重新定義“設計博士’ 的邊緣：土耳其工業(yè)設計博士教育發(fā)展特點的評述

文/ H. Alpay Er （Istanbul Technical University） 譯/楊 陽 陳祥潔

重新定義“設計博士’ 的邊緣：土耳其工業(yè)設計博士教育發(fā)展特點的評述

文/ H. Alpay Er （Istanbul Technical University） 譯/楊 陽 陳祥潔

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

引言

近年來，世界各地的設計類院校紛紛開設了工業(yè)設計博士學位。這些博士學位專業(yè)設立的原因和條件各有不同。在這些開設了設計博士學位的學校中，有一些學校來自于一些邊緣國家，比如土耳其。工業(yè)設計研究生教育包括博士教育的過快發(fā)展導致這些專業(yè)培養(yǎng)中的問題逐漸顯現(xiàn)，并使得其處于邊緣語境的問題更加凸顯出來。

邊緣國家的設計問題長久以來就一直被忽視，在這樣的情況下，設計教育想在這些國家得到發(fā)展幾乎是不可能的事。根據Bonsiepe（1991）的說法，邊緣國家對于設計研究的明顯缺失源自工業(yè)化國家的意識形態(tài)的自我詮釋。他提出：

“我們不能因為工業(yè)化國家在20世紀用了90年的時間實現(xiàn)了工業(yè)設計的變革而簡單地把邊緣國家的工業(yè)設計看作是二流的、缺乏資源的和滯后的變革?！保˙onsiepe，1991）。

自然，這樣的觀點會蒙蔽我們發(fā)現(xiàn)邊緣國家工業(yè)設計的不同點。然而，在多樣化現(xiàn)實的背景下，邊緣化國家工業(yè)設計日漸成熟的特征要求我們將其作為一個研究對象，也應該得到系統(tǒng)性地探索。(Er, 1997) 這些邊緣國家的設計博士教育本質也是這些有待系統(tǒng)探索的問題之一。

雖然Bonsiepe（1991）將邊緣情境獨立于項目主體之外，未提及設計及其內容，然而事實上，他的論點可能在于一些邊緣國家實際上有清晰明確的主體，這個主體叫做“追趕”。它們在不斷嘗試追趕上發(fā)達國家。但是，撇開”國際化“下的共同規(guī)則不談，不同的發(fā)展中國家在不同階段也有著不同的具體情況。

本文闡述了邊緣且新興的工業(yè)化國家土耳其在工業(yè)設計博士教育方式的發(fā)展特征，希望能夠以本土的邊緣化的視角為發(fā)展中的全球設計教育作出貢獻。本文基于博士教育的普遍標準以及促使這些項目產生的當地動態(tài)特征，從辯證的角度探討了土耳其的案例。

工業(yè)設計博士

由于始終缺少對于工業(yè)設計博士的明確理解和定義，我們應該首先對其做一個明確定義。因為這關系到研究本身，這一定義也將為設計的范疇和邊界作出貢獻。

在學術領域中，普遍認同的博士的定義為，開展原創(chuàng)研究且研究成果能夠為現(xiàn)有知識體系作出貢獻?？铝炙褂⒄Z詞典對于博士是這樣解釋的：博士學位是所有領域中的最高學術等級，同時，PhD被定義為除法律、醫(yī)學和神學之外的所有學科領域的原始研究的博士學位。所以，PhD跟別的學位的不同之處就在于其一開始的研究導向不同。

Bruce Archer (1994)指出，PhD的特征在于：(i) 對于前人研究的批判性評價；(ii)對于原則以及研究方法的近距離關注；(iii)開展系統(tǒng)化的研究調查；(iv)對知識體系做出貢獻。

通過這幾點，我們認為“通過系統(tǒng)性的研究為學術做出貢獻”可能是較為普遍認可的定義，PhD教育可以被描述為教授如何開展系統(tǒng)性研究的學習過程，這一過程將在相關領域產生可供交流的新知識。在這一前提下， PhD學位則可以看做是一個證明“此人已具備開展獨立研究并為知識體系作出貢獻的能力”的證明或證書。(Langrish, 1992; Cross, 1998)。

回到“設計PhD”的問題上，這個問題的關鍵點在于，設計PhD是不是真的跟工程或者生物PhD不一樣呢？可能，有人會說，設計PhD的研究主題和研究方法是不同的。但是，從基本原則上來講，它跟其他領域的PhD是相同的，即“通過研究為學術做出新的貢獻”。那么，工業(yè)設計PhD的教育則僅僅是工業(yè)設計研究教育。

一個工業(yè)設計PhD的學生會被教育成為廣大學術工作者中的一員。因此，擁有一個工業(yè)設計PhD學位意味著“具備獨立研究并為工業(yè)設計領域增加新的學術內容的能力”，而并不是“具備設計出更好的設計作品的能力?！?/p>

土耳其的工業(yè)設計：背景介紹

在簡短的關于工業(yè)設計PhD的討論之后，我們來看看土耳其的工業(yè)設計教育。眾所周知的是，設計研究，或者被稱為設計研究的研究即使是在早已實現(xiàn)工業(yè)化的國家也是一件新鮮事物。然而，“研究“即使是在這些已經工業(yè)化的國家中仍被看成是問題領域，是獨立于設計之外的活動(Frayling, 1993)。所以，這些在工業(yè)化發(fā)達國家中關于PhD教育所存在的問題會在邊緣的發(fā)展中國家加劇是很正常的事情。另外，在邊緣的發(fā)展中國家中的PhD教育也存在著其自身環(huán)境下所特有的問題。接下來我們將重點聚焦在土耳其的工業(yè)設計博士教育問題。

在討論土耳其的PhD教育特征之前，我們有必要先來了解一下這個國家的工業(yè)設計背景。就像其他邊緣的發(fā)展中國家一樣，對于土耳其工業(yè)設計背景的介紹應該從“現(xiàn)代主義發(fā)展范式“講起 (Bonsiepe, 1991)。早在新的產品設計需求出現(xiàn)之前，應土耳其1960-1980年工業(yè)化戰(zhàn)略的要求，土耳其就就已經為未來的工業(yè)化道路做準備而開設了設計學校。因此，土耳其工業(yè)設計教育最早出現(xiàn)于1970年，早于土耳其1995年的土耳其戰(zhàn)略。隨著土耳其市場的對外開放，在過去的10年里，隨著土耳其國際性公司的增加，對于新的產品設計能力的需求在1990開始暴增。如今，在日益激烈的競爭環(huán)境下，更是增加了土耳其工業(yè)設計需求大量增加的必然性。

土耳其工業(yè)設計PhD：不是被需求，而是被強加

土耳其的工業(yè)設計歷史非常短，但設計PhD學位的設立卻驚人的早。第一個正式的設計PhD在土耳其設立的時間是1982年。

然而，第一個PhD學位項目的設立既不是應學術要求也不是應工業(yè)行業(yè)要求，而是土耳其高等教育委員會在1980年出于重組土耳其學術系統(tǒng)的官僚目的而設立的。在土耳其高等教育委員會的要求下，所有學術領域都被強行要求建立一個標準的學術框架，不管這個學術領域有怎樣的特殊性。所有大學或者學科組織都被要求遵從固定的結構，擁有PhD學位或者同等學歷成為在這個領域進行學術工作的必要條件，這就是土耳其學科建設的第一步。換句話說，在現(xiàn)在的土耳其，如果你想從事工業(yè)設計的教育工作，你就必須擁有一個PhD學位。

作為一個毫無堅實背景的年輕學科，工業(yè)設計曾經受了并且仍然在經受著比其他成熟學科更為嚴峻的規(guī)章制度的考驗。首先，工業(yè)設計被強行歸入到建筑學院中。在沒有建筑學院的學校，美術與藝術學院則成為工業(yè)設計的安身之處?，F(xiàn)在，土耳其有6個工業(yè)設計系部，其中4個隸屬于建筑學院，2個隸屬于美術與藝術學院。

第二，只有擁有PhD學位才可以從事工業(yè)設計教育這樣的要求在土耳其的工業(yè)設計教育中產生了負面影響。首先，它限制了專業(yè)設計師進入工業(yè)設計領域從事教學工作，這就阻礙了本科設計教育的發(fā)展，因為本科設計教育需要具有豐富從業(yè)經驗的人來從事。另外，這也給已經在從事工業(yè)設計教育的人增加了突然的、人為的對研究生學位的要求。PhD學位已經成為他們從事教育工作以及晉升的先決條件。因此將PhD學位強加于設計教育者使得他們被迫進行學術研究，這會對他們的研究成果以及教學工作產生負面影響。

工業(yè)設計博士教育的二元結構

除了較早開始的PhD，在土耳其更早開始的，是廣泛開展的工業(yè)設計教育的博士學位。在現(xiàn)有學科的組織框架基礎上，研究生教育隨之得到確立和認可?？茖W技術、工程和建筑學院的研究生專業(yè)被歸入科學技術研究生院，而藝術、人類學、經濟學、政治學等的研究生項目被歸于社會科學研究院的學科體系之下。然而，早在二十世紀90年代的初期，應用藝術是在藝術學院的架構下重新組織的。在這樣的情況下，歸于藝術教學體系之下的工業(yè)設計研究生教育不能被授予PhD學位，而是被授予 “高級專業(yè)藝術”學位。這在官方層面上是和藝術、應用藝術、表演藝術等專業(yè)所獲得的學位是相同的。

現(xiàn)在，土耳其有兩個不同方向的工業(yè)設計博士研究方向: PhD和“高級專業(yè)藝術”。通過大學條例可以看出，兩者之間有著很明顯的差別。土耳其的大學的規(guī)定中，規(guī)定了PhD論文必須符合以下幾個要求之一：1.論證所研究領域內的新的研究方向；2.使用新的研究方法；3.在新的領域借鑒已有的研究方法（例如，METU, 1997; ITU, 1997）。“高級專業(yè)藝術”則被認為是專業(yè)博士教育的組成部分，也就是說，它被定義為是高等教育項目，它的成果必須是藝術活動的成果，或者表現(xiàn)出藝術創(chuàng)造性（ITU, 1997）?！案呒墝I(yè)藝術”由課程、項目、展覽和相關表演組成。研究的成果可以通過不同的形式展現(xiàn)出來，比如展覽、項目或者音樂會，但是必須有論文。在土耳其所有的藝術大學中，“高級專業(yè)藝術”學位被廣泛接受。

但是在工業(yè)設計領域，這卻是一個很嚴重的問題。先撇開官方的各種規(guī)章制度和定義不談，PhD與“高級專業(yè)藝術”在真正的實踐上并不能如官方所愿地分得清清楚楚。當我們對兩者提交的論文進行比較的時候，我們所關注的并不是它們有什么不同點，而是它們在結構、方法和內容上有什么相同點。

其中一個共同點就是兩個都缺少研究方向。如果這對于“高級專業(yè)藝術”來講是一個本質上的結果的話，那對于PhD來講就有很大的問題了，因為PhD是針對專業(yè)研究人員的教育。

缺乏研究方向

在土耳其，PhD缺少研究方向有幾個原因。在工業(yè)設計領域的研究時間過短、缺少實踐基礎、研究生教育中無效的研究以及缺少設計研究的基礎。然而，撇除那些在其他領域也會存在的共同問題，剩下的原因會影響當地設計教育體系對PhD教學體系的建立。

可能從歷史主義觀的角度來解釋會更合理。土耳其第一家設計類的學術機構是位于伊斯坦布爾的國家美術學院，這是一家有著深厚歷史底蘊的典型的藝術學院。它的工業(yè)設計本科學位需要學習5年，最終取得的學位類似于歐洲在1973年設立的MFA?？梢韵胂螅趥鹘y(tǒng)的藝術學院教學體系下，PhD沒有存在的空間。在它本身的學術晉升體系中，要成為一個教授需要當很長時間的助教，然后將其學術論文或個人項目等成果提交由高級教職員組成的委員會進行評審。其論文必須是在一個高級教授/教授指導下開展的個人項目，并能夠展示其在此過程中獲取的必要知識以及發(fā)展的必要專業(yè)特長。換言之，論文才是被評選人掌握了這個領域專業(yè)知識并有能力在此領域教書的證明，而不是研究本身。

1982年，這個學院淪為新的大學體系構建的受害者之一，它首先被分成一個新的大學里的兩個獨立的學院——藝術學院和建筑學院。在建筑學院里的工業(yè)設計的本科生學制縮減到了4年，并成立了新的研究生項目，隨之其對論文水平的要求被納入PhD研究中。因此，通過從相鄰學科（比如建筑學）借鑒章程，并結合舊有的學術傳統(tǒng)，土耳其的第一個包含了PhD的設計研究生項目，建立了。

在這樣的機構環(huán)境下，工業(yè)設計碩士很自然地就被當作專業(yè)化的設計學位，而且或多或少地被當成是設計本科教育的延續(xù)。這對于傳統(tǒng)的美術和應用藝術學科來說是完全可以理解的。但是，這種強制性地改變學位名稱并不能解釋PhD教育因何無法進入到更加專業(yè)化的設計體系之中。

設計“專業(yè)化”vs.設計研究

有一種對于PhD的理解是，“專業(yè)化”是對最早期PhD概念——作為研究教育的還原。在PhD的“專業(yè)化”中，沒有論文和研究方法是并不少見的，這也是PhD教育中的重要問題(Cross, 1998)，同時，將整體研究的概念刪減到“文獻學習”也是整個PhD教育中的大趨勢。在“設計PhD”的大名之下，將研究內容弱化為對研究主題的分析，甚至是對現(xiàn)有理論的再次解讀已經成為了一種普遍現(xiàn)象。

閱讀、審閱、批評和整合他人提出的研究結果是研究的一部分，但是這并不能說是設計研究的唯一或者最好的方法。從另一方面來講，由于“專業(yè)化”是PhD教育的一部分，所以對于PhD的定義和理解就一直不清晰。PhD的特征之一就是其研究成果需要該領域的專業(yè)人士進行評估。在這種情況下，知道當下有哪些研究成果，明確成果的作者是誰，了解都有哪些東西被設計出來了、是誰用什么樣的方法設計出來的，這些都是設計PhD研究中不可否認的關鍵部分。但是，需要說明的是，在這樣的情況下，“專業(yè)化”就僅僅只是PhD學位的組成部分之一，“專業(yè)化”不是PhD的目標原則，它只是獲得更多研究成果的研究工具。

另外，將PhD簡單地理解為“專業(yè)化”這樣的錯誤也不能簡單地歸咎于單個的教育機構。它還有更深層次的原因。這樣的理解還存在于相鄰學科，第一代設計研究者正是在這些學科中獲得自己的博士學位的。所以，簡單地把這樣的誤解歸咎于教育機構是不合理的，因為很有可能這樣的理解思路就是從別的相鄰學科借鑒過來的，比如建筑學、工程學。在特殊的專業(yè)背景下理解PhD可能是一種對學術化和專業(yè)化之間沖突的妥協(xié)。畢竟，就算你有PhD學位，你還是會被認為是一個設計專業(yè)人士。從這個角度看，讓設計PhD看起來跟其他學科的PhD不一樣的因素僅僅就在于多一些設計專業(yè)知識。另外，對于PhD作為一個獨立的研究證書的真實的定義可能意味著為了學術研究而與專業(yè)化設計的決裂，而不可否認的是，這可能并不是那些在大學體制下受晉升制度限制而不得不追求PhD學位的設計教育者所期望的結果。

土耳其工業(yè)設計PhD的重新定義

在通俗意義上，“設計PhD”在任何領域都是一個新概念，不管其是否邊緣。對于設計PhD的定義在世界上很多地方也是設計討論日程中的組成部分。然而，這樣的討論在土耳其卻由于其特有的文化背景而面臨了很多復雜性和障礙。因為，不像其他國家，“設計PhD”的重要性和可能性可以在這些國家得到探討，土耳其已經有將近15年的傳統(tǒng)工業(yè)設計PhD的教育歷史了。但是，即使是它有較早的開端，如今的土耳其PhD教育仍然面臨著缺少研究的問題，大部分的研究仍然依賴于解釋和還原原有的概念。

現(xiàn)在，現(xiàn)在我們面臨的挑戰(zhàn)是重新定義土耳其的工業(yè)設計PhD和創(chuàng)造新的研究環(huán)境。不可否認的是，這不是一項簡單的任務。首先，這會受到一些自認為已經理解了工業(yè)設計PhD含義、已經習慣現(xiàn)有學術環(huán)境的人的反對。所以，這讓重新定義PhD成為了設計界的學術大討論。

可能很多設計教育者不是沒有意識到，在過去的十年里，在諸如英國和美國的發(fā)達國家，對于工業(yè)設計的教育已經因為對未來設計教育的看法不同而分成了兩個派別的觀點。（詳見Giard, 1990; Friedman, 1997）。一個派別認為，設計是造物技術，另一個派別則認為，設計是“知識整合的過程，包括制定目標、發(fā)展和執(zhí)行策略“（Friedman, 1997）。盡管這樣的爭論才剛剛開始，土耳其工業(yè)設計教育并未能在這樣的競爭和沖突的觀點中獨善其身。因此，在土耳其設計理論和設計教育的研究之間的沖突也是很常見的，甚至是在一些學術機構的研究生教育中也司空見慣。盡管大部分的設計研究者對研究工作很漠視或是不屑，但是仍然有一部分人對于周圍同事的研究能力表示憎惡。因此，為了營造土耳其友好的研究氛圍，我們就不得不面對設計教育體制中反研究團體的挑戰(zhàn)。

另一個讓工業(yè)設計PhD重新定義變得很敏感的原因是，在工業(yè)發(fā)展的要求下，設計行業(yè)對于新知識重要性的意識不斷提升，迫使設計行業(yè)成為一個更加知識密集型經濟。在設計實踐中越來越多地用到設計知識的產生、獲得和再生產（Bayazit, 1993），已經成為越來越敏感的學術問題，因為設計教育機構也在越來越多地鼓勵和產業(yè)相結合的研究項目，且在許多大學中對于教師學術競爭力的評價標準也越來越傾向于其對該領域知識貢獻度的評價。

反過來，新知識重要性的不斷提升也讓工業(yè)設計PhD的重新定義變得越來越重要和可行。產品的工業(yè)設計可以被定義為在市場環(huán)境下對于該產品的物質化實現(xiàn)或定位的特殊知識。（Er, 1997），因此，不論是對主流國家還是對邊緣國家來說，設計都是一個最為有效的提升經濟表現(xiàn)水平的資源。就如Owen（1998）年所觀察到的那樣，人們對于設計質量的關注的興趣不斷提升，同時對于如何提升設計表現(xiàn)更有高度關切。因此，全球范圍內對于設計工具、理論和方式的研究也日益增加。

20世紀90年代后期，源于土耳其日益增加的工業(yè)競爭壓力，土耳其知識型、跨學科的設計研究生教育開始出現(xiàn)。這些專業(yè)要求有強有力的理論框架和深厚的研究輸入基礎，反過來，這些理論框架和設計研究輸入也對設計理論研究者們提出了更高的要求。盡管對于設計研究的理解有所偏離，土耳其的學術組織也做好了準備，迎接創(chuàng)造新的設計研究環(huán)境和重新定義工業(yè)設計PhD的挑戰(zhàn)。

這對于這種“將實踐導入研究再反饋到實踐中，并利用每一次的循環(huán)促進交流，并且豐富知識體系”的互聯(lián)式循環(huán)（McCoy, 1990）將會是具有標志性意義的一步。這是工業(yè)設計作為一個成熟的、專業(yè)的學科必須有的，不管它是否處于邊緣環(huán)境。

感謝ITU的Nigan Bayazit教授，以及METU的Ozlem Er博士和Fatma Korkut博士提出寶貴的批評和建議，感謝他們與我分享他們深刻的見解。

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 Y?netmeligi (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.

（責任編輯 童永生）

參考文獻:

[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 Y?netmeligi (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

近年來，世界各地的設計類院校紛紛開設了工業(yè)設計博士學位。這一博士學位的設置原因多樣，情形也各自不同。在這些開設了設計博士學位的學校中，有一些學校來自于一些邊緣國家。由于這些國家的工業(yè)設計歷史很短，工業(yè)設計研究生教育包括博士教育的過快發(fā)展導致這些專業(yè)培養(yǎng)的問題逐漸顯現(xiàn)，并使得其處于邊緣語境的問題更加凸顯出來。本文著重探討的是土耳其工業(yè)設計博士教育的特征，并由點及面，討論博士學位專業(yè)的普遍標準問題以及當地的發(fā)展動態(tài)促使這些專業(yè)建立的原因。本文認為，盡管土耳其工業(yè)設計教育的開端較早，但目前仍迫切需要重新定義工業(yè)設計博士教育。

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.