| 1. |
- Nilsson, Fredrik, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Building a culture of doctoral scholarship in architecture and design. A Belgian-Scandinavian case
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Nordic Journal of Architectural Research. - 1893-5281. ; 23:1, s. 41-55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The objective of this paper is to present how a strongly practice oriented school of architecture in Belgium has tackled the challenges of the European policies for establishing a doctoral level. Some top-down activities of formal research education and some bottom-up initiatives by the PhD students and tutors are presented and discussed. These developments can indicate that a new practice-based scholarship, initiated by the doctoral studies, is emerging at this institution. The Bologna-Berlin policies recognized doctoral studies as the third cycle in European higher education. For Sint-Lucas School of Architecture it has meant to develop a new culture, a culture of research and doctoral scholarship. The intentions of the school were to develop experimental, practice-based concepts for this research. The process, started in spring 2006, built on four Research Training Sessions (RTS) intended to help primarily younger teachers without any research experience to define their research interests, based on their double practice as professionals and teachers of architecture. Furthermore, it was expected that their doctoral studies would be commenced based on a research proposal defined during the RTS series. The authors, both with extensive experience from Scandinavian research education in architecture, spatial planning and design, and from research in the professional fields, were requested to develop one of the four RTSes. This RTS is called Forms & Processes of Knowledge and “…focuses on different forms of knowledge and how these forms originate. There is a specific focus on the forms of knowledge present in the domain of architecture and design, put in relation to other kinds of knowledge. Established modes and notions of scientific knowledge are discussed together with other ways of knowledge production” (1). Subsequently, they were offered positions as guest professors with responsibility to provide supervision to participants of the sessions. The RTS represents a meta-level of the research education, while the micro-level is being constituted by various forms of mentoring, like the traditional doctoral supervision of one PhD students by one supervisor, as well as the peer-learning in assignments and collaborations between PhD students.The authors developed, besides “their own” RTS, an autonomous research education unit within the curriculum, since we through our collective learning process identified a need to build a mezzo-level for the pedagogical concept. While the macro- and micro- levels rely on the traditional pedagogy of lectures and supervision in the doctoral studies, the mezzo-level is based on the assumption that in order to become an innovative researcher within post-academic sciences, (which practice-based research is a representative of) a young researcher should first strengthen her identity and master the craft of the traditional research. In every profession its craft is constituted by certain professional skills and by critical attitude to quality of the professional results. Thus we offered to the doctoral students a series of workshops in “Scholarly Craft & Criticism”. These workshops included assignments, presentations and critical discussions on e.g. recent doctoral thesises, phases and requirements for producing a dissertation, research design of their projects, and philosophy of science for architects.In April 2009 eight RTS-alumni, now doctoral students enrolled at various European institutions, organized a seminar documenting their growing epistemological awareness regarding practice-based doctoral scholarship. The seminar witnessed emergence of a community of research practice with potential to initiate a new profession-based scholarship.The paper presents and discusses this autonomous research education unit within the emerging doctoral curriculum of the Sint-Lucas School of Architecture. It also describes how the practice-based PhD students recognized the role of this unit in the process of their growing epistemological awareness and maturing as prospective design scholars. These presentations are based on observations and documentations from research training activities during the years of the RTS program.The value of this paper is the positioning of an epistemological-pedagogical stance with regard to research education for practitioners. Some opinions hold that practice-based researchers do not need epistemological and scholarly foundations in order to pursue practice-oriented research, and there are research educational programs with aims to “avoid verbal theorising or credential-seeking through reference to texts from other disciplines”. Our stance is that practice-based PhD students should be introduced to and trained in certain generic research skills. By that the professional doctorate will be trained to contextualise and position their research as well as to be communicative and innovative in a broad professional field.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Nilsson, Fredrik, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Doctorateness in Design Disciplines. Negotiating Connoisseurship and Criticism in Practice-related Fields
- 2012
-
Ingår i: FORMakademisk. - 1890-9515. ; 5:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Discussions on the concept of ‘doctorateness’ have been growing during last years in traditional academic disciplines as well as in creative fields. This paper is a brief report from the first stage of a research project which studies how the concept of ‘doctorateness’ could be considered in the field of architecture, design and arts. The project builds upon a series of doctoral courses for architects and designers, and includes the study and evaluation of already accepted doctoral theses. In analyses of assessment assignments, the ‘connoisseurship model’ of Elliot W. Eisner was found to be useful. Eisner’s model of Connoisseurship & Criticism has served as the main tool for the analyses of empirical data, and as a framework for developing the concept of ‘doctorateness’ further. From the first phase of studies in the research project, the importance of particular kinds of awareness can be stressed as crucial for ‘doctorateness’, and here the model of connoisseurship and criticism has been operative. A more elaborate definition of ‘doctorateness’ is presumed to be of use as a pedagogical tool in research education in design fields as well as in dialogues between professionals of design practice and research.
|
|
| 4. |
- Nilsson, Fredrik, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Negotiating 'Doctorateness' in Practice-related Design Disciplines. Some Notes from a Scandinavian Perspective of Research Education
- 2012
-
Ingår i: 3rd International Conference on Professional Doctorates. Conference Proceedings. - 9780956381248
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are continually higher expectations with regard to quality of research in the ADA fields (Architecture, Design and Arts). In organised research education academic standards of designerly research are being taught, discussed and negotiated. During the years of doctoral ‘apprenticeship’ the PhD students learn to master the research craft. The final trial is the assessment of the doctoral thesis, where a committee decides whether an expected level of “doctorateness” has been achieved.Already in 1997 UK Council for Graduate Education published a report on quality of doctoral work in the ADA fields, in which the term “doctorateness” appeared in the following context: “The essence of ‘doctorateness’ is about an informed peer consensus on mastery of the subject; mastery of analytical breadth (where methods, techniques, contexts and data are concerned) and mastery of depth (the contribution itself, judged to be competent and original and of high quality)” (UKCGE,1997:11). The concept of “doctorateness” has been central in doctoral courses the authors during several years have offered in Belgium, Norway and Sweden. In 2011-2012 the authors are together with a group of international doctoral candidates studying the “doctorateness” of several recent practice-related doctoral theses in architecture and design executed in Scandinavia. The theses are analysed together with the assessments of the committees, using an approach of integrative research review (Cooper, 1984). This methodology conceptualizes the integrative research review as a form of scientific inquiry similar to the primary research process. The paper will report on the analyses and findings from these studies. The aim is to contribute to a broader debate on whether “doctorateness” as defined in the UKCGE context can become a useful pedagogical tool for promoting a culture of designerly research.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
