文/ H. Alpay Er （Istanbul Technical University） 译/杨 阳 陈祥洁

重新定义“设计博士’ 的边缘：土耳其工业设计博士教育发展特点的评述

文/ H. Alpay Er （Istanbul Technical University） 译/杨 阳 陈祥洁

DOl编码：10.3969/J.lSSN.1674-4187.22017.01.013

引言

近年来，世界各地的设计类院校纷纷开设了工业设计博士学位。这些博士学位专业设立的原因和条件各有不同。在这些开设了设计博士学位的学校中，有一些学校来自于一些边缘国家，比如土耳其。工业设计研究生教育包括博士教育的过快发展导致这些专业培养中的问题逐渐显现，并使得其处于边缘语境的问题更加凸显出来。

边缘国家的设计问题长久以来就一直被忽视，在这样的情况下，设计教育想在这些国家得到发展几乎是不可能的事。根据Bonsiepe（1991）的说法，边缘国家对于设计研究的明显缺失源自工业化国家的意识形态的自我诠释。他提出：

“我们不能因为工业化国家在20世纪用了90年的时间实现了工业设计的变革而简单地把边缘国家的工业设计看作是二流的、缺乏资源的和滞后的变革。”（Bonsiepe，1991）。

自然，这样的观点会蒙蔽我们发现边缘国家工业设计的不同点。然而，在多样化现实的背景下，边缘化国家工业设计日渐成熟的特征要求我们将其作为一个研究对象，也应该得到系统性地探索。(Er, 1997) 这些边缘国家的设计博士教育本质也是这些有待系统探索的问题之一。

虽然Bonsiepe（1991）将边缘情境独立于项目主体之外，未提及设计及其内容，然而事实上，他的论点可能在于一些边缘国家实际上有清晰明确的主体，这个主体叫做“追赶”。它们在不断尝试追赶上发达国家。但是，撇开”国际化“下的共同规则不谈，不同的发展中国家在不同阶段也有着不同的具体情况。

本文阐述了边缘且新兴的工业化国家土耳其在工业设计博士教育方式的发展特征，希望能够以本土的边缘化的视角为发展中的全球设计教育作出贡献。本文基于博士教育的普遍标准以及促使这些项目产生的当地动态特征，从辩证的角度探讨了土耳其的案例。

工业设计博士

由于始终缺少对于工业设计博士的明确理解和定义，我们应该首先对其做一个明确定义。因为这关系到研究本身，这一定义也将为设计的范畴和边界作出贡献。

在学术领域中，普遍认同的博士的定义为，开展原创研究且研究成果能够为现有知识体系作出贡献。柯林斯英语词典对于博士是这样解释的：博士学位是所有领域中的最高学术等级，同时，PhD被定义为除法律、医学和神学之外的所有学科领域的原始研究的博士学位。所以，PhD跟别的学位的不同之处就在于其一开始的研究导向不同。

Bruce Archer (1994)指出，PhD的特征在于：(i) 对于前人研究的批判性评价；(ii)对于原则以及研究方法的近距离关注；(iii)开展系统化的研究调查；(iv)对知识体系做出贡献。

通过这几点，我们认为“通过系统性的研究为学术做出贡献”可能是较为普遍认可的定义，PhD教育可以被描述为教授如何开展系统性研究的学习过程，这一过程将在相关领域产生可供交流的新知识。在这一前提下， PhD学位则可以看做是一个证明“此人已具备开展独立研究并为知识体系作出贡献的能力”的证明或证书。(Langrish, 1992; Cross, 1998)。

回到“设计PhD”的问题上，这个问题的关键点在于，设计PhD是不是真的跟工程或者生物PhD不一样呢？可能，有人会说，设计PhD的研究主题和研究方法是不同的。但是，从基本原则上来讲，它跟其他领域的PhD是相同的，即“通过研究为学术做出新的贡献”。那么，工业设计PhD的教育则仅仅是工业设计研究教育。

一个工业设计PhD的学生会被教育成为广大学术工作者中的一员。因此，拥有一个工业设计PhD学位意味着“具备独立研究并为工业设计领域增加新的学术内容的能力”，而并不是“具备设计出更好的设计作品的能力。”

土耳其的工业设计：背景介绍

在简短的关于工业设计PhD的讨论之后，我们来看看土耳其的工业设计教育。众所周知的是，设计研究，或者被称为设计研究的研究即使是在早已实现工业化的国家也是一件新鲜事物。然而，“研究“即使是在这些已经工业化的国家中仍被看成是问题领域，是独立于设计之外的活动(Frayling, 1993)。所以，这些在工业化发达国家中关于PhD教育所存在的问题会在边缘的发展中国家加剧是很正常的事情。另外，在边缘的发展中国家中的PhD教育也存在着其自身环境下所特有的问题。接下来我们将重点聚焦在土耳其的工业设计博士教育问题。

在讨论土耳其的PhD教育特征之前，我们有必要先来了解一下这个国家的工业设计背景。就像其他边缘的发展中国家一样，对于土耳其工业设计背景的介绍应该从“现代主义发展范式“讲起 (Bonsiepe, 1991)。早在新的产品设计需求出现之前，应土耳其1960-1980年工业化战略的要求，土耳其就就已经为未来的工业化道路做准备而开设了设计学校。因此，土耳其工业设计教育最早出现于1970年，早于土耳其1995年的土耳其战略。随着土耳其市场的对外开放，在过去的10年里，随着土耳其国际性公司的增加，对于新的产品设计能力的需求在1990开始暴增。如今，在日益激烈的竞争环境下，更是增加了土耳其工业设计需求大量增加的必然性。

土耳其工业设计PhD：不是被需求，而是被强加

土耳其的工业设计历史非常短，但设计PhD学位的设立却惊人的早。第一个正式的设计PhD在土耳其设立的时间是1982年。

然而，第一个PhD学位项目的设立既不是应学术要求也不是应工业行业要求，而是土耳其高等教育委员会在1980年出于重组土耳其学术系统的官僚目的而设立的。在土耳其高等教育委员会的要求下，所有学术领域都被强行要求建立一个标准的学术框架，不管这个学术领域有怎样的特殊性。所有大学或者学科组织都被要求遵从固定的结构，拥有PhD学位或者同等学历成为在这个领域进行学术工作的必要条件，这就是土耳其学科建设的第一步。换句话说，在现在的土耳其，如果你想从事工业设计的教育工作，你就必须拥有一个PhD学位。

作为一个毫无坚实背景的年轻学科，工业设计曾经受了并且仍然在经受着比其他成熟学科更为严峻的规章制度的考验。首先，工业设计被强行归入到建筑学院中。在没有建筑学院的学校，美术与艺术学院则成为工业设计的安身之处。现在，土耳其有6个工业设计系部，其中4个隶属于建筑学院，2个隶属于美术与艺术学院。

第二，只有拥有PhD学位才可以从事工业设计教育这样的要求在土耳其的工业设计教育中产生了负面影响。首先，它限制了专业设计师进入工业设计领域从事教学工作，这就阻碍了本科设计教育的发展，因为本科设计教育需要具有丰富从业经验的人来从事。另外，这也给已经在从事工业设计教育的人增加了突然的、人为的对研究生学位的要求。PhD学位已经成为他们从事教育工作以及晋升的先决条件。因此将PhD学位强加于设计教育者使得他们被迫进行学术研究，这会对他们的研究成果以及教学工作产生负面影响。

工业设计博士教育的二元结构

除了较早开始的PhD，在土耳其更早开始的，是广泛开展的工业设计教育的博士学位。在现有学科的组织框架基础上，研究生教育随之得到确立和认可。科学技术、工程和建筑学院的研究生专业被归入科学技术研究生院，而艺术、人类学、经济学、政治学等的研究生项目被归于社会科学研究院的学科体系之下。然而，早在二十世纪90年代的初期，应用艺术是在艺术学院的架构下重新组织的。在这样的情况下，归于艺术教学体系之下的工业设计研究生教育不能被授予PhD学位，而是被授予 “高级专业艺术”学位。这在官方层面上是和艺术、应用艺术、表演艺术等专业所获得的学位是相同的。

现在，土耳其有两个不同方向的工业设计博士研究方向: PhD和“高级专业艺术”。通过大学条例可以看出，两者之间有着很明显的差别。土耳其的大学的规定中，规定了PhD论文必须符合以下几个要求之一：1.论证所研究领域内的新的研究方向；2.使用新的研究方法；3.在新的领域借鉴已有的研究方法（例如，METU, 1997; ITU, 1997）。“高级专业艺术”则被认为是专业博士教育的组成部分，也就是说，它被定义为是高等教育项目，它的成果必须是艺术活动的成果，或者表现出艺术创造性（ITU, 1997）。“高级专业艺术”由课程、项目、展览和相关表演组成。研究的成果可以通过不同的形式展现出来，比如展览、项目或者音乐会，但是必须有论文。在土耳其所有的艺术大学中，“高级专业艺术”学位被广泛接受。

但是在工业设计领域，这却是一个很严重的问题。先撇开官方的各种规章制度和定义不谈，PhD与“高级专业艺术”在真正的实践上并不能如官方所愿地分得清清楚楚。当我们对两者提交的论文进行比较的时候，我们所关注的并不是它们有什么不同点，而是它们在结构、方法和内容上有什么相同点。

其中一个共同点就是两个都缺少研究方向。如果这对于“高级专业艺术”来讲是一个本质上的结果的话，那对于PhD来讲就有很大的问题了，因为PhD是针对专业研究人员的教育。

缺乏研究方向

在土耳其，PhD缺少研究方向有几个原因。在工业设计领域的研究时间过短、缺少实践基础、研究生教育中无效的研究以及缺少设计研究的基础。然而，撇除那些在其他领域也会存在的共同问题，剩下的原因会影响当地设计教育体系对PhD教学体系的建立。

可能从历史主义观的角度来解释会更合理。土耳其第一家设计类的学术机构是位于伊斯坦布尔的国家美术学院，这是一家有着深厚历史底蕴的典型的艺术学院。它的工业设计本科学位需要学习5年，最终取得的学位类似于欧洲在1973年设立的MFA。可以想象，在传统的艺术学院教学体系下，PhD没有存在的空间。在它本身的学术晋升体系中，要成为一个教授需要当很长时间的助教，然后将其学术论文或个人项目等成果提交由高级教职员组成的委员会进行评审。其论文必须是在一个高级教授/教授指导下开展的个人项目，并能够展示其在此过程中获取的必要知识以及发展的必要专业特长。换言之，论文才是被评选人掌握了这个领域专业知识并有能力在此领域教书的证明，而不是研究本身。

1982年，这个学院沦为新的大学体系构建的受害者之一，它首先被分成一个新的大学里的两个独立的学院——艺术学院和建筑学院。在建筑学院里的工业设计的本科生学制缩减到了4年，并成立了新的研究生项目，随之其对论文水平的要求被纳入PhD研究中。因此，通过从相邻学科（比如建筑学）借鉴章程，并结合旧有的学术传统，土耳其的第一个包含了PhD的设计研究生项目，建立了。

在这样的机构环境下，工业设计硕士很自然地就被当作专业化的设计学位，而且或多或少地被当成是设计本科教育的延续。这对于传统的美术和应用艺术学科来说是完全可以理解的。但是，这种强制性地改变学位名称并不能解释PhD教育因何无法进入到更加专业化的设计体系之中。

设计“专业化”vs.设计研究

有一种对于PhD的理解是，“专业化”是对最早期PhD概念——作为研究教育的还原。在PhD的“专业化”中，没有论文和研究方法是并不少见的，这也是PhD教育中的重要问题(Cross, 1998)，同时，将整体研究的概念删减到“文献学习”也是整个PhD教育中的大趋势。在“设计PhD”的大名之下，将研究内容弱化为对研究主题的分析，甚至是对现有理论的再次解读已经成为了一种普遍现象。

阅读、审阅、批评和整合他人提出的研究结果是研究的一部分，但是这并不能说是设计研究的唯一或者最好的方法。从另一方面来讲，由于“专业化”是PhD教育的一部分，所以对于PhD的定义和理解就一直不清晰。PhD的特征之一就是其研究成果需要该领域的专业人士进行评估。在这种情况下，知道当下有哪些研究成果，明确成果的作者是谁，了解都有哪些东西被设计出来了、是谁用什么样的方法设计出来的，这些都是设计PhD研究中不可否认的关键部分。但是，需要说明的是，在这样的情况下，“专业化”就仅仅只是PhD学位的组成部分之一，“专业化”不是PhD的目标原则，它只是获得更多研究成果的研究工具。

另外，将PhD简单地理解为“专业化”这样的错误也不能简单地归咎于单个的教育机构。它还有更深层次的原因。这样的理解还存在于相邻学科，第一代设计研究者正是在这些学科中获得自己的博士学位的。所以，简单地把这样的误解归咎于教育机构是不合理的，因为很有可能这样的理解思路就是从别的相邻学科借鉴过来的，比如建筑学、工程学。在特殊的专业背景下理解PhD可能是一种对学术化和专业化之间冲突的妥协。毕竟，就算你有PhD学位，你还是会被认为是一个设计专业人士。从这个角度看，让设计PhD看起来跟其他学科的PhD不一样的因素仅仅就在于多一些设计专业知识。另外，对于PhD作为一个独立的研究证书的真实的定义可能意味着为了学术研究而与专业化设计的决裂，而不可否认的是，这可能并不是那些在大学体制下受晋升制度限制而不得不追求PhD学位的设计教育者所期望的结果。

土耳其工业设计PhD的重新定义

在通俗意义上，“设计PhD”在任何领域都是一个新概念，不管其是否边缘。对于设计PhD的定义在世界上很多地方也是设计讨论日程中的组成部分。然而，这样的讨论在土耳其却由于其特有的文化背景而面临了很多复杂性和障碍。因为，不像其他国家，“设计PhD”的重要性和可能性可以在这些国家得到探讨，土耳其已经有将近15年的传统工业设计PhD的教育历史了。但是，即使是它有较早的开端，如今的土耳其PhD教育仍然面临着缺少研究的问题，大部分的研究仍然依赖于解释和还原原有的概念。

现在，现在我们面临的挑战是重新定义土耳其的工业设计PhD和创造新的研究环境。不可否认的是，这不是一项简单的任务。首先，这会受到一些自认为已经理解了工业设计PhD含义、已经习惯现有学术环境的人的反对。所以，这让重新定义PhD成为了设计界的学术大讨论。

可能很多设计教育者不是没有意识到，在过去的十年里，在诸如英国和美国的发达国家，对于工业设计的教育已经因为对未来设计教育的看法不同而分成了两个派别的观点。（详见Giard, 1990; Friedman, 1997）。一个派别认为，设计是造物技术，另一个派别则认为，设计是“知识整合的过程，包括制定目标、发展和执行策略“（Friedman, 1997）。尽管这样的争论才刚刚开始，土耳其工业设计教育并未能在这样的竞争和冲突的观点中独善其身。因此，在土耳其设计理论和设计教育的研究之间的冲突也是很常见的，甚至是在一些学术机构的研究生教育中也司空见惯。尽管大部分的设计研究者对研究工作很漠视或是不屑，但是仍然有一部分人对于周围同事的研究能力表示憎恶。因此，为了营造土耳其友好的研究氛围，我们就不得不面对设计教育体制中反研究团体的挑战。

另一个让工业设计PhD重新定义变得很敏感的原因是，在工业发展的要求下，设计行业对于新知识重要性的意识不断提升，迫使设计行业成为一个更加知识密集型经济。在设计实践中越来越多地用到设计知识的产生、获得和再生产（Bayazit, 1993），已经成为越来越敏感的学术问题，因为设计教育机构也在越来越多地鼓励和产业相结合的研究项目，且在许多大学中对于教师学术竞争力的评价标准也越来越倾向于其对该领域知识贡献度的评价。

反过来，新知识重要性的不断提升也让工业设计PhD的重新定义变得越来越重要和可行。产品的工业设计可以被定义为在市场环境下对于该产品的物质化实现或定位的特殊知识。（Er, 1997），因此，不论是对主流国家还是对边缘国家来说，设计都是一个最为有效的提升经济表现水平的资源。就如Owen（1998）年所观察到的那样，人们对于设计质量的关注的兴趣不断提升，同时对于如何提升设计表现更有高度关切。因此，全球范围内对于设计工具、理论和方式的研究也日益增加。

20世纪90年代后期，源于土耳其日益增加的工业竞争压力，土耳其知识型、跨学科的设计研究生教育开始出现。这些专业要求有强有力的理论框架和深厚的研究输入基础，反过来，这些理论框架和设计研究输入也对设计理论研究者们提出了更高的要求。尽管对于设计研究的理解有所偏离，土耳其的学术组织也做好了准备，迎接创造新的设计研究环境和重新定义工业设计PhD的挑战。

这对于这种“将实践导入研究再反馈到实践中，并利用每一次的循环促进交流，并且丰富知识体系”的互联式循环（McCoy, 1990）将会是具有标志性意义的一步。这是工业设计作为一个成熟的、专业的学科必须有的，不管它是否处于边缘环境。

感谢ITU的Nigan Bayazit教授，以及METU的Ozlem Er博士和Fatma Korkut博士提出宝贵的批评和建议，感谢他们与我分享他们深刻的见解。

原文

lntroduction

In recent years, universities and design schools in different countries have started PhD programs in industrial design. These programs have been established due to different reasons and under completely different circumstances. Among those institutions there are also design schools from peripheral countries such as Turkey. Given the short history of industrial design in those countries, a rapid development of postgraduate design education to include the PhD in industrial design raises questions about the characteristics of those programs and factors that led to their emergence in a peripheral context.

Design issues of peripheral countries have been overlooked in the design literature for a long time. The development of industrial design education is no exception to this. According to Bonsiepe (1991) the apparent lack of study on design in the peripheral countries fits into the ideological self-interpretation of industrialized countries. In his own words:

"It is all too easy to look at industrial design in the periphery as a second-rate, resource poor and delayed replay of a process through which the industrialized countries have passed during the nine decades in the 20th century when industrial design was transformed into a social reality." (Bonsiepe, 1991)

Naturally, such a vision would not permit to perceive the differentiated reality of industrial design in the periphery. However, as a diverse reality which has been marginalised for a long time in the design literature, the development characteristics of industrial design in the periphery require investigation as an objective fact and deserve to be systematically explored (Er, 1997). The nature of the PhD education in design in peripheral countries is among those issues that need exploring.

Although Bonsiepe (1991) describes the peripheral condition as a situation without project, without design and its discourse, in fact it may be argued that some peripheral countries have a very clear ‘project’, which can be called as 'catching up'. They are in a constant attempt of catching up with the central countries in a game whose rules are set by the latter. However, despite the existence of a set of common rules under the term of 'globalization', there are still some internal dynamics operating at different levels in each peripheral country.

Hoping to make a contribution from a local -peripheral - base to an emerging global issue of design education, this paper presents the development characteristics of the PhD education in industrial design in a peripheral, newly industrializing country, Turkey. The paper discusses the Turkish case from a critical point of view, with references to both, the universal standards of PhD programs and local dynamics that led to the emergence of those programs.

PhD in lndustrial Design

First it seems to be necessary to make a clear definition of the PhD of which industrial design discipline still appears to be lacking a common understanding. The definition of 'PhD in design' is an important issue because it is about research, and by definition, contributing to, and controlling the knowledge in design domain.

A common and widely accepted definition of the PhD in academic circles is an original piece of research, the result of which is a contribution to knowledge. According to Collins English Dictionary (1994), doctorate is the highest academic degree in any field of knowledge. In the same dictionary, PhD is defined as a doctorate awarded for original research in any field except law, medicine or theology. So, it appears that what makes the PhD different from any other doctorate is its research orientation.

According to Bruce Archer (1994); the distinguished features of a PhD are (i) the critical appraisal by the candidate of prior research; and (ii) close attention to the principles and practice of research methodology; and (iii) the conduct of a single major systematic investigation; and finally (iv) the delivery of a substantial contribution to knowledge.

From these features, it appears that while ‘contribution to knowledge by systematic research’ may be an acceptable definition of the PhD for many of us, the PhD education can also be described as the process of learning how to conduct a systematic research that, at the end, willproduce communicable new knowledge in the concerned field. In that case, a PhD degree is not more than a certificate or license that states ‘this person has successfully demonstrated the ability to undertake independent research that contributes to knowledge’ (Langrish, 1992; Cross, 1998).

Coming back to the issue of ’PhD in design’, the critical question appears to be whether 'PhD in Design' is really different from, let’s say a PhD in Engineering or in Biology? It may be claimed that it is different in terms of the subject matter, and maybe some methods during the course of research. But in terms of the basic principle which is ‘contribution to knowledge by research’, it is not different from a PhD in any other field. Then the PhD education in industrial design is in fact nothing more than the research education in industrial design.

A PhD student in industrial design field is trained to become a member of the academic research profession. So, holding a PhD in industrial design stands for ‘being able to conduct independent research with a contribution to the knowledge in the field of industrial design’. It does not stand for ’being able to design a better product’.

lndustrial Design in Turkey: Background

Following a short discussion of the PhD in design, now we can look at the nature of the PhD education in Turkey. It is a well known fact that research in design or so-called design research is a relatively new concept even in countries where design professions were institutionalized long ago. Besides, even in those countries ‘research’ is seen as a problem area, as something which exists outside design studio (Frayling, 1993). So it is a natural expectation that general problems of the PhD education in the center will aggravate in the periphery. In addition to this, the PhD education in the periphery has some problems specific to the peripheral condition. The following sections of this paper concentrate on those problems in Turkey.

Before discussing the development characteristics of the PhD education in Turkey, it is imperative to give some background information about the history of industrial design in this country. As in many other peripheral countries, the introduction of industrial design into the context of Turkey was associated with a view based on 'Modernist Development Paradigm' (Bonsiepe, 1991). Long before new product design needs of the Turkish industry materialized, industrial design schools had been planned in order to meet the future demand, which was expected to emerge as an inevitable result of the import substituting industrialization strategies that were implemented in Turkey between the 1960s and 1980s. Thus, in Turkey industrial design first emerged at educational level in the early 1970s, prior to its actual practice that has a rather short history in the Turkish industry (Er, 1995). However, with the opening up of the Turkish domestic market to foreign competition, and the increasing share of Turkish firms in international markets for the last ten years, a genuine need for new product design and development capabilities has begun to emerge in the 1990s. Today intense competition appears to be causing an increasing interest and need for industrial design in the Turkish manufacturing industry.

PhD in lndustrial Design in Turkey: Not demanded but imposed upon

Given the short history of industrial design in Turkey, the establishment of the first PhD program appears to be surprisingly early. Officially the first PhD program in industrial design in Turkey was established in 1982.

Nevertheless, the establishment of the first PhD program was neither motivated academically, nor demanded by the industry but simply enforced bureaucratically by a centralized body, the Turkish Higher Education Council to restructure the Turkish academic system in the beginning of the 1980s. With the regulations set by the Higher Education Council, a standard academic organizational structure and a standard academic promotion system were imposed on all disciplines regardless of their specific requirements. At all universities departmental organizations were required to comply with a certain structure, and in all disciplines, holding a PhD or a degree of its equivalent has become a precondition to be appointed as assistant professor, the first step of an academic career in Turkey. In other words, now a PhD is required in Turkey if you want to pursue a career in industrial design education.

As a young discipline without strong academic traditions industrial design suffered and still suffers much more from those regulations than the establishedacademic disciplines do. First of all, industrial design was forced into the schools of architecture. In the absence of architecture schools, fine art schools were offered as an alternative to house industrial design programs. Now there are 6 industrial design departments, four of them being under the schools of architecture, the other two being located in fine arts schools.

Secondly, an obligation of holding a PhD, or an equivalent degree, for teaching industrial design have had some negative impacts on the design education in Turkey. First, by preventing professional industrial designers from serving as full faculty members in design departments, it has effectively weakened the undergraduate design education, which strongly needs to be supported by staff with design experience in industry. In addition, the imposition of the PhD created a sudden and artificial demand for postgraduate design degrees among many design educators. The PhD has begun to be predominantly perceived by those educators, as just another step for promotion to be taken one way or another. Therefore, the imposition of the PhD degree upon design educators who otherwise do not voluntarily involve in academic study has had a negative impact on the quality of such studies in industrial design.

A Dualistic Structure in Doctoral Education in lndustrial Design

In addition to an early beginning in the PhD, a rather early and peculiar diversification of doctoral education in industrial design was also experienced in Turkey. In parallel to the new organizational structure at departmental level, postgraduate programs were reorganized accordingly. While postgraduate programs of science, technology, engineering and architecture schools were restructured under the graduate schools of science and technology, postgraduate programs of arts, humanities, economics, politics, fine arts were collected in the graduate schools of social sciences. However, in the early 1990s postgraduate programs in fine and applied arts with their clearly distinctive features broke away to be reorganized under the graduate schools of fine arts. With this move, one of the postgraduate industrial design programs was also taken into the fine arts structure under which a PhD cannot be awarded but instead, with its official name, the degree of 'Proficiency in Art' is awarded. This is officially an equivalent of the doctoral degree for fine, applied and performing arts.

Now, in Turkey there are two different types of doctoral programs in industrial design; PhD and 'Proficiency in Art'. According to the university regulations, the difference between these two is adequately clear. The regulations of Turkish universities state that a PhD dissertation must fulfil one of the following qualifications; i. Demonstrate some new aspect to the field, ii. Use a new scientific method, or iii. Apply a known method to a new field (e.g. METU, 1997; ITU, 1997). 'Proficiency in Art' which may be considered as a sort of ‘professional’ doctorate, on the other hand, is defined as a higher education program whose outcome must be the production of original art work, or exhibition of outstanding performance and artistic creativity (ITU, 1997). 'Proficiency in Art' program consists of courses, projects, exhibitions and relevant performances. The results of the study may be presented in different forms such as exhibition, project or concert, but must always be accompanied with a written dissertation. In all fine or performing art departments at Turkish universities, 'Proficiency in Art' degree is effectively accepted as the equivalent of the PhD.

In industrial design field, however, this issue takes a rather problematic shape. Despite the existence of different official definitions, in practice the difference between the PhD and 'Proficiency' in industrial design is not sufficiently clear as much as it is expected to be. When one compares the dissertations submitted in the PhD programs to the ones in 'Proficiency in Art' program, what strikes most is not the differences between these two but the similarities in their structures, methods and contents.

The basic common feature of the dissertations in both programs, either in the PhD or 'Proficiency in Art', appears to be their lack of research orientation. Although this would be an expected and natural result in 'Proficiency in Art' dissertations, the lack of research orientation in a PhD dissertation presents a problematic case because, as discussed earlier, the PhD is in fact the education of professional researchers.

Lack of Research Orientation

There are a number of reasons for the lack of research orientation in thePhD education in Turkey. The relatively short history of the research concept and practice in the design field, the insufficient research emphasis made in postgraduate education in general, and the lack of funding for design research are some of those reasons. However, apart from those that are more or less common in many other countries, there is also a specific reason for the lack of research orientation, which is a distorted and reductive perception of the PhD by the local design education establishment.

That may be better explained within a historical perspective. The academic institution with the first industrial design program was the State Academy of Fine Arts in Istanbul. This was a typical fine and applied arts school with a strong tradition going back to the 1880s. The undergraduate education in industrial design which was a 5 years program leading to the equivalent of a European style MFA degree started in 1973. As expected, in the tradition of an art academy, there had been no place for PhDs. In their original academic promotion system, following a long period of teaching assistantship, a proficiency dissertation supported by the exhibition of artifacts or projects was presented to a jury consisting of senior faculty members. Dissertations were perceived as individual projects conducted under the supervision of a senior faculty member, and supposed to demonstrate that candidates had accumulated the necessary knowledge, and had gained the necessary expertise. In other words dissertations were to prove that candidates had the necessary specialization and mastery of a chosen art or design field to able to teach in that field. Research was naturally not a priority issue.

When the academy became one of the victims of the new university system in 1982, it was first incorporated into a new university as two separate schools of fine arts and architecture. The undergraduate industrial design education was reduced to a 4 years program within the school of architecture; a new masters program was established, and the proficiency dissertation was somehow transformed into a PhD program. Thus, having transferred some procedures from close disciplines with more experience in postgraduate degrees such as architecture, and combining these with the old traditions of the academy, the first postgraduate design program in Turkey, including the PhD, was established.

In this institutional context, master’s degree in industrial design was naturally perceived as professional specialization in a design subject, and as being more or less the extension of the undergraduate design education. This is fairly understandable and quite acceptable for a tradition of fine and applied arts. However, the enforced change of the degree titles cannot justify the reduction of the PhD education into further professional specialization in a given design subject.

Specialization’ in Design vs. Research in Design

An understanding of the PhD as ‘specialization’is a reductive distortionof the original PhD concept as the research education.In the PhDs completed in 'specialization' fashion, while it is not uncommon to come across dissertations without a mention about research and research methodology, which is always a key issue for PhDs (Cross, 1998), it is also a general tendency to reduce the whole concept of research into 'literature review'. In the name of 'PhD in design', a reduction of research into the subject matter and sometimes the reinterpretation of what already exists is common practice.

Reading, reviewing, and sometimes criticizing and synthesizing what others said in a given field is a part of the research practice, but it would certainly be wrong to claim that it is the only or the best way of doing research in the design field. On the other hand, there is widespread confusion over the nature of the PhD in design due to the fact that 'specialization' is in fact a part of the PhD education. One of the features of the PhD is the critical appraisal by the candidate of prior work done in the chosen field. In this sense, knowing what is known, who knows it, or what has been designed, how, and by whom are undeniably important parts of the PhD work in design. However, it should be noted that, in this sense of the word, ‘specialization’ may only be considered as one of the features of the PhD work, which is to be gained as a by product of the research conducted in the chosen field of inquiry. ‘Specialization’is not the principal aim of the PhD, which is the acquisition of research skills to produce new design knowledge.

On the other hand, the dominant and reductive perception of PhDs in design as‘specialization’ in a design subject rather than the research education cannot be completely attributed to theenforced transformation of a single educational institution. It has wider and deeper roots. Understanding of the PhD as 'specialization' is widespread in close disciplines where the first generation of some design educators had their doctoral degrees. Therefore it is not fair to confine this reductive understanding of the PhD solely to the industrial design field, rather it may be more accurate to say that it is imported from neighboring disciplines such as architecture and engineering. The interpretation of the PhD in a professional specialization context might have been an implicit compromise between conflicting academic and professionalist discourses in those disciplines (Teymur, 1996) since ‘specialization’ has also certain professionalist implications. After all, even you have a PhD, you are still to be accepted within the design profession. In this respect, what makes one with a PhD in design different from others may be nothing more than having more knowledge and expertise in a narrow design subject. On the other hand, a true definition of the PhD as an independent research license may be perceived as a radical break up with the professionalist design discourse for the favor of an academic one, and admittedly this may not be desirable for many design educators who have been forced to embark on a PhD venture purely for pragmatic reasons of promotion within a university system.

Redefining the PhD Education in lndustrial Design in Turkey

In general terms 'PhD in Design' is a new issue in everywhere regardless of whether it is peripheral or not. Problems regarding the definition and scope of the PhD in design and related discussions appear to be within the design education communities' agenda in many places of the world. Nevertheless, this issue presents some additional complexities and difficulties in the Turkish context. This is because, unlike in many other countries where the possibility and necessity of ‘PhD in design’ are still being discussed, in Turkey we have already a tradition of PhDs in industrial design for about 15 years. Nevertheless, despite an early beginning, today most PhD works in industrial design suffer from the lack of research orientation since this experience, with a few exceptions, mostly relies on a distorted and reductive perception of the original PhD concept.

Now, the challenge ahead us as Turkish design researchers is to redefine the PhD in industrial design, and to create a design research culture in Turkey. Admittedly, this is not an easy task. First of all, such an attempt is likely to face a stiff resistance from the members of local design education establishment. While some of them think that they already know what a PhD means in industrial design, and are quite content with the current practice, some others may be categorically against a professional research education in their own domain. So this makes the redefinition of the PhD a part of larger academic discussion in the design field.

Probably not unnoticed by many in design education, for the last ten years industrial design education in central countries such as the USA and the UK appears to have been divided into two camps due to two different attitudes towards the future of design education (see. Giard, 1990; Friedman, 1997). While the traditional camp treats design as the skill of making an artifact or object, the other camp, on the other hand, treats design ‘as a knowledge intensive process that involves selecting goals, then developing and executing strategies to meet those goals’ (Friedman, 1997). Although the basic arguments are just beginning to be spelled out publicly, industrial design education in Turkey is not free from those competing and often conflicting views. Therefore, in Turkey too it is not uncommon to face hostility for the emphasis made in theory and research in design education, even for postgraduate degrees in some academic institutions. While most design educators are indifferent, if not antipathetic, to research, some are somewhat resentful of their colleagues with research capabilities. Therefore, in order to create a researchfriendly design culture in Turkey, one may have to face the anti-research cliques of the design education establishment.

Another factor that makes the redefinition of the PhD in industrial design a sensitive issue among design educators, is the increasing importance of new knowledge that is demanded by the industry which itself is forced to compete in a much more knowledge intensified economy. The production, acquisition and re-production of the design knowledge, which is to be utilized in design practice (Bayazit, 1993) is an academically sensitive issue since educational institutions are increasingly encouraged to start joint research projects with the industry, and theacademic competence of faculty staff at many universities is intended to be judged against the contribution made to that knowledge.

On the other hand, the same increasing importance of the knowledge also makes the redefinition of the PhD in industrial design rather necessary and possible. Industrial design of a product may be defined as a special knowledge about that product from which it can be materialized and positioned in the market place (Er, 1997). Therefore, for central and peripheral countries alike design is one of the most effective resources available to improve their economic performances. As Owen (1998) observes, there is a new and growing interest in the quality of design, and in how design can be improved. Thus, a strong demand for design research to develop high quality design tools; theories, methods and processes is developing on a global scale.

Also in Turkey, in the second half of the 1990s, due to the Turkish industry’s emerging competitive needs, a demand for knowledge-based, interdisciplinary postgraduate design programs started emerging. Such programs require a strong theoretical framework and rich research input, and in turn they increase demand for professional researchers in industrial design field. Despite the existence of distorted and reductive views on design research, now in Turkey necessary external conditions and internal academic motivation appear to be emerging to meet the challenge for the creation of a design research culture in general, and the redefinition of the PhD in industrial design in particular.

This will be a significant step towards the reciprocal cycle that ‘connects practice to education to research and back to practice, with each component of the cycle interacting with and enriching others’(McCoy, 1990), that industrial design as a mature discipline or profession must have, regardless of whether its context is peripheral or not.

I would like to thank Professor Nigan Bayazit of ITU, and Dr Ozlem Er and Fatma Korkut of METU for their valuable critiques and suggestions as well as sharing their insightful observations with me.

Archer, B. (1994). Design Education, In-service short course and workshop, 19-23 September 1994, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Bayazt, N. (1993). “Designing: Design Knowledge: Design Research: Related Sciences’ in M.J. de Vries, N. Cross and D.P. Grant (eds.) Design Methodology and Relationship with Science, published in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division, Kluger Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Bonsiepe, G. (1991).”Developing Countries: Awareness of design and the peripheral condition” in C. Pravano (ed.) History of Industrial Design: 1919-1990, Milan: Electa.

Collins English Dictionary (1994). Collins English Dictionary, (3rd Ed.) Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

Cross, N. (1998). ‘Editorial’, Design Studies, Vol. 19 No 1, pp-1-3.

Er, H. A. (1997). “The Development Patterns of Industrial Design in the Third World: A Conceptual Model for Newly Industrialised Countries” Journal of Design History, Vol 10, n.3, pp. 293-308.

Er, H. A. (1995). The State of Design: Towards an Assessment of the Development of Industrial Design in Turkey’ METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Vol.13, No 1-2, pp. 31-51.

Frayling, C. (1993). ‘Research in Art and Design’ Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol.1, No 1.

Friedman, K. (1997). ‘Design Science and Design Education’ Norwegian School of Management Research Report Series, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo.

Giard, J. (1990).’Design Education in Crisis: The transition from Skills to Knowledge’ Design Issues, Vol. 7, No 1, pp. 23-28.

ITU (1997) Lisanüstü Egitim ve Ogretim Yönetmeligi (Regulations of Postgraduate Education), Istanbul Teknik Universitesi, Istanbul.

Langrish, J. (1992) ‘Methodologies for Art and Design Research’ The Matrix of Research in Art and Design Education, Documentation from the conference on research in art and design organised by the London Institute and the CNAA in 1988, (eds) J. Bougourd, S. Evans and T. Gronberg, Central St Martins College of Art and Design, London.

McCoy, K. (1990). ‘Professional Design Education: An Opinion and A Proposal’Design Issues, Vol. 7, No 1, pp. 20-23.

METU (1997) General Catalog 1997-99, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Owen, C. (1998). ‘Design Research: building the knowledge base’ Design Studies, Vol. 19 No 1, pp. 9-20.

Teymur, N. (1996). ‘EpistemologicalMaximalism vs. Professional Minimalism (or , why a professionalist education cannot do justice to doctoral research)’, Doctorates in Design and Architecture EAAE / AEEA Conference, (8-10 February 1996) Proceedings Volume 2, Delft University of Technology, Delft.

（责任编辑 童永生）

参考文献:

[1]Archer, B. (1994). Design Education, In

service short course and workshop, 19-23 September 1994, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

[2]Bayazt, N. (1993).“Designing: Design Knowledge: Design Research: Related Sciences’ in M.J. de Vries, N. Cross and D.P. Grant (eds.) Design Methodology and Relationship with Science, published in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division, Kluger Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

[3]Bonsiepe, G. (1991).”Developing Countries: Awareness of design and the peripheral condition” in C. Pravano (ed.) History of Industrial Design: 1919-1990, Milan: Electa.

[4]Collins English Dictionary (1994). Collins English Dictionary, (3rd Ed.) Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

[5]Cross, N. (1998).‘Editorial’, Design Studies, Vol. 19 No 1, pp-1-3.

[6]Er, H. A. (1997).“The Development Patterns of Industrial Design in the Third World: A Conceptual Model for Newly Industrialised Countries” Journal of Design History, Vol 10, n.3, pp. 293-308.

[7]Er, H. A. (1995). The State of Design: Towards an Assessment of the Development of Industrial Design in Turkey’ METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Vol.13, No 1-2, pp. 31-51.

[8]Frayling, C. (1993).‘Research in Art and Design’ Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol.1, No 1.

[9]Friedman, K. (1997).‘Design Science and Design Education’ Norwegian School of Management Research Report Series, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo.

[10]Giard, J. (1990).’Design Education in Crisis: The transition from Skills to Knowledge’ Design Issues, Vol. 7, No 1, pp. 23-28.

[11]ITU (1997) Lisanüstü Egitim ve Ogretim Yönetmeligi (Regulations of Postgraduate Education), Istanbul Teknik Universitesi, Istanbul.

[12]Langrish, J. (1992)‘Methodologies for Art and Design Research’ The Matrix of Research in Art and Design Education, Documentation from the conference on research in art and design organised by the London Institute and the CNAA in 1988, (eds) J. Bougourd, S. Evans and T. Gronberg, Central St Martins College of Art and Design, London.

[13]McCoy, K. (1990).‘Professional Design Education: An Opinion and A Proposal’Design Issues, Vol. 7, No 1, pp. 20-23.

[14]METU (1997) General Catalog 1997-99, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

[15]Owen, C. (1998).‘Design Research: building the knowledge base’ Design Studies, Vol. 19 No 1, pp. 9-20.

[16]Teymur, N. (1996).‘Epistemological Maximalism vs. Professional Minimalism (or , why a professionalist education cannot do justice to doctoral research)’, Doctorates in Design and Architecture EAAE / AEEA Conference, (8-10 February 1996) Proceedings Volume 2, Delft University of Technology, Delft.

Redefining‘PhD in Design’ in The Periphery: A Critical review of The development Characteristics of The Doctoral Education in Industrial Design in Turkey

近年来，世界各地的设计类院校纷纷开设了工业设计博士学位。这一博士学位的设置原因多样，情形也各自不同。在这些开设了设计博士学位的学校中，有一些学校来自于一些边缘国家。由于这些国家的工业设计历史很短，工业设计研究生教育包括博士教育的过快发展导致这些专业培养的问题逐渐显现，并使得其处于边缘语境的问题更加凸显出来。本文着重探讨的是土耳其工业设计博士教育的特征，并由点及面，讨论博士学位专业的普遍标准问题以及当地的发展动态促使这些专业建立的原因。本文认为，尽管土耳其工业设计教育的开端较早，但目前仍迫切需要重新定义工业设计博士教育。

In recent years, design schools in different countries have started PhD programs in industrial design. These programs have been established due to different reasons and under completely different circumstances. Among those institutions there are also design schools from peripheral countries. Given the short history of industrial design in those countries, a rapid development of postgraduate design education to include PhD in industrial design raises questions about the characteristics of those programs and factors that led to their emergence in a peripheral context. This paper discusses the development characteristics of the PhD education in industrial design in Turkey as a case with references to both, the universal standards of PhD programs and local dynamics that led to the emergence of those programs. It is argued that despite an early beginning in Turkey, there is a need for the redefinition of the PhD education in industrial design.

H. Alpay Er； Department of Industrial Product Design， Istanbul Technical University.