Responding to the Indeterminacy of Doctoral Research in Design

Meredith Davis*, Luke Edward Eric Feast, Jodi Forlizzi, Ken Friedman, Ali Ilhan, Wendy Ju, Gerd Kortuem, Maria Hellström Reimer, Carlos Teixeira

*Kontaktforfatter

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

1 Citationer (Scopus)
9 Downloads (Pure)

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, “contribu- tions 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 knowl- edge 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.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftShe Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation
Vol/bind9
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)283-307
Antal sider25
ISSN2405-8726
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1 jun. 2023

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Responding to the Indeterminacy of Doctoral Research in Design'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater