YASMIN website: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/
YASMIN map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin
To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Grassroots conference april 16+17 kiasma helsinki
2. Change of email
3. International Summer Seminars for Art Curators: Post Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation
4. Zeppelin 2008 - Sound art festival -13, 14 & 15 March @ CCCB (barcelona)
5. BARCELONA: Zeppelin 2008. 13-14-15 / 03 / 2008
6. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
7. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: georg.dietzler@falmouth.ac.uk
Subject: Grassroots conference april 16+17 kiasma helsinki
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:12:27 +0200
Please post the grassroots conference info on the yasmine email list, thanks georg ------- Georg Dietzler Research Fellow - Art, Nature and Environment University College Falmouth Woodlane, Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 4RH <georg.dietzler@falmouth.ac.uk> Phone: +44.(0)1326.21-4391 Cell phone +44.(0)7726704346 GRASSROOTS Green Art / Art and Ecology Conference at Kiasma Theatre Helsinki, 16.-17 April 2008 Please spread the word widely For details and up-dates please visit www.halikonlahti.net/grassroots CONFERENCE FEE: 20 € for whole conference 10 € for one day students â€"50 % - Lunch not included to the fee GRASSROOTS is a 2-day conference, including lectures, Question and Anwer sessions, panel discussion, encourage dialoge with and among the delegates, providing different viewpoints and films. A public forum for discovering and debating the wide field of art and ecology today with renowed and specialist speakers leading the way. You don’t need to be a specialist, just come with an open and enquiry mind. Encouters of Artists, curators, scientists, educators, adminstrators of cultural institutions, environmental activist, journalist, cross-border cooperation. Major focus is on a selection of best practice, inspiring talks provoking dialog on topics such as regional development, cross-border cooperation in sustainable arts, bioarts, arts and ecology, storytelling, networking, etc. and all related to the Nordic and Baltic Sea Region such a network is going to be launched during the conference. GRASSROOTS speakers are: Risto Isomäki/FIN writer and activist, Osmo Rauhala (artist and organic farmer/FIN), Ritva Kovalainen/Sanni Seppo (artists/FIN), Arja Elovirta (Taide Art Magazine/FIN), Marjukka Korhonen/Fin (Sculptor) and Sari Poijärvi/Fin (Photographic artist), Jan van Boeckel ((NL) educator, artist and filmmaker/University of Art and Design, Helsinki), Eva Bakkeslett/Nor , Alan Boldon (educator, artist and founder of MA Arts and Ecology at Dartington College, Totnes/UK), Christine Heidemann+Galerie für Landschaftskunst/Ger (freelanced curator), Hildegard Kurt (Writer and Co-Founder of „und. Institut for Art, Culture and Sustainable Future“/GER), George Steinmann (artist and musician/CH), Heli Aaltonen/FIN (storyteller and drama teacher) , Ulla Taipale/FIN+E (Curator in Capsula/Barcelona), Free Soil Projects/Nis Rømer/DK, Tuula Nikulainen/FIN and Georg Dietzler/GER both from the Green Art Halikonlahti Team. Booking essential through Leena Suominen, leena.suominen@msl.fi Booking Form download at <http://www.halikonlahti.net/grassroots> The final program, abstracts introducing speakers and up-dates please visit www.halikonlahti.net/grassroots Timetable and Speakers may be subject to change TIMETABLE 16.4. Wednesday 9.00 Registration and Coffee 9.30 Welcome by Berndt Arell, Kiasma’s director 9.45 Introduction by Arja Elovirta and Georg Dietzler 10.10 Alan Boldon (UK): Contemporary Approaches to Ecology, Interdisciplinarity and Place. 10.50 Questions and Anwers (Q+A) 11.10 Coffee break 11.40 Ulla Taipale (FIN): BIOARTS. Experiencing and experimenting the biological matter through Arts. 12.10 Q+A. 12.25 Panel discussion on Art and Ecology â€" Bioarts Alan Boldon, Ulla Taipale and Hildegard Kurt 12.45 Osmo Rauhala (FIN): Myself and My Natural Surroundings. My role as artist and ecological farmer living and working in Finland and New York 13.05 Q+A. 13.20 Lunch break 14.20 George Steinmann (CH): Komi(Russia, A Growing Sculpture 1997 - 2006. A transdisciplinary work in cooperation with Heikkinen - Komonen Architects, Silver Taiga Foundation Syktyvkar and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC. 14.50 Q+A. 15.10 Hildgard Kurt (GER): Sustainability â€" a Challenge to Art? 15.30 Q+A 15.50 Coffee break 16.20 Ritva Kovalainen/Sanni Seppo (FIN): The End of the Rainbow. Where did the forest disappear? 16.40 Q+A 17.00 Eva Bakkeslett (NOR): Putting Arts and Ecology on the Norwegian Agenda. Launching of a Nordic interdisciplinary network of artists, scientist and philosophers for creative work incorporating ecology. 17.20 Q+A. 17.45 Short films (English Version only) Peak Oil subvert (UK) A collaborative filmmaking project between director Luke Martin, writer-producer Denzil Monk and the Cornwall Youth Film Collective. End of the Rainbow/Sateenkaaren pää (FIN) by Ritva Kovalainen and Sanni Seppo (New version, 2007). In The Beginning Was The Word (NL) by Pat van Boeckel. informal chats and socialzing, 17.4. Thursday 9.00 Tuula Nikulainen (FIN): The Halikonlahti Green Art Story. Ways to engage and understand with environmental problems through arts including Art and Ecology projects with Children and Youth. 9.30 Q +A. 9.50 Coffee break 10.20 Heli Aaltonen (FIN): Storytelling and Forum Theatre. A way to get messages to the hearts of people. 10.50 Jan van Boeckel (NL): Arts and Environmental Education. Making sense of climate change, through art. 11.20 Panel discussion on Arts and Environmental Education Heli Aaltonen, Tuula Nikulainen, Jan van Boeckel and Temuu Mäki 11.50 Christine Heidemann (GER): Exploring Hamburg’s Waters with a Barge/ Schute. A cross-disciplinary art project by American artists Mark Dion and collaborators. 12.20 Q+A. 12.40 Sari Pojarvi, Marjukka Korhonen (FIN): CRIME SCENE. Ongoing project documents environmental crimes against nature. 13.20 Lunch break 14.20 Risto Isomäki (FIN): Illusions and Opportunities of Globalization. The role of activists, journalism and science fiction within Art and Ecology 14.50 Q+A. 15.10 Nis Rømer (DK): Free Soil. A project of an international hybrid collaboration of artists, activists, researchers and gardeners, 15.40 Q+A. 16.00 Coffee break 16.40 Outcomes by Arja Elovirta and Georg Dietzler 17.20 Last Yoik In Saami Forests -documentary (FIN) by Hannu Hyvönen and Sami Film Co-operative. The conflict, it´s backgrounds but also alternatives. Film is reflecting social, cultural and environmental impact of the heavy forest cuttings for the Sami population. Before and after the GRASSROOTS conference: there is an ambitious exhibition triology on Art and Ecology „Green Art Halikonlahti“, which has started taking place in the Salo Region of Finland in 2006. Sept, 12 â€" Oct 26, 2008 you are invited to visit Green Art Halikonlahti’s second edition „WATERWAYS“. More on <http://www.halikonlahti.net>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: georg.dietzler@falmouth.ac.uk
Subject: Change of email
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:15:20 +0200
Hi there would like to change my email from my college to my private one <welcome@dietzlerge.org>, what needs to be done? Cheers georg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rmalina@prontomail.com
Subject: International Summer Seminars for Art Curators: Post Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:29:52 +0200
WORLD OF ART, School of Contemporary Art www.worldofart.org <http://www.worldofart.org> 2007/2008 Call for application to International Summer Seminars for Art Curators: Post Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation July 21-August 1, 2008, Yerevan, Armenia Application deadline: April 15, 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AICA-Armenia (NAAC) is announcing the call for the 3rd International Summer School Program for contemporary art curators, which will take place from July 21-August 2 in Yerevan, Armenia. The project is being realized in collaboration with SCCA-Ljubljana in Slovenia, SCCA-Alma-Aty in Kazakhstan and Beral Madra Center for Contemporary Art in Istanbul. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROGRAM The program is comprised of a series of lectures, presentations and workshops that center around issues related to the methodologies of curating, the role of the curator in the ever increasing globalization of the art market, strategies of representation and institutional structures in the contemporary art world. The theme of the 2008 project Post-Socialism and Media Transformations: Strategies of Representation will focus on aspects of new media representation in the specific context of post-Socialism. The aim is to look at transformations in the uses of media for artistic production and the mechanisms of representation in the artistic scenes of former socialist countries, with an awareness of ideological connotations of new media utilization. The intensive two-weeks program will comprise of a theory and method courses, as well as a curatorial workshop. The courses will be combined with presentations by local and international artists, curators, art historians and cultural workers as well as with visits to artists’ studios, galleries and museums in Yerevan. The participants will gain knowledge not only about theoretical and methodological issues related to curatorial practices but will also get acquainted with Armenian artists, curators, critics, curators as institutional structures in the field of contemporary art in Armenia. The experience of the past two years have shown that the participants have developed a lively forum of alumni networking through collaborating with each other on common themes in the form of exhibitions, symposia and publications. The courses and the workshop are conducted by internationally renowned academics and curators. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO APPLY? The deadline for submitting applications is April 15, 2008. All the applications should arrive before the closing date. The applications and related materials should be submitted to the relevant partner-organization in your region by e-mail. Please see the information below for submission information according to your country of residence. NAAC's partner institutions will choose several applications for the first round of the competition and forward it to NAAC in early April. The second and final round will be carried out and the funding decisions will be made by NAAC. Residents of countries of European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia should send electronic application and supporting materials to SCCA-Ljubljana! MORE INFORMATION, APPLICATION GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION FORM: http://www.worldofart.org/current/archives/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCCA-Ljubljana Center for Contemporary Arts Metelkova 6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.scca-ljubljana.si phone: 00 386 1 431 83 85 fax: 00 386 1 430 06 29 contact person: Dusan Dovc e-mail: info@scca-ljubljana.si ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCCA-Ljubljana program is supported by Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia, Municipality of Ljubljana. SCCA-Ljubljana is a member of Asociacija, the association of non-government organisations and independent creators in the field of culture and art in Slovenia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: juanademora@yahoo.com.ar
Subject: Zeppelin 2008 - Sound art festival -13, 14 & 15 March @ CCCB (barcelona)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:32:34 +0200
Zeppelin 2008
(About deafness, culture and politics)
Sound art festival. 13-14-15 March at CCCB > Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona (c/ Montalegre 5)
Next edition of the Zeppelin 2008: THE SOUND IN THE CAVE is about to start.
Its complete program can be checked out at:
http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/
We also want to inform you that the call for SORDERAS (DEAFNESSES) is closed. We have received a total amount of 203 sound works from artists from Europe, Latin America, North America, Australia and Asia.
The schedule for the listening is at:
http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/sorderas/
An other succesful call was the phrases one for the Festival instalation. We have more thn 200 frases sent by many of you.
http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/cast/frases_cast.html
We want to remind you all life events will be low casted in streeming at Calamaro Planet in Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) or through www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/stream.html
SEE YOU AT ZEPPELIN!
FREE ENTRY
Organizer: ORQUESTRA DEL CAOS
WWW.SONOSCOP.NET
CAOS@SONOSCOP.NET
Yahoo! Encuentros
Ahora encontrar pareja es mucho más fácil, probá el nuevo Yahoo! Encuentros.
Visitá http://yahoo.cupidovirtual.com/servlet/NewRegistration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: palsinag@uoc.edu
Subject: BARCELONA: Zeppelin 2008. 13-14-15 / 03 / 2008
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:23:34 +0200
De: José Manuel Berenguer Alarcón [mailto:jmbeal@telefonica.net] Enviado el: martes, 11 de marzo de 2008 14:45 Para: elmer Asunto: Zeppelin 2008. 13-14-15 / 03 / 2008 {En catalá, més avall} {Scroll down for english} Hola! Se acerca la próxima edición de Zeppelin 2008, los días 13, 14 y 15 de marzo en el CCCB. La programación completa se puede consultar en la web: http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/ También os informamos que ya está cerrada la convocatoria de SORDERAS, de la que hemos recibido un total de 203 obras sonoras de artistas de Europa, América Latina, Norteamérica, Australia y Asia. La programación de las obras está disponible en la web: http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/sorderas/ Otra convocatoria exitosa fue la de frases para la instalación del Pati de les dones. Contamos con más de 200 frases que muchos de vosotros nos habéis enviado. Muchas gracias a todos! Aprovechamos para recordaros que todos los eventos en vivo serán redirigidos en streaming a Calamaro Planet en Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) o a través de www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/stream.html Esperamos veros en el ZEPPELIN 2008: EL SONIDO EN LA CUEVA! ENTRADA LIBRE /////////////////////////////////////////////////// Catalá Hola a tots! S'acosta la propera edició de Zeppelin 2008, els dies 13, 14 i 15 de març al CCCB. La programació completa és consultable al web: http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/ També us informem que ja està tancada la convocatòria de SORDESES, de la qual hem rebut un total de 203 obres sonores d'artistes d'Europa, América Llatina, Nordamèrica, Austràlia i Àsia. La programació de les obres és disponible al web: http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/sorderas/ Una altra convocatòria d'èxit fou la de frases per a la instal·lació del Pati de les dones. Comptem amb més de 200 frases que molts de vosaltres ens heu enviat. Gràcies a tots! Aprofitem per recordar-vos que tots els actes en viu seran redirigits en streaming a Calamaro Planet de Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) o a través de www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/stream.html Esperem veure-us al ZEPPELIN 2008: EL SO DINS LA COVA! ENTRADA LLIURE /////////////////////////////////////////////////// English Hi! Next edition of the Zeppelin 2008: THE SOUND IN THE CAVE is about to start. Its complete program can be checked out at: http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/ We also want to inform you that the call for SORDERAS (DEAFNESSES) is closed. We have received a total amount of 203 sound works from artists from Europe, Latin America, North America, Australia and Asia. The schedule for the listening is at: http://www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/sorderas/ An other succesful call was the phrases one for the Festival instalation. We have more thn 200 frases sent by many of you. Thanks to all! We want to remind you all life events will be low casted in streeming at Calamaro Planet in Second Life (Mignon: 180, 234,22) or through www.sonoscop.net/zeppelin2008/stream.html SEE YOU AT ZEPPELIN! FREE ENTRY ------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ken.friedman@bi.no
Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:28:30 +0200
Friends, Here is John Langrish's article. Many of the issues John took up in this 2000 article remain relevant today, primarily because there has been less progress in art research than in design research. Ken -- Langrish, John. "Not everything made of steel is a battleship." Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the Future. Proceedings of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, 297-306. -- Not everything made of steel is a battleship John Langrish Manchester Metropolitan University, UK Imagine you heard someone say, 'my fork is a battleship'. You might be curious and ask them what they meant. Suppose the reply went like this, 'Battleships are made of steel. My fork is made of steel. Therefore my fork is a battleship'. You would probably hurry away. It is obviously a very silly argument. Yet a similar false logic can be heard whenever two or three get together to discuss research in Art and Design. Try this. 'PhDs are given for research. I am an artist and I engage in research during my artistic practice. Therefore my art should get a PhD'. This doesn't sound quite so silly but, in fact, it is. Many many things are called research just like many many things are made of steel. Two different things - battleships and forks - are not made the same just because they are made of steel and two different kinds of research - that done by an artist and that done by a PhD student are not made the same just because they are called research. This problem is caused by confusing inclusion with equivalence. If A and B are included within C, that tells you nothing about their equivalence. Imagine a large area. Everything included in this area is called research. It includes people whose names appear at the end of a TV programme. It includes babies learning how to transfer egg from its shell onto a spoon and then into their mouths without spilling it. This learning involves trial and error type research. It includes artists trying new ways of doing something and engineers, writers experimenting with new structures and many human activities. Within this large area which includes all research, there is a smaller area which includes everything that is called academic research. Within this are three subgroups called 1) the sort of research that counts for the research assessment exercise, 2) research done by members of staff that does not count for the RAE and 3) research done by research students for a research degree. An artist member of staff can include an exhibition for the RAE but this is no reason at all for claiming that exhibitions should qualify for a PhD. Exhibitions and PhDs are both included in the wider idea of research outputs; that does not make them equivalent. Steel forks are not battleships. Not everything made of steel is a battleship The PhD is a unique degree in that it is used in all parts of the university system. From arts to sciences and from music to management, they all have PhDs. When it comes to the PhD, Art and Design is not free to do what it wants. It has to accept that other people have already set the norms for a PhD and there is one basic rule that some sections of art and design seem blissfully unaware of. This basic rule states, you cannot get a PhD for practice. In English literature, you do not get a PhD for writing a novel, play or poem. You have to write a thesis and a thesis meant 'argument' back in the days before paper was cheap when the candidate presented a verbal thesis to a group of senior academics. A PhD in English adds to knowledge about literature. It is not itself literature. Similarly, an engineer does not get a PhD for the practice of engineering - developing a new machine or method of manufacture, say. A PhD in engineering adds to knowledge of engineering; it is not itself engineering. Many areas of university life have fought against this ruling without success. The answer is always the same, 'If you want a doctorate for practitioners, fine but don't call it a PhD, call it something else.' Medical practitioners can obtain an MD - Doctor of Medicine (Of course these days, medical practitioners are usually not 'doctors' but the English language is crazy). There is Doctor of Music, Doctor of Engineering and so on. Perhaps the rarest degree is DD - Doctor of Divinity. So if people want doctorates for artists they need a DFA - Doctor of Fine Art but it's not a PhD. The basic rule that a PhD is not a certificate of competence in practice is accepted across all disciplines. It is also international in its scope. A paper on the situation in Turkey (Er and Bayazit 1999:36) claims "...holding a PhD in design represents being able to conduct independent research with a contribution to knowledge in the field of industrial design. It does not stand for being able to design a better product." In Turkey, they have two types of doctoral qualification, the PhD and something that translates as 'Proficiency in Art'. The second of these is a professional doctorate which is awarded for completing a program leading to 'the production of original art work or the exhibition of outstanding performance and artistic creativity... accompanied by a written dissertation' (Er and Bayazit: 38). This type of degree would be called something like a Doctor in Fine Art in other countries but not a PhD. So what is a PhD and what is different about Art and Design PhDs? 1. Firstly, a PhD is a piece of paper awarded for an educational experience; it is an educational qualification certifying something mainly for the benefit of future employers in two respects:- 1a. It certifies that the person knows how to do research in an area and as such might be employed by someone who wants research doing in that area. In this case, knowing how to research is more important than the actual topic. That is why US students have to pass an exam in research methods and why the methodology chapter is an important part of an English PhD. Even in the humanities, it is increasingly the case that a PhD must discuss why the student did it this way rather than another. History PhDs are expected to discuss the relative validity of one set of sources over another etc. Science and other experimental PhDs have an additional need for detailed description of methods viz the need for possible replication by someone else. However, non experimental PhDs still have to show that the student has learnt something about research, how to do it, its pitfalls and the confidence you can have with its findings. In other words, a PhD is a certificate that someone has served an apprenticeship in the practice of research. That is why I hate people going on about practice based PhDs. All PhDs are based on the practice of research. Any other kind of practice is not being certificated. 1b. The second aspect of certification is to do with the fact that a PhD is becoming almost an essential entry qualification for university lecturers in any subject. A university lecturer is supposed to be able to teach at the frontiers of a subject. This requires both specialist knowledge and the ability to communicate something. So a PhD should certify that its holder has 'found something out' in a form that is communicable to others. That is why professional 'practice' in any area is not enough for a PhD. Practice adds to an individual's own skills and knowledge but such addition is difficult to communicate to others. That is why you don't get a PhD in English by writing a novel; you have to write about some aspect of the novel. This means you could start to teach a course on the novel as..... Similarly, a mechanical engineer does not get a PhD for inventing a better machine (engineering practice); some aspect of machines in general is required and this aspect is teachable. In many areas of human activity, top level practitioners are not necessarily good teachers. If you want to learn to drive, you might not want to be taught by a world champion rally driver; an instructor in a driving school would be better. A professional can do something. An instructor can communicate. (In order to avoid another battleships and forks confusion, it is necessary to add that just because the results of a PhD should be communicable at university level, it does not follow that anything developed for a degree course is worth a PhD. The PhD requires an additional quality, namely, originality. It also requires evidence to support the claim to have made a contribution to knowledge). 2. A PhD is an 'advance in knowledge' - but only a little advance. Science supervisors say things like, 'Come on lad, you're not expected to get a Nobel Prize. A PhD is just a training. You can do real research later'. Some of the social science/humanities got this bit wrong. They thought that a PhD meant a big advance. That's why it used to take years and years to finish. Then the research councils started counting completion times and not funding places that went in for 'years and years' type PhDs. So now, a PhD represents the sort of advance in knowledge that could be gained in a minimun of 2 years full time work by a relatively inexperienced student. No Big Deal. So what is a little advance in knowledge? That question could lead to a book on epistemology but note that the word 'thesis' used to mean an 'argument'. It should be possible to answer the question, 'so what is your thesis?' in not more than two sentences but this conclusion has to be supported by evidence. Two years work for two sentences that might get quoted by someone else? Well yes but in addition, the PhD student should have learned how to do research and should have enough material for a lecture course. 3. PhD thesis as black book. Most people think of a PhD not as a certificate etc but as a black book with about 320 pages in it. It never ceases to amaze me that some students embark on a PhD without ever having looked at some successfully completed examples. The basic structure of this black book is very similar across all disciplines. It might be of interest to include here an extract from my lecture notes given to students. Notes on writing a thesis by John Langrish Introduction. Most theses are in four parts (Note: they are not called Part 1, 2 etc but they are there - Parts one and three may be several chapters) 1. OBE - other bugger's efforts - a discussion of what is already known. (to demonstrate an advance in knowledge you have to draw a starting line). This part is sometimes called the 'literature review' but this can be a misnomer. Strictly speaking, a literature review is an account of all the literature in a specialist area. This is both impossible and undesirable in interdisciplinary topics or in new areas that don't yet have a 'literature' of their own. Part one extracts from what is known already enough material to demonstrate 1. that the student is not reinventing the wheel. 2. the existence of some ideas, concepts (or even a theory) that could be useful 3. the basis for a lecture course 4. the place for an addition to all this. Usually, either a controversy or a hole - something missing - leading to a research question. (Many PhD systems require 'aims'. An aim is just a grammatically different form of a question. 'What are the factors that lead to ....' is a question. 'To identify the factors that...' is an aim. They both say what someone hopes to find out). 2. METHODOLOGY - how you might answer the question by doing something and what you actually did and what you learned from doing it. PhD research involves doing something - it is a practical activity - it is learnt by doing, like swimming or making a pot. That is why people who go about saying 'I'M doing a practice based PhD' should be treated with scoff scoff 'Who isn't?'. All PhDs are based on the practice of research but not on some other form of practice. This chapter should be a demonstration that the student has learnt something about how to do research. 3. MBE - 'My bloody efforts' The results of what you found out. This can be tables of numbers, the results of interviews, case studies etc 4. WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE. - usually called, 'Discussion, Conclusions and Further research.' This is where your stuff meets other peoples' stuff so that you can demonstrate an addition to knowledge by answering a question or achieving some aims and mustering the evidence. (If you have not achieved your original aims, do not despair - you just change the aims so that they do match what you have found out.) If you have not found anything out you are in trouble but a good supervisor can usually show how you have found something out even if you did not notice it yourself. Next time someone does a PhD in this area they will have to include your conclusion in their OBE so make sure you have a quotable conclusion. If you claim to have identified five factors responsible for ... and two of these are additions to what previous people have claimed, then you have to get mentioned by the next person. (end of extract from lecture notes) What is different about art and design PhDs? The above discussion covers those things that are common to most PhDs. However, each academic area is different from others in some respect. The differences between subjects can be categorised under three headings 1. the questions asked 2. the methods used to answer them and 3. the type of evidence that is acceptable to a peer group of academics in the same area. A key difference between Art and Design and the rest ought to be a concern with things visual. There could be a fascinating conference on visual questions, visual methods and visual evidence but it has not happened. If a PhD involves a thesis/argument then visual evidence is something that could be used to communicate and even convince other people. In effect, if someone does not believe you, and 'well look at that' does convince them, then what you have shown them is visual evidence. Some of the questions that could be the basis for art PhDs are questions of the form 'what do artists do, "how do they do it," why and with what result?' To some people, this is the start of a discussion about practice based PhDs but as already claimed, the only practice that really matters in a PhD is the practice of research. This is not the same as saying that professional practice can not be the subject of research; this is quite different from awarding a degree for practice. Now, of course, professional practice can be the subject of PhD type research in many academic areas. A management PhD can involve studying the practice of management and finding out something about how it is actually done, how some managers are 'better' than others, how managers are affected by changes in legislation, new technology etc etc. A PhD in law could involve finding out about the practice of law and so on. This is a perfectly good model for art and design PhDs. People have obtained PhDs for finding out about what practitioners actually do. In graphic design, for example, there have been PhDs on the use of drawing by graphic designers and on how designers select a particular form of visual material for inclusion in a poster package or pamphlet. The above examples all involve finding out about other peoples practice. There is a special form of PhD which involves finding out more about professional practice by involving the researchers own practice in the research. There is nothing unusual about this and such PhDs are not singled out as being 'practice based'; they are sometimes called action research which roughly means doing something and finding out what happens. So a production manager might alter the method of production in the factory under carefully controlled conditions and observe the results. A social worker or a teacher could carry out a carefully designed study of their own way of working together, with finding out the results of changing things. Thus a member of staff involved with teacher training obtained a PhD from a careful study of the effects of changing the basis of training from being college based to being school based. Given that it is clearly possible for a practitioner in other areas to gain a PhD for a study of practice (gathering evidence to answer a question that provides new knowledge about practice), why are some people still making a fuss about practice based PhDs? If they want PhDs to be awarded as a certificate of good practice, they can't have them but perhaps there is something else as discussed in the next section. Whatever happened to the 'candidates own creative work'? If art and design were more scholarly, it wouldn't approach something without checking out what people had already done about it. PhDs in art and design were discussed extensively in the 1980s and a consensus was arrived at by the Council for National Academis Awards (CNAA) Art and Design Research Degrees Committee which controlled PhDs in the Art College and Polytechnic sector. This committee invented the regulations for PhDs which involved 'the candidates own creative work'. The discussions of that time seem to have been forgotten by those who want to push 'practice based' PhDs. Art and design suffers from a tendency to reinvent wheels and sometimes the new wheels are worse than the old. It is symptomatic of the lack of scholarly concern in the art and design community that no one has thought of looking at the history of PhDs in this area in the UK. Such a history would divide into three periods, pre-CNAA, CNAA and post-CNAA. In the first period, PhDs were gained by alliance with another discipline - history, technology, psychology or education. Brian Allison (1974) claims to be the first person from an art college background to gain a PhD. He did this by finding a university with experience in fine art and art education, Reading University, UK, that would accept him. Stroud Cornock (1988) mentions the 'art and technology' movement of the late 1960s and 1970s which led to the award of a PhD for a submission that included both thesis and exhibited sculptures. This work was supported by the Science Research Council. The CNAA period began in 1974 when CNAA took over responsibility for all degrees in non-university art and design from the NCDAD who had been awarding art and design diplomas. In 1977, the CNAA added its famous Regulation 3.7 to its research degree regulations. This said, "In appropriate cases the Council may approve a programme leading to the presentation of a thesis accompanied by material in other than written form" Being aware that PhDs for practice were not allowed, the CNAA regulations made no use of this dreaded word. Instead, they came up with the phrase, "the candidate's own creative work" which could form part of the submission. The word requirement for the written thesis was reduced but it was made clear that the written and creative parts together must add up to an addition to knowledge. Any suggestion that the written thesis was 'theory' and the creative work was 'practice' would never have been accepted by the CNAA Research Degrees Committee for Art and Design of which I was a member. Notions of '60% theory and 40% practice' belong in the dustbin of MA educational history. Anyone who thinks that making a mark with a paint brush is only practice and writing words is only theory should have no place in education. The first person at Manchester to take advantage of Regulation 3.7 was an environmental sculptor, Ian Hunter, whose written work describes an observer following around an artist in order to find out how the artist operated. Ian had the advantage of being able to talk to himself. Both the observer and the artist were, of course, the same person but the observer clearly showed that he had learned a lot about how to do research. The observer also investigated the artist's attempts to work with environmental architects. His PhD examination included a visit to two of his creative works which were in slightly inaccessible places. As the external examiner was in a wheel chair, this was a memorable occasion. In the early 1990s, the Polytechnics gradually acquired their own degree-awarding powers and then became the new universities. CNAA's regulation 3.7 lives on in many of the regulations of these universities and in the Open University which took over responsibility for PhDs in some art and design places that were not part of the new university system (the most famous being the London Institute) when the CNAA was abolished. I suspect that '3.7' and its modern descendants could be made better use of. In an attempt to get its message across, the CNAA Art and Design Research Degrees Committee organised three conferences on research degrees, in collaboration with Middlesex Polytechnic in 1984, Manchester Polytechnic's Institute of Advanced Studies in 1987 (Trueman 1987) and The London Institute's Central Saint Martins College in 1988 (Bourgourd et al 1988). Some of these papers make good reading today. Unfortunately, the CNAA was also responsible indirectly for much confusion. In addition to its responsibility for research degrees, its main task was approving (or not) all the first degrees in the Polytechnics. In this connection it had views about the staffing for such degrees. In particular it wanted to state that staff in Polytechnics should not be regarded as just 'teachers' - there were other things they should be doing. In an attempt to produce a statement that would encompass these 'other' things, the Council issued a report in 1984, 'Research and related activities policy statement'. This included consultancy and professional practice as examples of things that Polytechnic staff should be doing. In effect, it meant that it was OK for a lecturer in accountancy to be engaged in working as an accountant, for a designer to be working on commissions and for a lecturer in painting to be doing some painting aimed at exhibition. Unfortunately, the use of the word 'research' as the first word of the title of a document that was not really about research led to confusion in the minds of those who wanted to have forks that were battleships. Hazel Clark (1988) of the CNAA stated, 'There is no doubt that confusion has existed in art and design over the difference between research and research towards a higher degree'. Twelve years on, this confusion seems to me to have got worse. Hence this paper. References Allison, B. 1974. Intellectual factors in art education. PhD thesis University of Reading. Bourgourd, J. Evans, S and Gronberg, T, eds. 1988. The Matrix of Research in Art and Design Education. Conference Documentation. (Copies still available from Stuart Evans, Central St Martins College of Art and Design, London WCIB 4AP) Clark, Hazel. 1988. Alternative modes of presentation. in Bourgourd et al eds 1988. The Matrix of Research in Art and Design Education. Conference Documentation. Cornock, S. 1988. Using research tools in a school of fine art. in Bourgourd et al eds 1988. The Matrix of Research in Art and Design Education. Conference Documentation. Er, H Alpay and Bayazit, Nigan. 1999. 'Redefining the PhD in Design in the Periphery: Doctoral Education in Industrial Design in Turkey.' Design Issues 1 5 No 3, pp34 - 44. Trueman, M M. ed.1987. Methodologies and Supervision for Research in Art and Design. Conference Papers (Copies still available from Post Grad Centre, Art & Design, MMU, Manchester M15 6BG) -- Ken Friedman Professor Dean, Swinburne Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ken.friedman@bi.no
Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:34:36 +0200
Friends, John Langrish's valuable article was an addendum to an earlier note. After I posted the first note -- below -- it vanished into cyberspace, but John's article got through. Since it did not appear, I'm sending it again. Yours, Ken -- Friends, Back in my little house on the fjord, I'm catching up on the conversation. I've seen a few comments and notes in the past few days to which I'd like to respond. Before doing so, I'd like to address a question that seems to be an object of ambiguity here, perhaps even confusion. In some posts, it seems that the PhD degree - the issue for this fiorum - is confused with research. While the PhD degree is a research degree, not everything that one does to earn a PhD constitutes research. The PhD is a course in training to learn how to do research. In a serious PhD program, it is necessary to: 1) study and master research skills, 2) perform research exercises to practice those skills, and 3) do an independent research project under supervision to demonstrate mastery of skills at the level required for a doctorate. Only the third item in this sequence constitutes genuine research. The first two items are study. One of the requirements for the third item is that the research project - the PhD thesis - should make an original contribution to the knowledge of the field. This is an old-fashioned way of setting what some label a quality assurance mechanism. It ensures that the doctoral candidate can conduct original research rather than summary study before promotion to the title of doctor. As I noted in my earlier comments on the PhD, we do many things to earn a PhD that we may never again do in a research career. We do them to master skills we may not use in our own work that we may nevertheless need to teach our students when we become tutors and supervisors. When we write a thesis, we also narrate the development of the project and narrate the background in a different way to the way we might narrate a research project. Thesis narration involves demonstrating and clarifying awareness of all the issues involved in the research project to show our skills. Narrating most research projects involves demonstrating and clarifying only enough aspects of the research to enable the reader to understand what we have done and why, along with some issues that differ from field to field - such as replication in certain fields, or access to historical evidence in others. So, too, many aspects of research may not be used for the PhD. Once we graduate, we are likely to conduct research projects in a very different way than we do for a doctoral thesis. This, in fact, is one reason that it is necessary to rewrite most thesis projects for journal publication or for a monograph. Before returning later to address some issues that I have been considering, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on research - as distinct from thoughts on the PhD. 1) Research definitions Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines research in a way that clarifies the term as living speakers use it: "1: careful or diligent search 2: studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3: the collecting of information about a particular subject" (Merriam-Webster's 1993: 1002; for more, see the Oxford English Dictionary). These definitions cover clinical, applied, and basic research; theoretical and practice-led research; qualitative, quantitative, descriptive, interpretive, logical, mathematical, empirical, positive, normative, hermeneutic, phenomenological, and philosophical research, as well as expressive research. What distinguishes research from other activities is what Mario Bunge (1999: 251) describes as the "methodical search for knowledge. Original research," he continues, "tackles new problems or checks previous findings. Rigorous research is the mark of science, technology, and the 'living' branches of the humanities." Synonyms for research include exploration, investigation, and inquiry. 2) Clearing up confusions Discussing practice-led research often generates two confusions, values confusion and category confusion. The first confuses value issues. Research is not "better" than painting, playing football, or feeding the poor. Research is different. An angry design student once asked me whether research is more important that feeding the hungry as though I could choose between solving an interesting mathematical problem and ending world hunger. If I could choose, I would end hunger. I do not get to choose between these two good goals. Both are good. Ending world hunger is more important. Nevertheless, this is not up to me. Ending world hunger involves political and economic choices. See, f.ex., Fuller 1981 or Sachs 2005. We do not need to choose between two different social goods, research, and ending hunger. We must persuade our citizens and governments to end hunger for all humans. This takes the kind of research Sachs has been doing. The second problem is category confusion that involves the frequent appeal to many ways of knowing. There ARE many ways to know, to learn, and to transmit information. While there are many ways to know and many kinds of knowledge, not all ways to know or learn constitute research. Theology and comparative religion entail research. Religious prophecy and divine revelation do not. This is why Dr. Karol Wojtyla and Dr. Joseph Ratzinger found no conflict between church doctrine and evolution theory, either before they became John Paul II and Benedict XVI or after. Guilds transmit knowledge as a form of embodied information and modeling in the master-apprentice relationship. Apprenticeship is not research. There are hundreds of similar examples. Research is a range of systematic approaches to finding, learning, and knowing. There are others ways to find, know, and learn, and most are valuable. The PhD focuses on research and research skills. 3) Other definitions Definitions help us to understand what we discuss so that we can deepen and improve our fields. In different discussion, participants post a wide variety of valuable but limited definitions of research. These are useful but they have less covering power than the large-scale definition I use. I prefer to postulate a definition with the greatest covering power. Definitions must be reasonable as well as articulate to be useful. Every forum of this kind elicits definitions of research that are neither accurate nor useful. The common denominator among these is a tendency to label different kinds of non-research activities as research. In discussing the research aspect of the PhD, the issue at hand is research rather than other practices, good or bad. Inquiry, reflection, critical inquiry, reflective practice, and all the other issues here are not in their own right research. Chris has mentioned our friend and colleague, John Langrish. John must hold one of the all-time records for PhD supervision in art and design with something like 125 successful completions. (I may be wrong on the number - it might have been a few more or a few less, but it is an astonishing count either way.) John wrote a famous article once titled "Not everything made of steel is a battleship," (Langrish 2000). In the article, John points out that research is itself a specific practice. We should all be reflective practitioners - when we practie research, we should be reflective and critical about research issues. I'll be back soon to discuss some comments in specific notes. Yours, Ken -- References Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. Fuller, Buckminster. 1981. Critical Path. New York: St. Martin's Press. Langrish, John. "Not everything made of steel is a battleship." Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the Future. Proceedings of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000. David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, 297-306. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts. Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. London: Penguin Press. -- Ken Friedman Professor Dean, Swinburne Design Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia
