol 23 No 3 pp 375e388

Harris, R, Giard, J, and Pijawka, D (2003, October 14e17) Interdisciplinary doc-toral education in environmental design: assessment of programs, issues, struc-ture, and vision, in Paper Presented at the 6th Asian Design International

Conference, Tsukuba, JapanHockey, J (2003) Art and design practice-based research degree supervision: someempirical findings, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education Vol 2 No 2 pp

173e185Hockey, J and Allen-Collinson, J (2000) The Supervision of practice-based re-search degrees in art and design, International Journal of Art and Design EducationVol 19 No 3 pp 345e355



Hoddell, S, Street, D and Wildblood, H (2002) Doctorates e converging or diverg-ing patterns of provision, Quality Assurance in Education Vol 10 No 2 pp 61e70Hughes, R (2006) The poetics of practice-based research writing, The Journal ofArchitecture Vol 11 No 3 pp 283e301

Johnston, B and Murray, R (2004) New routes to the PhD: cause for concern?Higher Education Quarterly Vol 58 No 1 pp 31e42Johnston, S (1995) Building a sense of community in a research master’s course,

Studies in Higher Education Vol 20 No 3 pp 279e291Kaplan, B and Duchon, B (1988) Combining qualitative and quantitative methodsin information systems research: a case study, MIS Quarterly Vol 12 No 4 pp

571e586Katz, E L (1997) Key players in the dissertation process, New Directions forHigher Education Vol 99 No Fall pp 5e16

Kiley, M and Liljegren, D (1999) Discipline-related models for a structured pro-gram at the commencement of a PhD, Teaching in Higher Education Vol 4 No1 pp 61e75Kroelinger, M (2003) Issues for initiating interdisciplinary doctoral programmes,

Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education Vol 1 No 3 pp 183e194Kyvik, S and Tvede, O (1998) The doctorate in the Nordic countries, ComparativeEducation Vol 34 No 1 pp 9e25

Lovitts, B E (2005) Being a good course-taker is not enough: a theoretical perspec-tive on the transition to independent research, Studies in Higher Education Vol 30No 2 pp 137e154

Manathunga, C, Smith, C and Bath, D (2004) Developing and evaluating authenticintegration between research and coursework in professional doctorate programs,Teaching in Higher Education Vol 9 No 2 pp 235e246

Martin, Y M, Maclachlan, M and Karmel, T (2001) Postgraduate completion ratesACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Commonwealth ofAustralia, CanberraMaxwell, T (2003) From first to second generation professional doctorate, Studies

in Higher Education Vol 28 No 3 pp 279e291McAlpine, L and Norton, J (2006) Reframing our approach to doctoral programs:an integrative framework for action and research, Higher Education Research and

Development Vol 25 No 1 pp 3e17McWilliam, E L and Singh, P (2002) Towards a research training curriculum:what, why, how, who?, Australian Educational Researcher Vol 29 No 3 pp

4e18McWilliam, E, Taylor, P G, Thomson, P, Green, B, Maxwell, T and Wildy, H

(2002) Research training in doctoral programs: what can be learned from profes-sional doctorates? Dept of Education, Science and Training, Canberra

Moses, I (1984) Supervision of higher degree students e problem areas and pos-sible solutions, Higher Education Research and Development Vol 3 No 2 pp153e165

Neumann, R (2002) Diversity, doctoral education and policy, Higher EducationResearch and Development Vol 21 No 2 pp 167e178Newbury, D (1996) Knowledge and research in art and design, Design Studies Vol

17 No 2 pp 215e219Newbury, D (2002) Doctoral education in design, the process of research degreestudy, and the ‘trained researcher’, Art, Design and Communication in Higher

Education Vol 1 No 3 pp 149e159Nowell, D E (1988) Postgraduate studies in North American and British geogra-phy: a comparative review, Journal of Geography in Higher Education Vol 12 No 1pp 95e106


270

Page, R N (2001) Reshaping graduate preparation in educational researchmethods: one school’s experience, Educational Researcher Vol 30 No 5 pp19e25Park, C (2005) New variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the

UK, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Vol 27 No 2 pp189e207Pearson, M and Brew, A (2002) Research training and supervision development,

Studies in Higher Education Vol 27 No 2 pp 135e150Pedgley, O and Wormald, P (2007) Integration of design projects within a PhD,Design Issues Vol 23 No 3 pp 70e85

Pizzocaro, S (2002) Re-orienting PhD education in industrial design: some issuesarising from the experience of a PhD programme revision, Art, Design and Com-munication in Higher Education Vol 1 No 3 pp 173e182

Pole, C (2000) Technicians and scholars in pursuit of the PhD: some reflections ondoctoral study, Research Papers in Education Vol 15 No 1 pp 95e111Prentice, R (2000) The place of practical knowledge in research in art and designeducation, Teaching in Higher Education Vol 5 No 4 pp 521e534

Radu, F (2006) Inside looking out: a framework for discussing the question ofarchitectural design doctorates, The Journal of Architecture Vol 11 No 3 pp345e351

Roth, S (1999) The state of design research, Design Issues Vol 15 No 2 pp18e26Rust, C (2002) Many flowers, small leaps forward: debating doctoral education in

design, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education Vol 1 No 3 pp141e148Schwartz-Shea, P (2003) Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements

and offerings in methods and methodology, PS: Political Science and PoliticsVol 36 pp 379e386Schweinsberg, S and McManus, P (2006) Exploring the transition: coursework toresearch-based study in the geography honours year, Geographical Research Vol

44 No 1 pp 52e62Seago, A and Dunne, A (1999) New methodologies in art and design research: theobject as discourse, Design Issues Vol 15 No 2 pp 11e17

Smeby, J C (2000) Disciplinary differences in Norwegian graduate education,Studies in Higher Education Vol 25 No 1 pp 53e67Stricker, L (1994) Institutional factors in time to the doctorate, Research in Higher

Education Vol 35 No 5 pp 569e587Sutton, S and Kemp, S (2006) Integrating social science and design inquirythrough interdisciplinary design charrettes: an approach to participatory commu-nity problem solving, American Journal of Community Psychology Vol 38 No 1 pp

125e139Tellefsen, B (2003) Integrating research education across departments and disci-plines: theory and experience, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education

Vol 1 No 3 pp 161e172Thyer, B (2004) A student portfolio approach to conducting doctoral social workcomprehensive examinations, Journal of Teaching in Social Work Vol 23 No 3/4

pp 117e126Trigwell, K, Shannon, T and Maurizi, R (1997) Research-coursework doctoral pro-grams in Australian universities Australian Govt Pub Service, Canberra

Usher, R (2002) A diversity of doctorates: fitness for the knowledge economy?Higher Education Research and Development Vol 21 No 2 pp 143e153Wellington, J and Sikes, P (2006) ‘‘A doctorate in a tight compartment’’: why dostudents choose a professional doctorate and what impact does it have on their



personal and professional lives?, Studies in Higher Education Vol 31 No 6 pp723e734Winter, R, Griffiths, M and Green, K (2000) The ‘‘academic’’ qualities of practice:what are the criteria for a practice-based PhD?, Studies in Higher Education Vol

25 No 1 pp 25e37Wood, J (2000) The culture of academic rigour: does design research really needit?, The Design Journal Vol 3 No 1 pp 44e57

1. Many thanks to anonymous reviewer 3 for pointing this out.


Global perspectives on structured research training in doctorates of design – what do we value?

Documents

Transcript of Global perspectives on structured research training in doctorates of design – what do we value?