Doctoral Education in Architecture: Challenges and Opportunities [1 ed.] 9781443875660, 9781443871143

Citation preview

Doctoral Education in Architecture

Doctoral Education in Architecture Challenges and Opportunities Edited by

Gülsün Sağlamer and Fatma Erkök

Doctoral Education in Architecture: Challenges and Opportunities Edited by Gülsün Sağlamer and Fatma Erkök This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Gülsün Sağlamer, Fatma Erkök and contributors Cover Design: Ozan Avcı All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7114-1 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7114-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures........................................................................................... viii List of Tables ............................................................................................... x Preface ........................................................................................................ xi Gülsün Sa÷lamer Acknowledgements ................................................................................... xv Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Gülsün Sa÷lamer and Fatma Erkök Part I: Defining the Framework for Doctoral Education in Architecture Chapter One ................................................................................................. 6 Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture Fatma Erkök and Gülsün Sa÷lamer Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 31 The Structure and Content and Some Observations about Doctoral Education in Architecture around the World Gary Moore Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 55 Graduate-Level Studies, an Historical Perspective and Current Practice Kemal Gürüz Part II: Doctoral Education in Architecture: Problems and Potentials Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 74 A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture Gülsün Sa÷lamer and Fatma Erkök

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 100 From DSD to A+BE: The Development of Doctoral Education in Architecture and the Built Environment at the TU Delft Faculty of Architecture Hans Beunderman Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 114 The New Paradigm: PhD by Design Murray Fraser Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 131 Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism Stefan Simion Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 144 Potentials and Difficulties Katalin Marótzy Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 152 (Re)searching Architecture in Doctoral Education Vilma Hastaoglou-Martinidis, Georgios Papakostas and Constantin Spyridonidis Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 165 Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture: The Case of the French-speaking Community of Belgium Olivier Masson and Jean Stillemans Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 179 Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU Fatma Erkök and Gülsün Sa÷lamer Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 192 Need for New Approaches in Housing Research and Doctoral Programs Pelin Dursun and Gülsün Sa÷lamer Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 213 Towards a Doctoral School of Architecture at ETH Zurich Philip Ursprung

Doctoral Education in Architecture: European Perspective

vii

Part III: Conclusion The Future ............................................................................................... 220 Gülsün Sa÷lamer and Fatma Erkök Contributors ............................................................................................. 222 Editors ..................................................................................................... 223

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1 Growth of master-level studies. Source: Annual Higher Education Statistics published by the Student Selection and Placement Center 3.2 Growth of medical specialty training studies. Source: Annual Higher Education Statistics published by the Student Selection and Placement Center 3.3 Growth of doctoral-level studies. Source: Annual Higher Education Statistics published by the Student Selection and Placement Center 3.4 Growth in scientific publications in journals covered by the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Source: data collected by the author from various sources, Web of Science and Turkish Scientific and Research Council data 3.5 International comparison of gross graduation rates at the doctoral level. Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2011, Table A3.3 3.6 European Innovation Scoreboard, Summary Innovation Index (SII) 2007. Source: Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Training Center on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), February 2008, Figure 1, p.5 4.1 Starting year of doctoral education 4.2 Graphic for minimum length of study 4.3 Graphic for maximum length of study 4.4 Average duration of study 4.5 Total number of PhD awards 4.6 Distribution of awards to years 5.1 Graph showing the development of PhD research at the Faculty of Architecture in Delft 5.2 Kick-off TU Delft Graduate School of Architecture and the Built Environment 6.1 Visual analyses by Penelope Haralambidou 6.2 Visual analyses by Penelope Haralambidou 6.3 Studies of Marcel Duchamp's artwork Étant donnés (Given) by Penelope Haralambidou 6.4 Site context analysis by Yeoryia Manolopoulou for the New York pier competition 6.5 Design models for New York pier competition by Yeoryia Manolopoulou 6.6 Design models for New York pier competition by Yeoryia Manolopoulou 6.7 Proposal by Yara Sharif for “stitching the land” 6.8 Design proposals for insertions in the Palestinian West Bank by Yara Sharif 6.9 Design proposals for insertions in the Palestinian West Bank by Yara Sharif 9.1 PhD enrolments per period 9.2 PhD’s awarded per year 9.3 PhD’s time to completion

Doctoral Education in Architecture: European Perspective

ix

9.4 Thematic fields of awarded doctorates 9.5 Thematic fields of doctorates being elaborated (1984-2012) 10.1 Belgium, French-speaking universities (main campus) and UCL (different sites) 11.1 Total # Doctoral graduates from all departments of ITU Institute of Science and Technology 11.2 Doctorates awarded in architecture between 1960 and 2010 11.3 Distribution of doctoral awards in architecture by leading institutes in Turkey 11.4 Completion time (1997-2009) average: 5.98 years 11.5 Distribution among fields 11.6 Number of awarded and dropped out doctorates in architecture between 20002010 12.1 Housing panels at ITU faculty of architecture 12.2 Themes of housing master programme in ITU, 1973-1974 12.3 Activities on housing at ITU faculty of architecture 12.4 Methodology of the study 12.5 Distribution of PhD theses on housing according to programmes and years (1961-2010) 12.6 Distribution of PhD theses according to housing typologies 12.7 Space as a research area 12.8 Some main topics investigated under the research area of “space” 12.9 Technology as a research area 12.10 Some main topics investigated under the research area of “technology” 12.11 Housing policy as a research area 12.12 Some main topics investigated under the research area of “policy”

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 The U.S. graduate-level enrolment, 2010 3.2 The U.S. graduate-level enrolment in professional fields, 2010 3.3 The Turkish graduate-level enrolment, 2011 4.1 Comparison of the findings of the ITU survey with EUA Trends V report 5.1 Four types of research identified by the Rathenau Institute 5.2 Additional guide for SEP self-evaluation by architecture research groups 12.1 Relationship between housing typology and scope of the work 12.2 Relationship between housing typology and concept of space 12.3 Relationship between housing typology and concept of technology 12.4 Relationship between housing typology and concept of policy 12.5 Relationship between housing typology and the scale of the problem

PREFACE GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER

Knowledge creation is an essential function of higher education institutions. However, the exact boundaries of that function and the methodologies for serving that function evolve over time. The strategies for knowledge creation are twofold. At one level, the administration, together with the stakeholders of the institution, must determine its strategy within its current context. At the second level, it has to create a dynamic structure that can question and re-orientate that strategy as the context changes. Executing strategy effectively is a growing challenge in a rapidly evolving context. Observing, assessing and integrating best practices from around the world to formulate how best to meet this challenge is a shared objective of all leading higher education institutions. There is a strong need for leading universities to join the ranks of higher education institutes at the forefront of knowledge creation. However, universities should be able to recognize the fact that more important than being at the forefront at one point in time is the ability to remain in that position by learning and adapting to changing circumstances. With this understanding, universities have to take on the ambitious task of fundamentally re-orientating and redesigning themselves to be constantly learning institutions and be determined to maintain a permanent seat at the forefront of knowledge creation for decades to come (Sa÷lamer, G., Karakullukçu, M., 2004). This is the context in which graduate education sits, so it is important and timely to reflect upon graduate education, and especially PhD programmes, in both concept and practice and consider their history, scope and possible trajectories. It is well known that doctoral education does not have a very long history in the western world, starting only less than 200 years ago and mainly focusing on the social sciences and basic sciences. Doctoral education in the basic and social sciences and even in engineering and technology has evolved through the centuries and is still evolving to meet the changing requirements of society and industry. As the borders are melting between research on basic sciences and industrial research and between research and innovation, together with decreasing

xii

Preface

state finance, the need for different approaches to doctoral education has become an important issue on the agenda of universities. On the other hand there is a strong concern coming from higher education institutions that if the basic and social sciences are neglected, there will not be sustainable development in knowledge creation and therefore bottom up curiosity-based research should be given importance and extensive funding should be available to maintain the quality of research in academia. This discussion is also shaping the research and innovation policies of national and supranational funding agencies all around the world. One more issue that should be stressed here is that “scientific progress on ‘major societal’ challenges of energy supply, climate change, food security, health and ageing require medium and long term commitment of funding instruments that support both basic research and collaboration with industry and other external partners” (EUA, Smart People for Smart Growth, 2014 p2). Doctoral programmes and research activities that are structured according to these new developments are also paving the way for new forms of collaboration and funding and policy instruments such as joint degrees, transferable skills, mobility of researchers, co-funding, autonomy of universities etc. Where is architecture in all of these developments? Doctoral training started very late in the field of architecture and many architectural schools started to implement the PhD as a requirement for their academic staff just a few decades ago. For this reason doctoral training in architecture developed very slowly and sometimes even took steps backwards in some institutions. Initially doctoral degrees were awarded in architectural history and theory, and this trend lasted until the mid-20th century. Architectural schools, faculties and departments that are part of technical universities have been pioneers in offering PhD in architecture other than the fields of history and theory of architecture and have also started to require a PhD or doctoral degree in architecture for their academic staff. Taking a retrospective view, it is clear that conceptual frameworks of “research for design”, “research in design” were first nurtured by these architectural schools and they were followed by others. “Research through design” has always been discussed by many professionals and academics in architecture and they have stressed the importance and the necessity of this category of research in architecture. Compared to the basic sciences, social sciences, engineering, technology and health sciences, doctoral training in architecture is not well defined. This fact causes many contradictions in the development and improvement of doctoral programmes in the field of architecture. This workshop was designed with the aim of clarifying some of the

Doctoral Education in Architecture: European Perspective

xiii

vague issues that have been discussed for a long time at architectural circles and create a platform to share experiences and to make comparisons between different PhD or Doctoral degree programmes to make further improvements in our institutions. The book, which contains chapters by authors from a number of countries, is divided into three parts. The first part starts with a chapter that aims to define a framework for doctoral education in architecture and focuses on the creation of a discussion platform for doctoral education in architecture. Some of the questions that were discussed widely in this chapter may be listed as follows: how to define research activities in architecture, what are the challenges that we face, how to measure success in doctoral education in architecture, what could be the impact of the university-industry partnership in research and innovation on doctoral education in architecture and how to fund doctoral education. Through these discussions, we have tried to articulate some common wisdom on these questions. Chapters 2 and 3 of Part I are the contributions made by two distinguished keynote speakers, Prof. Gary Moore and Prof. Kemal Gürüz, defining doctoral education both in the field of architecture and in general. Kemal Gürüz, who was the president of the Council of Higher Education of Turkey (1995-2003), summarizes graduate level studies and gives a historical perspective together with current practices in the second chapter of Part I. Gary Moore, who has done extensive research on doctoral education in architecture discusses the structure and content of doctoral education programmes in architecture around the world in the third chapter of Part I. In the second part of the book, some of the universities that took part in the first survey (2011) on doctoral education in architecture, shared their very valuable experiences in their schools in different chapters. In Part II, the first chapter summarized the 2011 survey that was initiated and implemented by the ITU team namely Gülsün Sa÷lamer and Fatma Erkök. In the following chapters of the second part representatives of 8 universities outline their doctoral education in architecture. These universities can be listed as follow: Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, ETH Zürich, Department of Architecture, Université Catholique de Louvain, Faculty of Architecture, Architectural Engineering, Urban Planning; Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Csonka Pál Doctoral School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Architecture, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, ITU Faculty of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture.

xiv

Preface

The third part of the book contains the aims and achievements of the workshop together with some proposals for future studies in this field. As the problem itself is not well defined, we should not expect to reach concrete proposals at the end of this book, but rather to understand the internal and external constraints of doctoral education and their continuously changing impact on the whole education process. The book contains extensive information and experiences of some leading universities on doctoral education in architecture written by academics who sincerely believe that there is a great need for research in architecture and on its doctoral education. A common belief among the participants is that there is also a great need to create awareness in the academic world and in industry about the different aspects of architectural research that might not be comparable with the basic sciences or engineering and technology, but still may serve to generate important knowledge for shaping a better built environment for a sustainable future. The participants of the workshop and contributors to this book feel strongly that such awareness must be created for the research funding agencies at national and international levels to understand the importance of research in architecture that will strengthen the capacity of the architects for shaping the built environment with sound knowledge and creative solutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to record our thanks to all contributors and also the workshop participants who have made substantial contributions to the existence of this book. We would also like to acknowledge the invaluable help provided by Istanbul Technical University Rectorate and Faculty of Architecture together with our sponsors who made the research that we have done in 2011 and the workshop possible. Our last but not least thanks go to Sally Bradbrook for her continuous support and careful editing.

INTRODUCTION GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER AND FATMA ERKÖK

There is at present growing interest in the academic world in the topic of doctoral education. The world is changing and the growing need for innovation and technology development is forcing the revision of how researchers are trained in this new setting. Doctoral study is an essential part of the start of academic research. It establishes the main setting for gaining the essential skills for scientific research. Doctoral education has for a long time been a cornerstone for this training. Carrying out independent scientific research and contributing to scientific knowledge with original work is today's definition of doctoral work, yet this was not exactly how it was in the past, being mainly a relationship of master and apprentice. With this paradigm shift, education and its components had to be changed too. The new perspective of doctoral education places more importance on the PhD student as an independent researcher, rather than unpaid labour. As a matter of fact, this need for change requires the revision of present education systems, with their positive and negative sides. An overall evaluation and understanding of future challenges is only possible with such an approach. This volume tries to make such an evaluation for the field of architecture. The volume starts with setting the scene for research in the field of architecture. The workshop, which was carried out as a sequel to a survey and as a discussion platform for these issues provided the opportunity to exchange ideas. The contributions of participants of the workshop are the main material of the volume, and include the state of education in their own institutions and their evaluations for the problems and potentials of doctoral education in architecture. This volume is envisaged as an initiator of discussion in this field, which is still a void. Meetings and discussions can build upon this study. The editors of the book started the project with research that aimed to investigate the state of doctoral education in architecture at Istanbul Technical University. During this research, in order to adequately evaluate the position of ITU regarding doctoral education in architecture, a

2

Introduction

comparative look at other institutions providing similar education was required. Hence, a pilot study was planned and carried out in 2009, as a means of examining, comparing and discussing the nature and structure of doctoral studies in architecture across Europe and the US in order to provide an overview of the situation and the problems that they have in common, to exchange good practices in order to develop better solutions by examining and comparing doctoral studies in architecture. The survey was distributed to 50 institutions in Europe and America, and was responded to by 25 institutions in November 2011. The responding institutions were from a range of countries: Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, France, Hungary, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, Romania and Turkey. Based on the pilot study, a workshop on 'Doctoral Education in Architecture' was organized by ITU Faculty of Architecture in November 2011 with contributors mainly from the institutions that participated in the pilot study. Nine universities were represented at the workshop. The representatives are listed below: 1. Delft University of Technology (Netherlands), represented by Hans Beunderman (and Frank van der Hoeven) 2. ETH Zurich (Switzerland), represented by Rudolf Krieg 3. Université Catholique de Louvain – UCL (Belgium), represented by Olivier Masson (and Jean Stillemans) 4. Budapest University of Technology and Economics (Hungary), represented by Katalin Marótzy 5. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by George Papakostas, Vilma Hastaoglou-Martinidis & Constantin Spiridonidis 6. Bartlett, UCL (United Kingdom), represented by Murray Fraser 7. University of Sydney (Australia), represented by Gary Moore 8. Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism (Romania), represented by Stefan Simion 9. Istanbul Technical University (Turkey), represented by Gülsün Sa÷lamer and Fatma Erkök

The objectives of the workshop were to establish a discussion platform based on the information that was collected through the questionnaire and to define the bottlenecks and critical issues in PhD Education in Architecture. Discussions focussed on the comparison of different types of doctoral programmes in terms of organisational issues together with the aims-achievements-problems and advancements. A special focus was the integration of doctoral programmes in the world outside academia and the possibilities for future collaboration among institutions.

Doctoral Education in Architecture: European Perspective

3

The workshop that took place on 28-29 November 2011 consisted of the following parts:

x x x x x x

Welcoming Speeches Keynote Speeches Presentations of the Workshop Participants, Sessions 1 & 2 Workshop Session 1, theme: “Organisational Issues in Doctoral Programmes” Workshop Session 2, theme: “Possibilities for Innovative Doctoral Programmes in Architecture” Closing Session: “Possibilities for Future Collaboration”

Welcome speeches were given by the representatives of the workshop organisers and hosts of the institution, Prof. Dr. Gülsün Sa÷lamer (co-chair of the workshop), Prof. Dr. Orhan HacÕhasano÷lu (Dean, ITU Faculty of Architecture) and Prof. Dr. Muhammed ùahin (Rector, ITU). Two keynote speakers were invited to the workshop with the following discussion topics: 1. Prof. Kemal Gürüz (Turkey - former President of the Turkish Council of Higher Education, Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Middle East Technical University) title: “Graduate-Level Studies: An Historical Perspective And Current Practice” 2. Prof. Gary Moore (Professor Emeritus of Environment-Behaviour Studies, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Planning, University of Sydney, Australia) title: “The Structure & Content and Some Observations about Global Doctoral Education in Architecture”

The presentations given by the workshop participants are the basis of the articles presented here and can be found in Section 3. Workshop Session 1 had the theme of “Organisational Issues in Doctoral Programmes” and aimed to create a discussion on the organisation of doctoral programmes in each participating university. Prof. Hans Beunderman from Tudelft chaired the session and the discussion involved all the participants. Workshop Session 2 had the theme of “Possibilities for Innovative Doctoral Programmes in Architecture” and aimed to discuss the newly emerging position of doctoral research. Prof. Dr. Gülsün Sa÷lamer from ITU chaired this session. There were three presentations by

Introduction

4

guest speakers. The presenters and their presentation titles for this session were as follows:

1. Pelin Dursun (ITU Arch.) and Gülsün Sa÷lamer (ITU Arch.): “The 2. 3.

Need for New Approaches in Housing Research and Doctoral Programmes” Florinel Radu (College of Eng. and Arch. of Fribourg), “Inside Looking Out: A Framework for Discussing the Question of Architectural Design Doctorates” Alpay Er (ITU Industrial Design Dep.) “University-Industry partnership: Postgraduate Education in Industrial Design in Turkey”

The workshop was also enriched by participants invited from different universities: Zuhal Ulusoy (Kadir Has University), Birgül Çolako÷lu (YÕldÕz Technical University), and Ayúe ùentürer (ITU), all of whom made valuable contributions. The volume contains the contributions by participants regarding their own contexts-conditions-problems and excerpts from the discussions. The editors believe this material will provide a meaningful basis for further studies and discussion on the issues involved.

PART I: DEFINING THE FRAMEWORK FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER ONE FORMING A DISCUSSION PLATFORM FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN ARCHITECTURE FATMA ERKÖK AND GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER

The workshop comprised presentations by keynote speakers, participants from diverse universities and other invited speakers, thematic discussion sessions and a closing panel. The presentations given by the university representatives have been turned into articles and are in Section 3 of this book. In this section the focus will be the discussions that took place during the workshop itself. There were two thematic discussion sessions in which pre-defined topics (such as “Organizational Issues in Doctoral Programmes” and “Possibilities for Innovative Doctoral Programmes in Architecture”) were used to focus and orientate the discussion. There was also a question and answer session at the end of each presentation. This section consists of selected excerpts from these discussions. These summarize and reflect the essential points of the workshop. The editors have attempted to structure the issues discussed at the workshop. The sources of the excerpts are sound recordings that have been transcribed. Discussions at times followed the pre-defined topics and at other times flowed spontaneously from one topic to another. For the sake of bringing order to the collected material, the discussions are grouped into three main topics. These topics are: 1. Architectural research and doctoral education. This topic mainly explores the relationship between architectural research and doctoral education. 2. Managing doctoral programmes. This topic deals with the management of doctoral programmes in architecture in relation to the tools, products, and features of this area of education. 3. Restructuring policies on doctoral education. This topic discusses the issue on a larger scale by examining the emerging policies that are being shaped by current overall changes in the world.

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

7

Gülsün Sa÷lamer

Kemal Gürüz

Gary Moore

Georgios Papakostas

Fatma Erkök

Constantin Spyridonidis Katalin Marotzy wo r k s h o p

p a r t i c i p a n t s

Chapter One

8

Murray Fraser Vilma Hastaoglou-Martinidis

Pelin Dursun Olivier Masson

Hans Beunderman

Rudolf Krieg Stefan Simion wo r k s h o p

p a r t i c i p a n t s

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

workshop participants

poster

9

10

Chapter One

1. Architectural research and doctoral education In this section, the relation between architectural research and doctoral education will be examined concisely with the subheadings: “Architectural research (and its properties)”, “Interaction between research and practice (and their contribution to each other)” and “Unification or diversification in doctoral education in architecture”.

1.1 Architectural research Before examining the nature of architectural research, we must look at the general definition of research and then examine the nature of architectural research. Arnold, within the environment of that period, stated in 1979 that; “the mass of today’s research is not directed towards the pursuit of knowledge, but towards its authentication”. Science tells us that a theory or observation is not part of knowledge until proven, and so research is often not the noble investigation of unknown territory, but its measurement after someone has taken the risk to discover it. Thus there are two distinct styles of researching: one relating to discovery (or invention), and the other to authentication. French mathematician Poincare says: “it is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.” Discovery is search, while research is backtracking to prove the truth of the search. The institutionalisation of research emphasises the latter task, rather than the former (Arnold, 1979). Theodore Von Kármán (Hungarian-American physicist and aeronautical engineer) wrote: "Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was" (New Mexico Museum of Space History, 2013) and places engineering as a creative domain in which the search is through discovery. This is an interesting point as it also places creativity in engineering, which generally is thought to belong to the artistic fields only. In architectural literature there are different approaches to how architecture is related to research. This is not surprising as there is still blurriness about the exact placement of architecture as a field in between science and art. As a result of this, which approach (positivist, hermeneutic, heuristic...) and what rules of research would be most appropriate for architectural research is frequently a topic of discussion. Types of research in architecture range from hard-core scientific research to artistic inquiry. The ambiguity of the type of research brings with it the uncertainty of the principles to be adopted for research.

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

11

Nowadays, the advancement of architecture is considered to be essentially linked to the acquirement of knowledge, which is achieved through research. Another aspect of discussion is what constitutes research in architecture (or design). At the same time, there are different conceptions of the potential topics of research in architecture. While the relationships between research and design are discussed, we come across the use of different kinds of terminology like ‘research in(to) design’, ‘research for design’ and ‘research through design’ by various scholars (Short, Frayling, Till, Rendell). These different concepts also imply different targets and tools. We will try to use these concepts as a way of grouping the diverse understandings of architectural research. Sanford Kwinter talks about some problematic attitudes regarding the relationship between architecture and science. One attitude that he mentions is an unproductive form of narcissism that architects often suffer from. This attitude asserts that science is that part of culture that speaks about found reality, and is therefore somehow poorer than the disciplines that invent. Another problematic thinking for Kwinter is the disastrous approach to adopt a ‘positivist’ attitude within architecture, to see it as a ‘science’ in the classical sense. For him, it would be very misplaced to apply ‘scientific method’ to architecture and what is required today is to rethink science as well, to bring its spectacularly inventive side to the foreground. Kuhn’s work helped to prepare the ground for a new understanding of science as being a generator of ideas and not only facts (Kwinter, 2007). Jeremy Till wrote on the topic of architectural research and questioned the way it is perceived and the reasons for insufficient development in this field. In this context, he describes the three positions (‘myths’, as he calls them) (2008, 2012) that have evolved around architectural research, and which may have held back the development of research in the field of architecture. The first is that architecture is such a particular form of knowledge that it needs particular forms of research to investigate it or, at worst, cannot be subjected to the standard expectations of academia. The second position is almost the opposite, namely that architecture needs to be subjected to the methods of other disciplines if it is to be taken seriously as a form of rigorous knowledge. The third position is that doing architecture through the act of design is a form of research in its own right, and therefore architectural research should move from the academy and be located most firmly in practice (Till, 2012). The positions that Till asserted might also explain the different modes of research in design. It is possible to draw parallels between Till’s positions and the different modes of research in design, the first position of

12

Chapter One

Till being to take the particularity of architecture as its starting point to the concept of ‘research in(to) design’. The second position, which gives dominance to the other disciplines feeding architecture, might be considered as the position of ‘research for design’. The third position that is based on the idea of the act of designing as a form of research in its own right, is clearly what is meant by ‘research through design’. Alan Short asserts that the concepts of Frayling (1993), ‘research for design’ and ‘research into design’, inhabit the mainstream of academic research, whereas in fact there is a need for the introduction of another type of funding scheme to address these concepts. This kind of research would be oriented directly at the ‘creative industries’ to support and nurture much-needed research through design (Short, 2008). Till places the modes of research a little bit differently from Short, placing one of them in between the domains. He states that research ‘in’ (research into) design is traditionally the domain of academia and research ‘through’ that of practice, with research ‘for’ somewhere in the middle. He asserts that research ‘in’ has the most clearly defined methodologies and research outcomes, but at the same time is probably the most hermetic. Research ‘through’ is probably the least well-defined and often the most tacit but is at the time a key defining aspect of architectural research (Till, 2012). The commonality of views between Short and Till is that research through design is a newer concept and requires attention and funding. Jane Rendell also mentioned a popular position among designers that the practice of architecture as a professional design activity involves some degree of research…by virtue of each unique ‘journey of discovery’ (Short, 2008). This is another statement that supports the importance of ‘research through design’. For Till, architectural knowledge lies to some extent in the building, but also in the processes that lead to the building, in the representation of the building and in the theories beyond the building, so architectural research must address this expanded field. He asserts that, along with these myths, architecture has its own particular knowledge base and procedures. This particularity demands us to define clearly the context, scope and modes of research appropriate to architecture, whilst at the same time employing the generic definitions of originality, significance and rigour (Till, 2012). It is worth considering whether the ‘myths’ described by Till are actually ideas frequently mentioned by architects during discussions about architectural research. Did, for instance, the workshop on ‘Doctoral Education in Architecture”, as such a discussion platform, demonstrate a

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

13

similar tendency in terms of myths? It is possible to trace tendencies to a certain extent. Below are some quotations from the workshop:

Zuhal Ulusoy “Scientific design as an output?” That’s a question mark. We always tend to see the scientific part in design. There could be a reciprocal attitude to that question; asking the design aspects in the scientific research. Maybe that is a way of seeing the interaction between the two. Because, we always tend to see it from one side. With the growing innovations in all kinds of scientific research, I feel that there is a growing trend in terms of designing the scientific research itself. Maybe there could be a leap towards finding a meeting point, I don’t know, a consolidation maybe. Gary Moore I also agree and believe very much in the diversity. I do think however at the core, there is the outcome. We heard some words about original contribution to knowledge. So whether one student of PhD is very esoteric and far from practice it still, to be a PhD, needs to be an original contribution to knowledge, which then implies some other things about core of methods. It implies things about reliability, conformability, and transferability, that the knowledge is not just unique to one’s mind. But that must be able to be replicated in some ways. So I think that at a deep level there are some core principles that an original contribution to knowledge has to satisfy, whether it is this way or that way Gülsün Sa÷lamer I think all stakeholders in the system have to change their mindset.. Because we are facing with a lot of difficulties when we are applying for funding for our research projects in architecture and this is the case all over the world. There are a lot of bureaucratic steps for project proposals for engineering and science research projects. Engineering and science community are used to deal with this kind of bureaucracy, but we are having difficulties in this respect.We should try to adapt ourselves but at the same time we should be able to convince the other stakeholders to change their mindset. We are trying in fact to do something but because of these rules and barriers, we are doing something else at the end. Hans Beunderman There is some underlying frustration from my time as a dean, where I found that the school as it were divided between two monsters. One being the practice and one being the university research committees coming by being accredited and valued as a part of the university. Increasing the university part is influenced by funding problems and the funding in Netherlands and I think also in EU programmes require certain research standard and history. Many of these criteria are generated from the applied sciences or the engineering sciences and we are not as good at that sort of criteria. So the frustration is that in many cases we did not have the possibility to enter into the Dutch funding programmes. It causes a barrier to entry because it is not in their benefit and they keep out new incomers. I tried to make that link between the faculties of architectural research. On the other side there is the practice, which is inconsistent. So, they are inconsistent in their

14

Chapter One

requirements and those are the two poles that we had to balance between in the past decade. Gary Moore …the research money coming into the universities… In architecture, it is still, in most countries relatively hard to get large research grants into the universities. At universities you have huge research labs that are hiring many post-docs, other research staff, all the way up to research professor. Maybe not teaching, just research. We don’t have such a tradition in architecture yet. Our graduates are looking for other universities to teach and do research at. So until our governments are willing to see that architectural research is valuable and needs financial support, I think we are trapped. Yes they want us to produce a large number of PhDs but there is no place for them to go. George Papakostas The question of the doctorate studies and the doctorate as such as an output is the production of the architectural knowledge and architectural innovation. The question is who is actually producing architectural innovation. The academic institutions or the practice? In my view, practice is the dominant producer of architectural innovation. Schools of architecture, in the majority of their practices, they import knowledge, the architectural knowledge and innovation that are produced in the practice, and incorporate them into their teaching practices. So in my understanding, what is discussed actually, how the design could become the center of the research, occupation of the academic institutions is a new effort on the part of the academic institutions to contribute to architectural innovation. Gülsün Sa÷lamer In this university, until I became the rector, the senate was using very strict rules about the publications and asking about ISI indexed journals and then it was not easy to convince all the engineers in the senate that, you know, architecture is different, so we have to accept internationally refereed journals not necessarily indexed in ISI. Then, from that time on, we have accepted internationally refereed journals for academic promotions and for all of the PhD studies as well. But we still have the pressure coming from the Higher Education Council, coming from technical university engineering departments. So it is not easy for a Faculty of Architecture to live in a technical university in a pleasant way. Not easy. Constantin Spiridonidis The recent discussion risks arriving at the conclusion that the new generation of doctorates must have the main characteristic of collaborating with industry. I don’t think that this is the most significant aspect of this new generation. Architecture is about creating space. But in order to do that, we need knowledge coming from humanities, about the human, about the people, about the society, etc. Our subject is creation. The others are supporting to that. The interesting thing is that all the themes of the doctorates that we experienced previously were based on these areas, which are supportive, but not in the centre of our profession and discipline and occupation. I think the interesting shift is the fact that now we are moving from these areas to the centre of our own activity. The difference now is that we have to step into design and look at it from this different point. We need a significant

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

15

reform in the institutional level because we have troubles existing all under the umbrella of humanities, or under the umbrella of engineering. Because we do not belong to any of them. On the contrary, we are belonging; we are tending to, with the new spirit to belong in another domain of knowledge, which is the creation. So the distribution of research funding has to find another source, which will be the creative disciplines.

x The general underestimation of architectural research executed by universities has led to difficulties in getting sufficient funding for research. Consequently, the contribution of universities to architectural knowledge and innovation becomes the myth reflected as: “architectural research is underestimated” x Within the topic of architectural research, what is discussed most frequently is the scientific aspect in design, but looking from the opposite perspective, there also exists a design aspect in scientific research and this is worth considering as a new viewpoint. (Myth reflected as: “architecture is such a particular form of knowledge”) x Architecture bears particularity and subjectivity, these stemming from its nature, so it is difficult to adapt to the classical scientific aspect. (Myth reflected as: “architecture cannot be subjected to the standard expectations of academia”) x Architectural research previously was based mostly on the fields supporting architecture, but now architecture and architectural creation are at its core. Consequently, research can draw from the creative disciplines. (Myth reflected as: “architecture needs to be subjected to the methods of other disciplines”)

1.2 Interaction between research and practice: how do they contribute to each other? How can doctoral programmes be located in this interaction? Architectural research, according to Till (2008) may be seen to have two main contexts for its production, the academy and practice. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but it is vital that neither is privileged over the other as a superior form of research, and neither is dismissed by the other for being irrelevant. Both the academy and practice remain insufficient for the task of research. The inward-looking processes of the academy has led to inwardlooking results produced more for the self-sustaining benefit of the academic community and less for the wider public and professional good. Academic research is usually criticised by the practice for being out of

16

Chapter One

touch with reality. In practice, on the other hand, much of the research output remains unexplained. It is either, for commercial reasons, not shared with the rest of the community or else in its dissemination through the press is not communicated with the rigour it deserves. The academy, on the other hand accuses the practice, of being muddied by the market. (Till, 2008) This situation of insufficient dissemination and collaboration between the contexts leads to a very slow development of architectural knowledge. This problem might be overcome by combining the strengths of each party, which will enhance the benefits of architectural research. Practice has the raw data on which architectural knowledge is founded, academy can release this potential through research. The process of change reflects the need to adapt research training to meet the challenges of the global labour market, technological advances, new profiles and demands of doctoral candidates (EUA, 2005). As a matter of fact, universities have to position themselves well and continuously reevaluate their education systems. The field of architecture is also influenced by the dominant problem themes of the world. There is a growing need to cooperate with industry to develop solutions for these themes. Architectural schools should be strong partners of the greater scientific and technological community in order to address especially urgent global challenges and make contributions to areas such as sustainability, climate change and energy through their graduate programmes. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary doctoral programmes are becoming more and more important. Industrial doctoral schemes, which are carried out in cooperation with the building and construction sector, have important potentials. Doctoral programmes serve as adequate locations for architectural research, which might also bridge with industry. The contribution to architectural research of doctoral studies is of particular importance. These studies involve research stemming from a design base and are a scientific contribution to knowledge using different methodologies. (Sa÷lamer, Erkök, 2013) Bryan Lawson identifies three stages within the scope of architectural research: architectural processes, architectural products and architectural performance. These stages lead to each other and create a loop. Architectural research, in order to be effective has to feed the loop, as a dynamic system where research at one stage will feed another stage. Universities and architectural practices should collaborate in order to feed the loop with both data and analysis.

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

17

Gülsün Sa÷lamer I think it should be our future orientation to have this cooperation between research and practice in architectural schools. This university has a long history in industry and we are the oldest technical university here in this industrial region. The system should be flexible enough to house all the people coming from different backgrounds to do research in architecture and also we should be flexible enough to combine practice and research in our PhD programmes, in our research. Otherwise, we will not be able to grasp the opportunities around us and we will be losing ground to other engineering sciences programmes. George Papakostas I would support this idea of scientific contribution to knowledge, but we use different methodologies in architecture. It is just part of a different kind of construct. So it is important that we should be open and accommodating for this. It is just as good as another type of construct and it seems to be the main practice of architecture. We ask for written work from PhD architectural design students, which is as good as any written work, only done differently, on a design basis. Stefan Simon I think it is very difficult and maybe a little dangerous to try to extract obvious and very clear connections between the two worlds. As has been said the two worlds are very, very different but I think it is like an attitude of a critical, conflicting relationship between the two worlds of research and practice. I think that this is the confrontation of the two worlds and knowledge. It is like you experiment in two different worlds and then you have the ability to understand the other. So I think that could be a way of thinking. Gülsün Sa÷lamer Starting in 2001, we created PhD programmes not for the graduates to be employed in the universities, but for employment in industry. It was a huge project funded by State Planning Organization with remarkable funding and it was very successful but even at that time, I was not able to convince architects to be in that scheme. Only six engineering programmes took part in that project and they have been very successful. George Papakostas The relationship between education and practice was the key separation years ago. The claim to have a contact and direct collaboration with the professional bodies appears not as wishful thinking but as an imperative need in our days. So this gap does not exist anymore in our consciousness and the schools more and more want to have close collaboration and continuities with the professional activity. Also this is something new in our days, in our times. Murray Fraser I think that architecture needs a very wide range of PhDs that appeal to different subjects and to what different people want to do. There will be a number of people, some people want to do purely written studies, other people want to do mixed design and written work etc. Some people can be close to practice other people might be slightly away from practice and to me it does not matter that much. I think we should have a range. Rudolf Krieg - What is the industry you are talking about for architecture? For, e.g. pharmaceuticals, informatics, and education it is clear. The faculty of

18

Chapter One

chemistry deals directly with the industry. What is it in architecture? Fatma Erkök - Here it is the construction sector. Rudolf Krieg - I can imagine. Because it is the same everywhere, I think. But do these industries have specific questions that could become research subject for PhDs or not? Gülsün Sa÷lamer - In especially housing areas, yes. Earthquake related research especially in the field of housing is extremely important in Turkey. Gülsün Sa÷lamer The important question is how are we going to fill the gap between university and industry? Do we really need to restructure all the programmes, bachelor, master and PhD programmes in order to fill the gap? Do we have strong commitment to fill this gap? Will there be strong need for additional funding? Funding is crucial if you are going into a radical reform process. What will be the possibilities to get funding from the government or from the supranational organizations? It may be possible to charge fees from the students. So strong commitment for change and enough funding are the keys for reforms. Hans Beunderman Somewhere you said 50% of the young doctors will not enter academia and you said this is a waste of talent. I am not sure whether I completely agree with you on that. Because our statistics say even some 60% ends up somewhere else and even if we think doctorate a waste, they don’t think so. I would imagine that many of doctors end up in government for instance or in city planning organizations and not within academia. They can there fulfill wonderful high standard jobs, just because they have this doctorate. So this is the question: who do we educate for what purpose with what expectation? From the presentation of Gülsün Sa÷lamer: “A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture”: Working outside Academia: One OECD study shows that five years after receiving their degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain were still on temporary contracts. Many were postdocs. About one-third of Austria’s PhD graduates take jobs unrelated to their degrees. In Germany 13% of all PhD graduates end up in lowly occupations. In the Netherlands the proportion is 21%. PhD graduates do at least earn more than those with a bachelor’s degree.” Gülsün Sa÷lamer if they are working in unrelated areas; it is a waste of resources. If they do PhD in architecture and work in unrelated areas, what is the use of having PhD in that area? Kemal Gürüz As long as they find something outside academia, I think it is healthy. Gülsün Sa÷lamer So this might be one of the conclusions here, if everybody thinks that, no matter where they work, we should be looking for having more PhD graduates whatever. Fatma Erkök One important thing is that for PhD graduates continuing their career at places other than academia, the discussion of waste/use of time/sources depends very much on the issue if these institutions (at the outer world, in practice or government) have or don’t have an established culture for research and scientific approach at their base for the production of knowledge in the field (of architecture) they take place. For countries that are leading in

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

19

the production of technology and innovation, this culture is mainly settled and adopted widely from state to private institutions, including architecture offices. In such contexts graduates can find posts where they can pursue their acquisitions from PhD study. But for countries importing technology and innovation from outside, it might be more difficult to find places where PhD graduates are benefitted fully. So, this is a cycle in itself. Hans Beunderman My question will deal with the interface with industry, especially the industrial design. This is a delicate thing especially in our country because if you have close relations with industry, it has two effects. One is either you are still independent whatever your purpose is, and the other is that there are private design firms, and they feel they are under false competition. Alpay Er Similar concerns are raised in the UK. Some companies, they come together and they complained that universities are getting most of the research funds. So they applied to compete for the research funds, especially the EU and government research funds. Alpay Er Research by design? I mean research about design, research for design, but research by design? If you accept these three typologies, most of them have been so far research about design, I mean history, management, and now we are moving towards research for design, not by design. Murray Fraser The definitions are often very limited and if it is about income generation and it is only about dealing with, if industries are perceived as large contractors, large businesses, I think that’s very reductive, a very downgraded view of industrial relationships. Outsourcing practices, those also can be a part of industry. And it does not have to be about money, it could be about inseminating knowledge and all things that follow. I just get slightly worried if that means essentially having to work for very large companies for income generation. There are also very good examples in Britain. DENGs; Doctors of Engineering. They are industry-placed doctorates. It is a model and I am slightly worried that it is essentially fixing people’s minds as the only model for working with industry. I think that there are many different models.

1.3 Unification or Diversification? (Different approaches, models, titles in doctoral education) Doctoral education has evolved by different models around the world. The European and American models can particularly be distinguished within the whole as the two main sources whereby the rest of the world has been influenced. Even though there have been crossings between them, they still have their own distinct characteristics. In Europe, both attempts at unification and discussions regarding unification of education are taking place. When architecture is considered to be an in-between domain, there is already difficulty in placing it among the disciplines. In

20

Chapter One

addition to this, a general unification at a higher level raises issues of unification versus diversification. This topic was thoroughly discussed during the workshop. One aspect of diversification is the existent different approaches to doctoral education, which can be categorised into American and European models. Another aspect, which was extensively discussed, was the diversity of titles used for doctoral education: there is a variety of titles and even a chaotic situation: PhD, Doctor of Architecture, Doctor of Science and others being used. Opinions on which to adapt to architecture are also not unanimous.

Murray Fraser One thing about globalization instead of making everything the same, I hope we get new patterns of differences. It’s quite interesting that what seems to be this difference in opinion, that the American model was one that Turkey is looking to particularly; I don’t think you’d find that in Britain. I don’t think that we’d say the American doctoral programmes are necessarily as strong as those ones in Britain that we’ve been involved in. Kemal Gürüz I think it could be useful if you could perhaps summarize the difference between a British PhD and an American PhD and indicate why you think the British PhD is superior. Murray Fraser The American system is longer and covers lots and lots of programmes and there is more teaching involved in it, more taking courses etc. We think that there is not enough time spent on the actual thesis, on the contribution to knowledge. We feel that’s where for us the American system is weaker. Gülsün Sa÷lamer Our keynote speakers mentioned the title ‘Doctor of Architecture’. There are a lot of movements against the using of different labeling in the PhD degrees in Europe. It became a very hot issue on the agenda of the European universities whether these new programmes should have different names. Will they be called PhD Degrees or what? I am a little bit hesitant to use different names for further studies in research, in different fields in architecture. I think it should be PhD not ‘Doctor of Architecture’. Because it will create a lot of double standards in many countries. So I think we have to be very careful about this issue. Fatma Erkök This actually is a dilemma. The necessity to specify differences between programmes (if there are really considerable peculiarities) is understandable, but at the same time, there is then also the danger of dispersion among them. I think for the sake of lessening confusion, different labeling could be considered only to differentiate the newly growing “PhD by Design” from the usual PhD based on research. Kemal Gürüz In fine arts, in performed arts, the master of fine arts degree was formerly and still widely is a prerequisite to enter the academic profession. But, that is increasingly being replaced by some sort of a doctoral degree in the arts also. In medicine, there is a similar problem in nature, as to the practice and scientific inquiry part of it. There is a degree, which is becoming

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

21

increasingly quite popular in medicine: it is a combined MD and PhD in United States. But again that is possible in the United States because MD is actually a post-bachelor degree. So that might be one consideration that you might look into in architecture. I don’t know how suitable that is. Gary Moore The history in the United States is that some programmes, for example University of Michigan, it was DArch. But the graduates felt they were second-class citizens and so Michigan decided to change the name to PhD. Now, it truly was a PhD programme, it just for historical reasons had a different name. But now at places like RMIT in Australia, it is a different sort of programme. It is more PhD by design. So they actually prefer the name “Architecture” in the degree name rather than “Philosophy” in the degree name. So maybe it is possible that those programmes that are PhD by research will be PhD, maybe those that are doctoral by design, like Doctor of Education, like Doctor of Music, DMus may become DArch. It is not happening yet because still there is the perception “Ahh, we don’t want that name, it is second class” but there needs to be some effort to make it first class but different, equal but different. George Papakostas There is always the tendency to form identity, which appears to be very significant as a factor to this competitive globalised world. I think that beyond the American system it appears to emerge a European system, which is not yet constructed, it is under construction, which gives us the means to contribute to this construction. So the question is, if in Europe we have different cultures, each one of which has different influences and different names for the degrees, when you think about the European thing, how can someone compare PhDs? Do you call it PhD or doctorate? In my understanding, the North European countries use the term PhD, the southern countries definitely use the term doctorate. One significant thing in my understanding of policy toward this distinction is the European qualifications framework. Because we face something that is extremely significant to reach the description of the profile of the graduate. We cannot educate someone if we do not know how to define what we create. Rudolf Krieg I want to say some words on a general problem we have. It is about the same situation. We give the title ‘Doctor of Science’ at ETH for all the departments, whether it is biology, chemistry even architecture. We have to be aware that our doctoral students, even if they do decide, a doctorate on design, have to fulfill the methods we want, have to do serious research work that is not that easy in the field of design.

22

Chapter One

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

23

24

Chapter One

2. Managing doctoral programmes This section brings together discussions from the workshop regarding how doctoral programmes are/should be managed. Subheadings of the topic are: “Designing” and “Quality” of doctoral programmes in architecture and “The doctoral output, quality issues and transferable skills in doctoral education”.

2.1 Designing doctoral programmes in architecture As good PhD education provides one the chance of knowing how to solve a problem and create different solutions to a problem, in a PhD programme in architecture generally achieving this goal would be the first aim. Aspects like the employability of the graduates, attractiveness of the programme and very importantly, the quality of the doctoral thesis are the essential components of a doctoral programme. The issue of abundance of graduates of PhD programmes in architecture working in fields unrelated to their study was a discussion topic in the workshop. The general situation of doctoral graduates throughout demonstrates a similar situation irrespective of the field of study. Architectural schools should be responsible for encouraging and supporting the research activities and doctoral programmes that will make contributions to the integration of technological and scientific knowledge and the sustainability of artistic, cultural and social values, and subsequently utilizing these studies to create a more humane environment for the future.

Birgül Çolako÷lu When we speak about the PhD education, it is not only specific to the main fields, to the specific areas. Because PhD education gives a different mindset, a different knowledge base to the people. This knowledge can be used in other areas. If we are speaking about the architectural PhD, it should not be directed only towards architectural practice. In USA, from the best schools or good schools, people are coming from consultancy companies for PhD graduates to employ them regardless of the subject area of their PhDs. Because good PhD education gives people the chance of innovation, chance of creation, knowing how to formulate the problem, knowing how to solve the problem and to create different problem solutions. So this should be our basic issue in architecture, I think, not to talk specifically to the architecture field but to the mindset that means they can find the problems, the innovations and the creative working in these areas, not to specific areas.

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

25

Zuhal Ulusoy There are two products to any educational programme. One is the thing, the thesis, the project, whatever, there is an output, and the other is the person himself/herself. So this idea of making use of the people with PhDs, no matter what sector they are employed in is built upon human capacity in a sense. So I think recognising the two aspects of graduate studies, and just producing policies to improve them would be a good way of approaching programmes themselves, the educational programmes.

2.2 Quality of doctoral programmes in architecture Aspects like critical mass, student intake, and market potentials for PhDs outside academia are important for the quality of doctoral programmes in architecture. Actually, these aspects are also important for programmes in other fields.

Gary Moore Another issue is the acceptance, when the students are coming in. There is a high number of applicants, therefore you can take only the very best. When you do that, clearly you are getting extremely good students. It is not just making up the number usually called “bums on seats”, because it is not just satisfying some protocol, we have to have X number of students to keep the finance flowing. But that really requires having a top notch institution, top notch professors, top notch research going on, lots of possibilities so that students from the nation and around the world really wish to come there, then you can take the top 7 % or 10 % or whatever. So I think that is another dilemma for us. How to make higher quality programmes so that so many people wish to come that we can just take the best, the ones who will indeed be very very good scholars after getting the PhD. Kemal Gürüz …a very important issue, which for many years has haunted my mind about the weakness of Turkish doctoral programmes in general. I think if there is no market for PhDs outside of the academia, it is not possible to have really healthy, productive university programmes. If the only route available for doctoral degree holders, be it ArchD or PhD whatever, is academia, then that doctoral programme cannot go on. I think for our own benefit, we should encourage private sector research activity employing masters and doctoral level students. It is good for us, because then we would be able to choose students for future academic work from among the very best. But if we are stuck with our own PhD holders, the system will keep inbreeding itself and will eventually die away. And this is a very major problem in Turkey. Because we have two major institutions that are PhD producing centers. We should encourage the private sector or the socio-economic situation in the country should be conducive to PhD employment in industry. I strongly believe that if there is no research and development activity in industry that requires the employment of doctoral level people, there can be no healthy academic work. This is where United States and to some extent Western Europe have been very successful and this is the main weakness of our situation in Turkey.

26

Chapter One

Gary Moore At Wisconsin Milwaukee, we only had one PhD programme: environmental behavioral studies. So each year we were bringing in may be only fifteen students. And we did one research methods course for fifteen students in the first year. There was a critical mass. So it seems to me that the issue of generic skills boils down to the number of students. Do you have sufficient students? a critical mass? to be able to offer really in-depth courses that are not just skimming across the surface with a little bit of discussion but really in-depth courses that really train them in the methodology and in other generic skills that they might need for their area of research. It is a big dilemma in the small programmes. I think it has to do with the quality of programmes.

2.3 Doctoral output, “quality”/transferable skills While the output of doctoral study is on the one hand the thesis, on the other another important output is the self-development of the candidate. The PhD is one step on the way to being a very qualified researcher. Therefore, apart from producing high-quality PhD theses, another crucial aim of the doctoral programme should be improving the skills of the researcher. Generic/transferable skills (language, communication, IT, and management skills) are important for this development. It is stated by LERU (2007) that ‘generic (transferable) skills’, relate to the general purpose of what PhD level people should be able to do. Doctoral candidates must be trained to develop strong transferable skills that will add to their employability and enhance the quality of their research project.

Gary Moore The question of core courses…The dilemma there is if you try to do a core course requiring generic knowledge that will apply to all doctoral students in a particular department. It becomes a very general core course: the nature of inquiry or something that could mean anything, or it could be absolute rubbish, you know, nothing, because it’s so general or so specific. Fatma Erkök Actually PhD students in general need much more presentational skills than before, as during their education they are increasingly asked to attend conferences, present their work, write articles, so they need some basic preparatory guidance. Core courses for this kind of guidance are quite useful, and they can be tailored adequately for the field of architecture. Zuhal Ulusoy I have a comment basically, not a question. It is about the quality of the outcome of the PhD programmes. The numbers maybe exciting, the ratio of the years and the students but the escalation in number of PhD programmes in any subject matter, not necessarily only in architecture, is another issue to be dealt with. Witnessing some of the theses and academic works recently, I’ve seen that most of the time the trend is to replicate or add more tabloid information to what is already there, but not really do any

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

27

substantial contribution to the field, which is a very common problem. Gary Moore A dilemma I think, is the issue about: is the PhD the magnum opus or is it a step in the training to be a researcher? We saw an example earlier about Charles Jencks. His PhD became a book, extremely well known. A type of magnum opus. Now did he go beyond that? Yes, of course. But it was not just some little dissertation that we put on the back shelf. Christopher Alexander, “Notes on the Synthesis of Form” was his PhD, transformed a little bit into a book. We can think of half a dozen or dozen examples like that. I believe Umberto Eco also; his PhD was his first book. For most of us mere mortals, PhD leads to three or four- five papers in refereed journals, but it is not a magnum opus. I think for my students that the PhD per se has to be an original contribution to knowledge. But I do not want them to be in there fifteen years trying to make their magnum opus. Because I think it is the first or second step in their research career. You do not have to do the magnum opus; you do not have to be the Charles Jencks or the Christopher Alexander. PhD is just one step; it is an important step on the way to being a very very qualified researcher. So maybe we have to look a little bit at how we think about the time for completion of a PhD. Gülsün Sa÷lamer So the outcome of PhD studies should be to educate, train the doctoral candidate instead of focusing on the thesis, or the product. Is there a kind of contradiction between them or can we combine them?

3. Restructuring acts for doctoral education This section focuses on recent acts, which take place in the world and the European context towards the restructuring of doctoral education. “New research policies” and “Who and which institutions are dealing with doctoral education in Europe?” are the subheadings in this framework.

3.1 New research policies (Horizon 2020… etc) Jane Rendell asserts the idea that design research in academic institutions should be a critic of current practice. ‘Research for design’ as Rendell proposes is investigation into materials to be used in design. Where else, one might ask, but in the universities might speculative and transformational design thinking reside? For her, there are clearly tremendous opportunities to make a real difference for university-based ‘architectural design researchers’, given a supportive environment, but who will fund this? (Short, 2008). Horizon 2020 is the new EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, this being the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, which is a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness. This programme is part of the

28

Chapter One

drive to create new growth and jobs in Europe. It will combine all research and innovation funding, innovation related activities and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). This support will strengthen the EU’s position in science, strengthen industrial leadership in innovation and address major concerns shared by all Europeans (such as climate change, developing sustainable transport and mobility, making renewable energy more affordable, ensuring food safety and security, or coping with the challenge of an ageing population). Horizon 2020 will tackle societal challenges by helping to bridge the gap between research and the market by helping innovative enterprises to develop their technological breakthroughs into viable products with real commercial potential. This market-driven approach will include creating partnerships with the private sector and Member States to bring together the resources needed.

3.2 Who and which institutions are dealing with doctoral education in Europe? Europe has a large output of doctoral studies, but is well behind its competitors in engaging this potential in the business sector. At the moment, doctoral training is highly fragmented in Europe, it must become more concentrated and focused. For this aim and parallel to the Bologna process of including doctoral programmes as the ‘third cycle’, there is a preparation for doctoral programmes to be restructured throughout Europe. A number of reform initiatives are being undertaken to improve the teaching of doctoral students both in Europe and North America; by the European University Association (EUA) and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). As a higher-level policy, the EU Flagship Initiative “Innovation Union” of Europe 2020, which is a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, is also of crucial importance to innovation.

Gülsün Sa÷lamer When you look at the indicators, decision-makers at the European level would like to increase the number of PhD graduates, they would like to have more universities in the first fifty, first hundred. But if we limit the number of PhD graduates this will be contradicting with the policy at European level. How are you going to combine these? This is a serious question because the government will push us to have more graduates, to produce more graduates and on the other hand coming from the academic side, we are saying that the numbers should not grow as fast as they have been growing till now. George Papakostas This group of EAAE (European Association for Architectural Education) was structured three years ago, in order to create this statement on research in architecture. But in parallel and through the academic

Forming a Discussion Platform for Doctoral Education in Architecture

29

research, we run a project financed by the European Union, which is called 'The European Network of Heads of Schools of Architecture’. In this new application, there are work packages, which are smaller projects. One of the work packages has the general title, which is “research and doctorate studies in the European higher architecture education area”. In this work package the aim was to establish a kind of observatory of research in architecture in Europe. It is a kind of board that requires people who are working on a PhD, as students, as candidates, will have the possibility to present a short description of the project they are working and some other information about supervision, keywords and a number of issues. And those will automatically create a kind of database, which during the year will give a kind of panorama. The idea behind that is we want to support mobility and collaboration between the institutions and for this reason, it will be very useful to have them represented, at least the different programmes that our partners offer, but of course that will be open to all schools. In order to have knowledge about how this is happening in the different institutions and this would help probably the communication and the database and for example you can ask about some subject area and you will have a list of different institutions offering this kind of directions of research.

References Arnold, C., (1979), the Clerk and the Ignoramus, JAE 32/ 4 (May 1979): 2-3. EUA (2005). Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society, Report on the EUA Doctoral Programmes Project 2004 -2005. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Doctoral_Programmes_Project_Report.1 129278878120.pdf Frayling, C., (1993), Research in Art and Design, London: Royal College of Art: Research Paper. Hill, J., (2002), Opposites attract: architectural design and academic research, Building Research & Information, 30(5), 382-384. Kwinter, S., (2007), Science and Architecture (in conversation with editor Nicholas Risteen), Manifold Magazine, An inter-university resource for students of architectural theory, ed. Izabel Gass, no. 1, spring 2007, 11-15. www.manifoldmagazine.com. LERU (League of European Research Universities) (2007). Doctoral studies in Europe: excellence in researcher training. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/business/lerudoc_en.pdf New Mexico Museum of Space History. (2013, July 5). International Space Hall of Fame, Theodore von Karman, retrieved July 6 from, http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=31 Sa÷lamer, G., Erkök, F., (2013), Doctoral Education in Architecture with Special Reference to ITU, in Flexibility in Architectural Education, Hisarligil B.B., Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp 95-110. Short, A.C., (2008), What is ‘architectural research’?, Building Research & Information, 36(2), 195-199.

30

Chapterr One

odel’, Buildingg Materials (Du ublin), Vol Till, J., (20088), ‘Three Mythhs and One Mo 17, pp4-10 —. (2012), IIs doing archittecture doing research?, r 4th IInternational Meeting M on Architectuural and Urbannism Research, E.T.S.A. E Valenncia, 1-3 June, 2011. 2

CHAPTER TWO THE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN ARCHITECTURE GARY T MOORE

The purpose of this chapter is to overview doctoral education in architecture. Other chapter authors are summarising the state of education in various parts of Europe. Per my invitation, this chapter will focus on other parts of the world, with attention especially to North America, Asia and the Asia Pacific. The chapter will briefly overview the history of doctoral education in architecture. Then, based on an informal non-representative survey of doctoral programs, the chapter will look at the current status of doctoral programs in several non-European countries. Questions addressed include when did different programs begin, where and how many programs are there in different parts of the world, what is the size of these various programs and what is their administrative home (e.g., in a Faculty of Architecture, Faculty/College or School of Engineering, etc.)? A focus of the chapter is to look at the different structures and content of doctoral programs. Finally, the chapter will discuss some issues arising from doctoral education in architecture that perhaps deserve our continued scholarly attention.

Recurring Issues about Doctoral Programs We may ask, where was the first doctoral program in architecture in the world – in Europe, Asia, China or Japan or in the Middle East/Arab world? How important is doctoral education in and for architecture? What are considered the most important areas of architectural research, and therefore what are the most important areas in which to offer doctoral research training?

32

Chapter Two

While PhD programs are universally accepted in other disciplines (natural sciences, social sciences, humanities), there are still relatively few in architecture, and in many cases their existence and importance are questioned. Why is this? Is there a need for more doctoral programs in architecture, or are there already too many in the world given the need or demand for research-oriented academics in architecture? Some 30 years ago, I offered a series of observations about the then current status of doctoral education for architecture (Moore, 1984). At the same time, I raised a number of questions about doctoral education in architecture, several of which have subsequently been picked up by other commentators (cf the compendium by Nobel, 2009). Among the issues I raised were conceptual issues like what are the best strategies for opening new areas of research, new interdisciplinary conceptualisations and new frameworks for the organising of knowledge across various domains of architectural research? What is the range of appropriate and useful methods for the conduct of architectural research and scholarship, and is a doctoral program possible or viable without a thriving research program? What are the merits of a university specialising in one area of architectural research training, e.g., computer-aided design research, or is it better for PhD candidates to develop a wider repertoire of research expertise? And what is the critical mass to sustain a community of scholars for successful PhD research and training? As we will see, many of those issues remain, to different degrees, and in a different part of the world.

History and Growth of PhD Programs in North America Since the early 1900s, doctoral degrees have been awarded in North America by a small but growing number of universities. In the early 1900s, it was possible to obtain a PhD in architecture from three universities: Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia Universities. Initially, these degrees were offered in and only in architectural history, and were granted through those universities’ departments of art history. There was not a program per se; just independent PhD degrees offered to scholars in art history departments who chose to write a PhD dissertation (called thesis in some parts of the world) in architectural history. The first formal PhD program began in 1942 at Harvard, but it was discontinued in 1961 and then reinstated in 1987. It was in still in architectural history, but was offered for the first time through a graduate school of architecture and design. The first PhD awarded in architecture, other than in architectural history, was granted in 1956, also by Harvard

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

33

University to Dr Sami Hassid (who later moved to the University of California, Berkeley, and established the PhD program there). And the first PhD program other than in architectural history was initiated in 1964 at the University of Pennsylvania. During that time, some of the initial programs waned and didn’t admit students for many years. Led by Harvard and Pennsylvania, and then Columbia University, PhD programs expanded slowly across the nation and up into Canada. By the mid-1980s, there were 13 formal programs in North America (12 in the United States, 1 in Canada). Most of these began in the 1960s, when there was also a rapid expansion of professional programs in architecture across North America. For example, Princeton University began an architectural doctoral program in 1965, Carnegie-Mellon in 1967, UC Berkeley (under Sami Hassid) in 1968, Michigan in 1969, Cornell in 1970, and the first one in Canada at the francophone Universite de Montreal in 1970. However, some of these programs were only partially accepted by their host faculties and colleges, with five long-established programs becoming inactive by the mid-1980s, including the programs at Harvard, Columbia, the Catholic University of America, Illinois Institute of Technology, and Rice University, all programs succumbing to a combination of political pressures and lack of demand. Despite these five programs closing, most of the other early and successful PhD programs were started in older, private universities that also housed strong traditional architectural design programs (e.g., Princeton, Cornell, etc.). And most degrees were awarded still in architectural history. These traditional PhD degrees were later supplemented by some professional DArch degrees. In some cases, like at the University of Michigan, the DArch programs were no different from PhD programs, but were badged as “DArch” for political reasons to make them seem more like “architecture” degrees. In other cases, however, such at the Lawrence Technological University and later at North Carolina State University, the name was adopted as the program was intentionally a doctoral-level, design-related alternative to the traditional research-oriented PhD degree (cf Clouten, 1998). A newer cluster of research-oriented PhDs were started in the 1960s70s in more technologically advanced universities across the United States. These included broad, research-oriented PhD programs at Carnegie-Mellon, Berkeley, Michigan, Texas A&M, MIT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, UCLA, Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, etc. All of these were formally structured programs, were research-oriented (including but not limited to

34

Chapter Two

architectural history research), most focused on quantitative research, and all lead to the classic PhD degree. All those programs were successful, were lodged in a secure political manner in their host college or school, and all continue unabated today. Twenty years later, by the late 1990s, Schneider (1998) and Wineman (1998) reported there were between 14 and 18 formal programs in North America (different data reported by each author, although in the same publication!). However, my own accounting from direct contact with my fellow PhD program directors around North America indicated there were 23 PhD programs in architecture – all fully functioning – at the end of 1997 (Moore, 1997/2009). That is, after the rapid expansion in the 1960s70s, there was a modest but steady growth over the next 20 years. In addition, another 52 universities granted architecture PhD degrees through non-architecture programs (Schneider, 1998). The next ten years saw another increase in the number of new programs. This was brought on by the senior administration of universities, under the encouragement of deans of the faculties and schools of architecture, who felt the need to enter the “big time” by offering the PhD in architecture. By 2008, the last year for which there is reliable data, there were 35 doctoral programs in architecture in North America: 32 in USA, 3 in Canada (Noble, 2008). In summary, there was a fairly continual growth in the number of formal programs in North America since the mid-1960s: the first formal program started in 1942, the first other than in architectural history began in 1964, but then a steady expansion from the late 1960s to the early1980s, ten more by the end of the 1990s, and another ten more added by 2008 for a total of somewhere around 35 at this writing.

Size of PhD Programs: PhD Candidates and Academic Staff As mentioned, the earliest PhDs in architecture were awarded in the early to mid-20th Century to independent scholars working in departments of art history. However, by the beginning of the 21st Century, formal programs were in commonplace. Their sizes varied greatly, depending mainly on the number of domains of study. The broad programs, like Berkeley, Pennsylvania and Michigan, with several domains of study, had a range of 30-65 PhD candidates. On average, most programs admitted four to six new students per year; but the larger programs admitted up to 10-15 per annum. As a result, some programs have a small and intimate feeling, e.g., 12-20 students with a core of three to five committed lead academics. Others are larger and disparate, with more students and a

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

35

mixture of dedicated research staff supplemented by part-time staff (ie, academic faculty members involved in the PhD program and research but also involved in undergraduate or master’s-level professional teaching). Whereas many of the first people interested in obtaining a PhD in the United States and Canada went to Europe to study, starting in the 1960s, programs welcomed a large number of foreign applicants from Europe, Japan and, later, China, as well as the Middle East and North Africa. At some universities, as many as 50% of candidates are international students, with a high of 82% at Carnegie-Mellon University, being the lead program in the very popular computer-aided design and design computing. For more data of this type, for the North American context, see the statistics, pie-charts and bar-diagrams in Wineman (1998/2008) and Schneider (1998/2008). In terms of staffing, there were, and continue to be, two models: either a small number of dedicated academic staff specialising on research and doctoral education, or a more general staffing pattern with a larger number of staff spending some of their academic time in the PhD program while also having significant teaching duties in the undergraduate and master’s professional programs. Looked at comparatively across universities, most programs reported having between two and seven full-time-equivalent academic staff, that is, adding up the proportions of staff members’ academic time spent on the PhD program (Moore, 1984/2009). While one might assume an academician would need to hold a PhD to supervise PhD candidates, a number of universities reported that only about 75% of their staff working with PhD students held doctorates themselves. This might be considered shocking in some quarters. The more prominent and better known programs, however, required (only with very exceptional circumstances) that all PhD supervisors themselves hold the PhD and have an active program of internationally recognised and published research.

Content of PhD Programs Whereas the first degrees were in architectural history, as programs developed, they also diversified. The newer programs offered the PhD in a range of content areas all related to architecture. In North America, several programs focused on just one or two areas (often architectural history and one other). A few universities chose to specialise around core faculty members with international research profiles. There were three very well-known and influential single-subject programs: in architectural theory at the University of Pennsylvania,

36

Chapter Two

computer -aided design at Carnegie-Mellon University and environmentbehaviour studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. But looked at collectively in terms of what was available for would-be PhD candidates, it is possible for students across the United States and Canada to seek a PhD in domains of architectural research ranging across architectural science and technology, computer-aided design, environmentbehaviour studies, environmental systems, urban design and city planning (within architecture departments, as well as a number of PhD programs in urban and regional planning offered within urban planning departments), as well as traditional architectural history and architectural theory. While some universities decided to specialise, some programs in the larger state universities offered several areas, e.g., the very robust and large programs in architectural history, technology, energy and environment-behaviour studies at the University of California at Berkeley. Said differently, a number of the largest universities chose to develop an ‘umbrella’ administrative structure for a range of research areas. Of these, most focused on three or more areas of study, with the major foci being: x Architectural history, theory and criticism x Architectural science, building technology and environmental systems x Computer-aided design and design computing x Environment-behaviour studies x Urban design and city planning (within architecture departments) As mentioned, before the 1960s, the predominant focus was on architectural history. By the 1980s, the single most prominent area was environment-behaviour studies (Moore, 1984/2008). In 1980s and 1990s, one university in particular, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee enrolled over 50% of all North American students in environmentbehavior studies. The same was true for Carnegie-Mellon in computeraided design. However, twenty years later, by the early 2000s, many of these programs became smaller, example, as the demand for environmentbehaviour researchers and scholars began to wane in North American universities in favour of a swing back to more traditional areas of architectural theorising.

Structure of PhD Programs Most reviews of on-line program descriptions will indicate that program length is officially four years from admission to expected graduation. However, the data about actual completion is different, with an

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

37

average of 5.5 years to completion with one standard deviation from 3 to 8 years (Moore, 1984/2009). Regarding program structure, there are two essential structures to PhD programs world-wide: what is known as “PhD by research” or “PhD by coursework and research”. Whereas the former is more common in Europe and a few other parts of the world (e.g., Australia, which largely has followed the British model), the exclusive model in the United States and Canada is the PhD by a combination of coursework, examinations and research. These “coursework and research” programs were comprised of essentially three stages, of different lengths of time at different universities, and of course of different lengths depending on the PhD candidate’s progress (for a typical diagram, see Moore, 1998): 1. A period of required minimum full-time residency and researchrelated coursework (range of 1 to 3 years; most 1½ to 2 years). This period typically includes the student being required to study a major and one or two minor areas of study, perhaps supplemented by a language (a foreign language or computer programming, depending on content area of the dissertation research). This period also includes courses on research methods (philosophy of inquiry, scholarly methods, qualitative and quantitative methods and/or statistical analysis), theories of architecture, etc., again as appropriate given the content area of the program. 2. A stage of qualifying for the degree, most often including some form of qualifying examination or examinations (sometimes called “comprehensive examinations” or “comps”) and the preparation and defence of a research proposal. This stage was usually expected to be completed by end of the 2nd year of residency, at which time the student would be formally advanced to candidacy. 3. The third stage in this model culminates with 2 to 3 years of research, writing and defence of the dissertation (often oral defences sometimes combined with reading by external examiners). This model is considered the “classic” model in North America. It is followed not only by architecture PhDs but across most PhD degrees in the major research-intensive universities.1

38

Chapter Two

Doctoral Programs in Architecture Elsewhere Whereas there have been a number of papers written, and at least three books compiled about PhD programs in North America, there are no known books or comprehensive research papers on the rest of the world, until this current publication. This current book is the first book on the topic focused primarily to Europe. Information for most the rest of the world, therefore, has been based on anecdotal evidence and private communications. To supplement this, in late 2011 in preparation for the Istanbul Conference, I conducted an informal survey of doctoral programs in architecture in Asian, Middle Eastern/North African and Australasian universities. Based on published on-line information, the PhD program directors or, if not identified on their websites, the deans of all schools of architecture purporting to offer the PhD or other doctoral degree in architecture were sent a brief email survey. Unfortunately, I am unable to report on the number of PhD programs in different parts of Asia and the Middle East/North Africa. The reason for this is that the websites are in many cases very unclear. For example, in many cases it was not clear whether PhD students were admitted ad hoc, perhaps even restricted to their own junior academic staff needing PhDs, or whether there were formal programs with formal admission requirements, program structures, and graduation requirements. As a result, at this time it is not possible to state definitively how many PhD and other doctoral programs there are in architecture in many parts of the world. Whereas it would be easy to calculate how many PhD programs there are in, say, physics or chemistry, the fact that it is not possible to see clearly how many programs there are in architecture speaks to the nascent quality of the field in many parts of the world in the early 21st Century. However, having said that, the survey asked the PhD program directors or deans the following very general questions: x When did your program begin? x Where elsewhere in your country are there formal programs, and how many? x What is the size or you program, and if you know about others, what are their sizes? x What is the administrative home, ie, is the home department or school in architecture or another discipline (like engineering, built environment, environmental design, etc.)? x What is the structure and content of your program, ie, is the doctoral degree offered in any specific sub-areas of architecturally

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

39

related research, and if so, in what areas, and what is the structure to the program, e.g., research only or coursework-and-research, etc.? x What do your graduates do after graduating, e.g., what proportion enter academia versus other professional pursuits? It was difficult to gather comprehensive data, as the number of nonresponses, despite two follow-ups, far exceeding the number of responses. There were, for instance, no responses from the Middle East or North Africa, despite website indicating the existence of a “program”. This again speaks to the informal nature of many so-called “programs” in many parts of the world. The results, therefore, have to be considered nonrepresentative and, quite honestly, very patchy.

Asia Where was the first formal doctoral program in architecture? Maybe Hong Kong University, maybe Tsingua or Tongji Universities in China, maybe Tokyo University in Japan? My respondents were not sure, with several believing it was their university that started the first formal program in Asia and marshalling some evidence to support their conclusion. Currently all the national universities of China and Japan have PhD programs in architecture, e.g., Tsingua, Tongji, Nanjing, Tokyo, Osaka, the Tokyo Institute of Technology, etc. In addition, some other major government and private universities in Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand have organised PhD Programs. For example, respondents in Taiwan reported their country as having 12 formal programs (e.g., Feng Chia University, the National Taiwan University and others), Thailand six (e.g., King Mongkut's University of Technology and others), Malaysia five (e.g., MARA University of Technology and others), Korea at least two (Seoul National University and Yonsei University) and so on. I can attest personally about many of these programs, having been invited to lecture at them or to conduct workshops and seminars for their research students. But for other universities, it is unclear if they have a formal program in doctoral education, or whether it is just the will that is there, with a handful of their own academic staff casually pursuing PhDs. Many of the new, formal programs started in 1990s, especially in China and Japan and elsewhere in South-East Asia. The driving force has been, and continues to be, the demand for academics holding PhD degrees to staff faculties and schools of architecture in regional areas.

40

Chapter Two

Most of these programs are small in size, with 15 to 20 students. Some, however, are absolutely huge. For example, the immediate-past dean at Tongji University in Shanghai reported that their college had over 200 PhD candidates at any one time (private communication). Given that only full professors are permitted to supervise PhD students at most Chinese universities, and that the vast majority of these professors do not hold PhDs themselves, has to raise serious questions about the supervision of candidates and the quality of PhDs being granted at many Asian universities. In Asia, it is exclusively the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) that is granted. No other names were mentioned by respondents.2 The vast majority of these are granted by research only, with only a very few by coursework and research (e.g., Tongji has tried to introduce coursework in research methods for all PhD candidates). Traditionally in Asia, most schools of architecture and therefore PhDs in architecture are offered through faculties of engineering. But there is a movement towards other administrative homes, now also including the social sciences, building, environmental studies, built environment, etc., with some in dedicated schools of architecture and planning. The vast majority of respondents, however, said that the administrative home did not matter – that there were no particular politics that got in the way of program success if the program were housed in other than a school of architecture. While the Asian model is the PhD by research only, most universities require the applicant to have completed a Masters degree before applying. This is in contrast to, for example, the American model, where students may apply directly after the baccalaureate degree. All programs have a heavy emphasis on research and on publishing. PhD candidates are often required to publish papers as part of their qualifying examinations, and again before being granted the PhD degree. Speaking with a non-representative sample of Asian PhD students in, for instance, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, they believe this requirement is not only to improve their scholarly abilities, but is being driven largely by their home department’s and university’s push for quantities of publications to elevate their national and international rankings. The Asian PhD programs in architecture span a very wide range of content, as wide as in North America. The principle areas of concentration, across the countries and universities surveyed are the following: x Architectural history and theory

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

41

x

Building sciences and technology, e.g., building services, technology, structures, environmental control x Sustainability x Design computing x Environment and society, environment-behaviour studies x Environmental design, ie, architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, urban planning, environmental planning x Heritage management, heritage preservation None were reported to be PhDs by design. All are by research. What do the graduates do after graduating? In China, the growth of PhD programs and rapid increases in the numbers of students enrolled in PhD programs in architecture is driven by the national policy to supply regional universities with architecture academic staff, who are now required by national law to hold a PhD. In Japan, the opposite occurs. While applicants are also required to hold a PhD to join the academic staff at any national or major private university, there are very limited job opportunities for PhD graduates, such that many younger, leading Japanese scholars holding PhD degrees are seeking work elsewhere in neighbouring parts of Asia, Australasia and the Asia Pacific.

Australasia – Australia and New Zealand Australasia is the name given not only to the island continent of Australia but also to nearby New Zealand and to Papua New Guinea and the many island nations in Oceania. The first PhD program in architecture was founded in architectural science at the University of Sydney by Professor Henry (Jack) Cowan in 1960, and the first PhD in Australasia awarded to Dr Peter Smith in 1963. There are currently 12 PhD programs in architecture in Australia and 2 in New Zealand, with none elsewhere in the region. In Australia, all the original “sandstone” universities (named informally after their predominant construction material, and considered as the national universities) have a PhD program in architecture. Most are small in size (15-20 candidates), but a few are much larger (e.g., Sydney has approximately 75 in residence at a time). All are badged as PhDs, even the one program that is a PhD by design (at RMIT, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology). In Australia and New Zealand, the PhD programs are in a wide variety of administrative homes. Most are in faculties of architecture and the built environment. But as many universities have amalgamated faculties into

42

Chapter Two

“super-faculties” of many different and sometimes disparate disciplines, some PhD programs in architecture are housed in other colleges (called faculties) in Australasia also housing engineering, computer science, even the social sciences. The perception of program heads across the region is that architecture PhD programs suffer because of this, with it being harder to argue for needed resources and the particular scholarly needs of PhD programs in architecture in a very large, composite faculty. Following primarily the British model, the majority of PhDs in architecture in Australasia are by research. A very few universities have one or two mandatory research methods courses, e.g., the Modes of Inquiry research methods course that I introduced and taught for a decade at the University of Sydney. In terms of content areas, similar to Asia and North America, there is a wide variety of content (the first two below are predominant in Australasia): x Architectural theory and history x Architectural science and technology x Environment-behaviour studies x Design computing x Sustainability It may be interesting to note that the last program area, strength of the PhD program at the University of Sydney for over 35 years from the mid1960s, has ceased to exist in Australia as a formal program of study for the PhD. Sydney graduated the vast majority of PhDs in this disciplinary area in Australasia, and was one of the premier programs in the world. It is, however, about to be discontinued at the University of Sydney, when the final PhD candidate graduates. There is no other PhD program focusing on the social aspects of architecture in Australasia. Like other areas of PhD study in architecture there and in other parts of the world, it has succumbed because a focus on humanistic, social and cultural issues from a scientific point of view has not been seen as mainstream by the majority of current architectural academics and theorists, who lean instead for the abstract imageability and theoretical analysis valued in contemporary architecture. This appears to be one reason why this study area, and others in other parts of the world, has succumbed to a renewed predominance of architectural theory and history and, to a lesser extent, to engineeringinfluenced architectural technology. What do the graduates in Australasia do after graduating? Similar to many parts of the world, there is an overabundance of PhDs such that the competition for academic and other research jobs is intense. In Australasia, for domestic students this is further compounded by the fact there are a

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

43

relatively small number of universities compared to, say, Europe, North America and Asia. Many recent PhDs in architecture are subsisting on part-time academic positions (sessional lecturers, research associates, etc.) rather than full-time tenure-track positions. On the other hand, many recent PhDs in Australasia who have enrolled from neighbouring parts of Asia and elsewhere in the world, often have academic posts waiting for them at their home universities. Some, however, have chosen to remain in Australia or New Zealand for family and economic reasons (schooling for children, economic opportunities for their spouse, fully democratic system, etc.), and for them, the competition for full-time, tenure-track positions is even more challenging as it is for domestic graduates. We will take up this point more generally later in this chapter. For the remainder of this chapter, I would like to discuss a few of the many issues facing PhD and other doctoral programs in architecture internationally.

Production and Overproduction of PhDs Thirty years ago, in my profile of architectural doctoral programs in North America (Moore, 1984/2009), I identified that there had been to that date 195 doctoral degrees awarded in architecture in the US and Canada, and that it had tripled in the ten years between 1974 and 1984. Perhaps more interestingly, in 1984 there were more students enrolled in doctoral programs than had received doctorates in the previous 20 years. I predicted that the number of doctorates awarded would double in the subsequent three to five years. This prediction has been proven to be accurate, with at least 358 doctorates in architecture awarded by 1987 (Steiner, Gelernter & Downing, 2009). At the time Steiner et al. did their survey (1987), the felt that the prospects for employment for doctoral holders in architecture and the other design disciplines appeared, as they said, “to be excellent” (p 59). Twenty-five years later, however, we need to re-ask that question. I’m no longer so sure the answer is the same. While it is true that some PhDs work outside universities – private consultancies, government agencies, a few in research-related positions in the profession) – the vast majority have always chosen to work in an academic setting. Therefore, it is critical that we consider – perhaps on a country-specific basis – supply and demand, the number of PhDs being produced relative to the number of academic positions available. Here are some general figures: x In the USA, in the period 1974-88 – 48,000 PhDs were granted in engineering.

Chapter Two

44

x x

Same 15-year period – 2,300 PhDs were granted in sociology. Same period – 486 PhDs in architecture (Schneider, 1998), ie, 32 PhDs in architecture per annum, versus 3,333 pa in engineering (100 x more) – We might ask, Why so low? Why so relatively few in architecture? x By 2008 – estimated ca 600 students enrolled and ca 100 graduating annually (Noble, 2008), ie, still only 3% the size of engineering – Why so few? Is this bad or good news? x In the USA alone, there are 3,595 institutions of higher education x 236 (6.5%) are doctorate-granting research universities (the others are degree-granting universities and colleges, many very prestigious, but offering only the baccalaureate degree, not doctoral degrees). x Only 18 (8% of doctoral research universities, or 1/2 of 1/% of all universities) have granted a doctoral degree in architecture (Schneider, 1998). x Even with, say, a possible doubling by 2018, still only somewhere around 15% of all doctoral-granting research universities in the United States will have granted a doctoral degree in architecture – Why? There are two inter-related issues here: What universities should be granting doctoral degrees in architecture? And, are we now producing too many graduates? First, with regard to what universities grant doctoral degrees in architecture. As mentioned earlier, the ones with the best reputation for producing excellent PhD graduates also have a strong and long-standing research culture, such that PhD students are taught and supervised by major scholars in the field and the opportunity to be involved – perhaps simultaneously to their own PhD dissertation research – on major, funded research projects. Putting on my other hat, it’s much harder to learn to become a world-class footballer only playing on amateur or lower-division teams; it’s much easier and one will have the chance to developing more rapidly and to higher levels if one is at, say, the Ajax, Barcelona or Manchester United football academies, or a number of other first-class academies associated with top-flight teams in the world. The same is true for architecture – to earn a doctorate at the university where one is currently teaching, where there may or may not be other world-class researchers and scholars is a far cry from being educated at one of the internationally recognised research-universities where the department of architecture is awash with internationally recognised scholars and researchers. It seems to me, therefore, that it is folly for every university

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

45

offering a professional degree in architecture to aspire to also offer a PhD in architectural research. Whereas some schools are in the top-flight when it comes to design and professional architecture, it may well be that other universities are in the top-flight in research and scholarship and therefore in the potential to produce world-class researchers. We don’t all have to be the same. Diversity and specialisation is good. I believe, firmly, therefore, that only those colleges, schools or departments of architecture with an internationally recognised program of research and a critical mass of internationally recognised researchers and scholars in architectural research should be offering the PhD or other doctoral degree in architecture. One should consider the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to post-graduate work in architecture. For instance, though people often pursue additional degrees in order to have access to higher-paying jobs, in the field of architecture, a specialized undergraduate degree in the subject, a focused Master’s degree and work experience, is the best way to be employed as an architect, and to move up the ranks to becoming a director or partner. This is because most PhD programs in architecture focus on the more theoretical aspects of the subjects, rather than on the development of practical skills and experience that are most useful in the professional work force. But the flip side, again, is also true for architectural research – one needs not only a PhD research degree, but also to have worked under a top-class researcher him or herself holding a PhD, but also with ample opportunity for developing the practical, theoretical, and analytic skills and research experience necessary for future development in academia or other research positions. And second, are we producing too few, just the right number, or too many PhDs in architectural research? Whereas in the 1960s, there were very few, such that the answer was generally that we needed to be producing more, and whereas in 1987, several analysts felt the balance was just right (eg, Steiner et al., 2009), I would argue that we are now producing too many PhDs in architecture. While I do not have hard evidence (as a researcher, I wish there were solid evidence on this matter), anecdotally from talking with a large number of young PhDs in various parts of the world, and especially in Europe, North America and Australasia, many of whom are unable to find suitable full-time academic employment in the areas for which they were trained, or are struggling for two, three or even four years after graduation before finding their first position, I have to conclude that we are overproducing PhDs. In Asia and other parts of the developing world, demand still exceeds supply, such that, as mentioned earlier, major universities like Tsingua and Tongji in

46

Chapter Two

China, are producing huge numbers of PhD graduates (though perhaps not under ideal research-laboratory training situations given the newness of systematic research to these institutions). But in Europe, North America and Australasia, it may well be the time to reconsider the numbers of universities that need to be producing PhD graduates, the annual intakes, and therefore the number being produced within that country each year. Perhaps, like the markets, we may even need to see a ‘correction’, whereby we admit and produce considerably fewer PhDs for a few years, so that those still struggling for academic positions have the opportunity to fulfil the reasons for their extensive training.

The Structure and Content of PhD and other Doctoral Programs Several prominent doctoral degree programs in the United States changed their names during the 1980s from “Doctor of ...” to the more classic designation, PhD. These include the University of Michigan, Texas A&M University and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Steiner et al. 2009). The “Doctor of ...” designation was meant to signify that the program was more professional in its orientation, similar to the Doctor of Education (vs PhD in Education) at many US universities. In the case of other “Doctor of ...” programs, they typically involved a period of professional fieldwork and evaluation combined with research. The “Doctor of …” designation, however, also had a stigma (wrongly in most cases) of being a second-class degree to the “real” PhD. Some programs have intentionally retained the “Doctor of ... “ designation, e.g., the Doctor of Design program at Harvard, as they are intentionally focused on a doctoral degree by design. Otherwise, however, the research and scholarly oriented programs focusing on architectural history, theory, design computing, sustainability, environment-behaviour studies, etc., all started with or have gravitated to the classic PhD designation. This appears to be true across wide swaths of the world, for example, as noted earlier, all of the new and emerging programs in Asia. Is there an advantage to a PhD by research only, versus by coursework, examinations and research? I know of no empirical data on this matter. I can only offer, therefore, some personal observations, having taught under both systems and having been a PhD program director under both systems. I have no qualms in saying there is a clear advantage to the student, and by extension to the academic staff member, when the PhD is by coursework and research. While AlSayyad and Brown (2009) are worried about too

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

47

many students entering architecture PhD programs without a relevant professional degree in and perhaps professional experience in architecture, the case is also that many, I would even say most, students entering PhD programs in architecture have little or no research methods background. It simply is not taught in first degrees in architecture, nor in most master’s degrees in architecture, so the student, unless happening to come from another more research-oriented discipline, has not had the opportunity to learn research methods. This is in stark contrast to students entering, say a physics PhD, where they have had extensive undergraduate or honours training in physics laboratories. Students without research methods backgrounds, left on their own or with the supervision of a sole supervisor, are hard pressed to come up-to-speed with the range of now very sophisticated methods of advanced research and scholarship. This can only be done when there is a mandatory coursework component to the program, containing at the least a year of research methods, preferably more. But this can only be justified administratively, financially, politically if there is a critical mass of students entering the program each year such that it makes sense to devote a certain proportion of FTE (ie, academic staff time) to teaching several research methods courses. This, then, is also related to the above argument for the need for fewer, larger, better programs, each with a critical mass of PhD students in different areas of concentration, as happens in every other field at universities. Every field is now specialised, with different PhD students pursuing different areas of investigation and therefore somewhat different methods of research and analysis. There is no reason, other than political lethargy, why architecture can’t do the same. Consider an example, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where there was a mandatory core curriculum of two or three research methods courses (minimum two; three if the student had insufficient or no prior research coursework training) plus one theory course. In addition, students had to complete a minimum number of courses in their area of research concentration (e.g., housing research, women and the environment, environmental assessment, cultural studies, programming and postoccupancy evaluation, etc.). These courses – all at the graduate/postgraduate level – could be taken from within the department or from anywhere in the university. Such a model is invaluable at the major research-intensive universities of the continent – where students can avail themselves, and would be silly not to, of the rich intellectual offerings across, for example, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and so on.

48

Chapter Two

An additional benefit of the coursework-and-research model pertains to the academic staff members (called faculty members in the USA). I will illustrate it by an anecdote. When I arrived at the University of Sydney, a colleague I had known for some years took me for lunch one day. He said that under the then current model at Sydney, where there was no core curriculum, he had to teach research methods to each of his students oneon-one or at most two-on-one if he was supervising two new students in a given year. Perhaps good for the student – personalised attention, etc., if that one academic staff member knew the range of latest methods students should know – but not the best use of time for the academic staff member. Inefficient. Were there a critical mass of students, as we had at Milwaukee, one staff member (or a team-taught course involving several staff members, each part-time) could teach a dozen or more entering students. While we have succeeded in offering a modicum of coursework into the PhD at Sydney (and the model is very strongly supported by the major research funding body in the country, the Australian Research Council), I note that even my own university still states, quite unequivocally,”The PhD in Architecture, Design and Planning comprises research and writing toward a thesis of 50,000 to 80,000 words. Some coursework may be required or undertaken as elective units of study, but in no case is it a significant component of award requirements for the degree.”3 But the greater benefit of the coursework-and-research model is for the student – to become thoroughly grounded in the most recent, cutting-edge methods of research, scholarship and analysis – lead by knowledgeable staff members, but also learning side-by-side with other eager PhD students. Taken together, I am, therefore, firmly of the belief that there is great advantage to the PhD being offered by a combination of coursework and research. At a finer level, is there any systemic advantage to the various submodels of organising PhD programs, e.g., qualifying versus comprehensive examinations, research proposal before advancement to candidacy versus after candidacy, etc. Again, while I know of no data, having worked under two very distinct systems, and having talked with PhD program coordinators from around the world, there may be local reasons for some of these variations, but I don’t see any systemic advantages or disadvantages that would suggest one or another model should be adopted internationally.

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

49

PhD or DArch by Design? This is a major topic of discussion in many of the doctoral degreegranting architecture schools across the world. A full analysis is beyond the scope of this chapter. Fortunately, Professor Murray Fraser has contributed a provocative chapter on the topic in this book, In addition, a few years back, Clouten (1998) published an interesting paper on one such doctoral by design program, but there is still need for comparative analyses across countries. Are there programs that are PhDs (or DArch or some other designation) by design? Yes, a few, for instance the Doctor of Design offered intermittently by the Graduate School of Design at Harvard in the USA, also one at North Carolina State University also in the USA, the PhD in Architecture at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) in Australia, clearly advertised as being a”Post-professional Research Degree by Project and/or Thesis”4, also at the Bartlett School of Architecture at University College London, and perhaps the most recent, the introduction of a studio-based option for the PhD in Architecture at the University of Sydney. This latter program is instructive, as it has been created within a faculty being the home since 1960 of the first PhD program and degree in architecture in Australasia and renowned internationally for its traditional scholarly and scientific research. The new option will allow PhD students to complete doctorate studies in design-based research and creative work. Rather than producing a text-based thesis expected in the more convention PhD program, this program will allow students to pursue a PhD by demonstrating a creative body of work accompanied by a text of 30,000 to 50,000 words. New this year, it is believed that this program will enable PhD candidates to demonstrate mastery of both theory and practice and will produce a new generation of scholars. Whereas undergraduate students from Sydney are known for graduating with outstanding design skills, it is also believed “that those graduating from the new studio-based PhD will be educated in order to use that expertise in order to address problems in design.”5

PhD as a Post-Professional or Non-Professional Degree? A pair in interrelated questions concerns what are the strengths and limitations of different approaches to research, and of the integration of research and scholarship into mainstream architecture? And what are the

50

Chapter Two

implications of one’s positions on these issues for doctoral education in architecture? In a thoughtful paper, AlSayyad and Brown (2009) raise the question as to whether the PhD should be a post-professional or a non-professional degree. They observed that of the then existing programs in North America, while the vast majority were titled PhD in Architecture, the titles did not seem in their mind to signify anything specific. Indeed, the PhD in Architecture was then, as before and since, offered with very different orientations and areas of emphasis, e.g., architectural history and theory, architectural science, environment-behaviour studies and design methods and computer-aided design. They wondered, therefore, if the title of the degree should not simply by PhD in Architecture, but more specific at different universities, like PhD in Architectural History or PhD in Environment-Behaviour Studies in Architecture. This seems like a very worthwhile suggestion. AlSayyad and Brown also noted that, while data was not complete, there was no typical profile of entering students – some entering with extensive professional architectural degrees and experience, some others with first degrees in non-architecture disciplines (I can add, like humanities and art history into architectural history programs, computer science coming into computer-aided design, engineering students entering building sciences, and social sciences coming into environment-behaviour studies). They also noted that a very small group of entering students were former practicing architects (perhaps more so into the new PhD by design degrees). Their general point was that there may be a bifurcation between those students with strong architectural backgrounds including practical professional experience, and those with other types of academic backgrounds. If the faculty members also had similar dual backgrounds, there might be some research and PhD teaching programs very closely related to professional practice, while others could be quite removed from professional practical concerns. Of course, one has to ask if the purpose of a PhD program and degree is to train post-professionals and to contribute directly to practice, or to train those interested in architectural research and scholarship to contribute more broadly to knowledge about architecture. This is exactly the debate, and it continues to this day in most parts of the world. Some schools have intentionally moved more towards professional practice, ie, a post-professional degree with admissions based heavily on professional qualifications, while other schools have moved in the opposite direction towards a non-professional degree, not suitable for practice, but suitable for fundamental investigations of the knowledge base

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

51

underlying architecture. The debate echoes the more general debate in academia between basic research and applied research. Tellingly, that debate is essentially resolved in most disciplines, in favour of both/and rather than either/or, ie, that it’s important to nurture research that investigates fundamental research questions about the nature of the universe and to nurture research that addresses more practical concerns. Is architecture not large enough to have both also? While it is miniscule in relation to, say, biology or chemistry, it is still clearly large enough to have both, perhaps not in the same program, but with some programs favouring more fundamental investigations and training, while others favour more practical post-professional investigations and training.

Summary and Questions for the Future, especially in the European Context There are four conference proceedings and books available on the question of doctoral education in architecture, as aforementioned (Moore & Templer, 1984; Wineman, 1998; and Noble, 2009 – and now this volume). The others are instructive, but limited to the North American and primarily United States context. This chapter has attempted to broaden the perspective by bringing in some data about doctoral education in architecture in other parts of the world, especially Australasia and the rapidly proliferating programs in Asia. While the data may make for interesting reading, and I of course hope it does, the questions that remain are more pressing for our attention. I have given my opinions on some of them. But the questions remain for debate, especially in those parts of the world where PhD programs in architecture are relatively new and nascent. Among these questions are the following: x What are the best strategies for new areas of research, new interdisciplinary conceptualisations and new frameworks for the organising of knowledge across various areas and fields of architectural research? x What is the range of appropriate and useful methods for conducting architectural research and scholarship? x How can a doctoral program be best married to a parallel thriving research program? x What are the merits of specialising in one area of architectural research, or is it better for PhD candidates to develop a wider repertoire of research expertise?

Chapter Two

52

x

What is the critical mass to sustain a community of scholars for successful PhD research and training? x Are we overpopulated with PhDs in architecture; should we be admitting and graduating fewer graduates? x What are the relative advantages and limitations of PhDs by coursework-and-research vs research alone? x Should degrees be designated generally as PhDs in Architecture, or should they be more finely designated to indicate the area of specialisation? x Should PhDs in architecture be post-professional degree and/or non-professional degrees, or both? x Are PhDs by design supplemented by text viable, and how do we assure they meet the minimum standards for generalisable knowledge? I look forward to continued debate around these issues.

References AlSayyad, N., & Brown, G. 2009. PhD programs in architecture and the academicprofessional linkage: A reassessment. In D. Noble (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture (pp 63-69). Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. Clouten, N. 1998. Alternatives to the traditional PhD degree. In J. Wineman (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture Schools (pp 101-104). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture Working Paper Series, 1998. Moore, G.T. 1984/2009. The history and current status of doctoral research and education in architecture. In G.T. Moore & J.A. Templer (Eds.), Doctoral Education for Architectural Research (pp 3-27). Washington, DC: Architectural Research Centers Consortium, 1984. Reprinted in D. Noble (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture (pp 29-46). Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. —. 1998/2009. Pedagogic structures of doctoral programs in architecture. In J. Wineman (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture Schools (pp 59-65). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture Working Paper Series, 1998. Reprinted in D. Noble (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture (pp 111-120). Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. —. 2003. Recommendations for the parity of creative, artistic and professional work with traditional forms of research and scholarship. In C. Newton (Ed.), Design + Research: Project Based Research in Architecture [Online]. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning. Available at http://www.arbld.unimelb.edu.au/events/conferences/aasa/papers/web_final_ve rsion/ theme_title.php?theme_id=8#14, 12 pgs.

The Structure and Content of Doctoral Programs in Architecture

53

Moore, G.T., & Templer, J.A. (Eds.) 1984. Doctoral Education for Architectural Research: Questions of Theory, Method, and Implementation. Washington, DC: Architectural Research Centers Consortium, 1984. Noble, D. 2009. Directions for doctoral education in architecture in North America. In D. Noble (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture (pp 23-28). Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. Noble, D. (Ed.) 2009. Doctoral Education in Architecture: Compendium 2 – A Collection of Papers on the Status and Direction of Doctoral Programs in Architecture and Environmental Design. Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. Schneider, R.H. (1998). Doctoral programs in architecture in the United States: A review of the terrain. In J. Wineman (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture Schools (pp 25-39). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture Working Paper Series, 1998. Steiner, F., Gelernter, M., & Downing, F. 200. Doctoral education in the design disciplines: A status report. In D. Noble (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture (pp 53-61). Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. Wineman, J. 1998. Comparative statistics on PhD programs in architecture in the United States. In J. Wineman (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture Schools (pp 41-56). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture Working Paper Series, 1998. Reprinted in D. Noble (Ed.), Doctoral Education in Architecture (pp 93-110). Los Angeles: Guild Architecture Press, 2009. Wineman, J. (Ed.) 1998. Doctoral Education in Architecture Schools: The Challenge of the 21st Century. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture Working Paper Series, 1998.

Notes 1

For more information on different pedagogic structures to doctoral programs in architecture, the reader is referred to my earlier paper (Moore, 1998/2009). 2 Murray reports (this book) that RMIT in Australia now offers satellite courses in Vietnam. 3 Source: http://sydney.edu.au/courses/Doctor-of-Philosophy-Architecture, accessed 29 December 2012. 4 Source: http://architecture.rmit.edu.au/Courses/PhD.php, accessed 29 December 2012. 5 Source: http://sydney.edu.au/architecture/disciplines/researchDegrees/phdStudio.html, accessed 29 December 2012.

Brief biography of author Gary Moore is Emeritus Professor of Environment-Behaviour Studies at the University of Sydney, Australia. Previously he was the foundation

54

Chapter Two

Professor of Environment-Behaviour Studies, past Editor-in-Chief of the Architectural Science Review and immediate past Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning at the University of Sydney. Before that he was Professor of Architecture at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, Director of the PhD Program, Director of the Centre for Architecture and Urban Planning Research and Director of the NASA Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium. He is one of the founders of two fields – design methods and environment-behavior studies. His research has been supported by ca $4 million in grants from the US National Science Foundation, Health and Welfare Canada, NASA and the Australian Research Council, among others. He has published 10 books, edited a number of conference proceedings and special issues of journals, and written close to 150 research papers. His work has been translated into French, Indonesian, Japanese, Mandarin, Portuguese and Spanish and published or republished around the world. He continues to write and supervise PhD students in environment, behavior and society. He is also a professional football coach. [email protected]

CHAPTER THREE GRADUATE-LEVEL STUDIES IN TURKEY AND THE WORLD KEMAL GÜRÜZ

Historical Background The term doctorate comes from the Latin docere, meaning "to teach", shortened from the full Latin title licentia docendi, which means "license to teach." The authority to grant that license was the sole criterion that defined the medieval university as a corporate body. The medieval university, in general, comprised a lower faculty, the faculty of arts, and three upper faculties, law, theology and medicine. The curriculum in the faculty of arts consisted of the trivium, which included grammar, rhetoric and logic, and the quadrivium, which included arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. These were referred to as liberal arts (artes liberales), i.e., topics that necessitated the use of the “free part of the human body,” as opposed to the mechanical arts (artes mecanicae) that required manual skills. The latter were not regarded as scholarly pursuits befitting the stature of the university. For this reason, for centuries, disciplines such as surgery, engineering and architecture were excluded from curricula and developed outside of the university. Clearly, the curriculum in the faculty of arts was preparatory to the curricula in the three upper faculties- graduate schools in today’s parlance. Before the university, titles such as magister (master), doctor and professor, which all meant teacher in Latin, were acquired titles. With the advent of the university as an institution, these became awarded titles. A baccalariatus was a student who had followed the compulsory (ordinary) lectures, discussions (disputae) and the summations (summa) by the teacher in the faculty of arts. A student with this title was somewhat like today’s teaching assistant, and was allowed to answer some questions during discussions and teach some of the noncompulsory (extraordinary)

56

Chapter Three

courses. Baccalaureatus formatus was a baccalaureatus deemed ready by his teacher to take the graduation examinations. Graduates of the faculty of arts were awarded the title of master, and those of the higher faculties were awarded the title of doctor. The title of licentia docendi was conferred separately by the chancellor of the university- representative of the pope, the emperor or the king- after a successful public lecture by adding the additional title of regens, actu regens or regent to the already received title of master or doctor. For centuries, the university remained a teaching institution only. It was in Germany in the nineteenth century that research became an integral function of universities, and the academic profession took shape through the introduction of the research-based doctoral degree, the various academic ranks (Professoren, Ausserordentliche Professoren, Privatdozenden), procedures and requirements for progressing from one to the other, and rules and regulations for appointments. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Germany had about fifty universities, compared with just Oxford and Cambridge in England. In neither country nor anywhere else were professors expected to generate new knowledge and new ideas, and teaching was restricted to the transmittal of static truths. Four universities founded in late seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century, Halle in Prussia (f.1694), Breslau in Silesia (f.1702), Göttingen in Hanover (f.1737) and Erlangen in Bayreuth (f.1743), together with the old Heidelberg (f.1386) were to change all this. First, the traditional domineering role of the theology faculty, which included the right of censorship, was significantly curtailed, and the faculty of arts (philosophy) started to become the academic core. New subjects such as history, antiquity, geography, languages and philology, pure and applied mathematics (surveying, civilian and military architecture), physics, politics, art and psychology were added to curricula in the faculty of philosophy. The seminar was introduced in Halle and developed and refined in Göttingen. This led to the modern concept of scientific research, to the modern Ph.D., to the academic disciplines, and eventually to the modern university organization based on departments charged with both teaching and research. As opposed to the lecture, there were fewer students in the seminar, criticism was encouraged, and the role of the teacher was to promote reasoning and judgement rather than transmit static knowledge. As seminars developed over time, students were required to submit written work beforehand as a basis for discussion and evaluation. These were the beginnings of original research in an organized manner, which led to thesis that involved the testing of or leading to a new hypothesis, and to

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

57

the modern Ph.D. These developments were consolidated by the foundation of the University of Berlin in 1810. The original design of the university was prepared by Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) during his short term as the Director of the Department of Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs within the Ministry of the Interior of Prussia. His dictum, “Unity of Teaching and Research” (Einheit der Lehre und Forschung” has endured to date, underpinning the modern research university. The following is an incomplete list of scientific giants who studied and worked in German universities in that period: Immanuel Kant (17241804), Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), Johannes Peter Müller (1801-1858), Justus von Liebig (1803-1723), Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi (1804-1851), Johan Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirchlet (1805-1859), Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig (18161895), Rudolf Richard Büccheim (1820-1879), Herman von Helmholtz (1821-1894), Rudolf Ludwig Karl Virchow (1821-1902), Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888), Gustav Robert Kirchoff (1824-1887), Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866), Friedrich August von Kekule von Stradonitz (1829-1896), Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt (1832-1920), Robert Koch (1843-1910), Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (1845-1923), Georg Cantor (1845-1918), Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850-1909), Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1857-1894), Max Planck (18581947), David Hilbert (1862-1943), Max Weber (1864-1920). By the second half of the nineteenth century, Germany had emerged as the scientific and academic center of the world, and students from all over the world flocked to Germany to study. Of the international academic mobility that took place in the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, none had more far-reaching consequences than that which involved American students who went to study in German universities. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was the first American to visit a German university, Göttingen in 1766. Between 1815 and 1914, there was an extraordinary migration of about 10,000 American students to Germany. Students from Harvard, Yale, and other universities on the East Coast started to go to Germany in increasing numbers. Gottingen, Berlin and Heidelberg were favourite destinations. In the year 1890, American students accounted for over twenty per cent of the enrolment at Göttingen. The following are just some of the American alumni of German universities who were to have a lasting influence on the structure of higher education not only in the United States, but throughout the world. Daniel

58

Chapter Three

Coit Gilman (1813-1908) was the first president of Johns Hopkins. Before becoming president, he toured German universities to recruit staff and learn about their organization. William Rainey Harper (1856-1906), the first president of the University of Chicago, designed the new institution with an English-style undergraduate college and a German-style research institute. Granville Stanley Hall (1844-1924), the first president of Clark University, had studied psychology in Germany. He set up the first psychology laboratory at Johns Hopkins before he moved on to Clark where he pioneered the quarter system and introduced extension programs. Charles William Eliot (1834-1926) served as the president of Harvard between 1869 and 1909. He had studied chemistry in Germany for two years, beginning in 1863. During his term as Harvard’s president, he initiated the elective system, founded the graduate school, and instituted strict requirements for admission and graduation. Thus, from about the middle of the nineteenth century on, the German research university model permeated American higher education, effectively diminishing British influences. By the beginning of the twentieth century, American universities had transferred and adapted the German research university model to build what would grow into the largest (until recently overtaken by China) and, by any measure, the best higher education system in the world today. The German doctorate was based on seminars and a master-apprentice relationship between the professor and the student. Among the innovations introduced in transplanting the German research university model to the United States, several are relevant to the topic at hand: a) the graduate school; b) the “doctor of philosophy” (Ph.D.) degree, which included not only research, but also structured coursework; and c) the rank of “assistant professor,” which made it possible for young holders of doctoral degrees to enter the academic profession as researchers and teachers independent of a chair holder. According to Philip Altbach, the modern American research university is the liberal arts college capped with graduate schools. The earliest academic units at the graduate level were the Lawrence School at Harvard (1840s), the Sheffield School at Yale, where the first American Ph.D. was awarded in 1861, and the graduate school at Cornell (1868). The earlier American doctoral degrees (theology- Divinitatis Doctor (DD), philosophy- Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) and medicine - Medicinæ Doctor (MD) reflected the historical separation of all university studies into these three fields. Studies outside of medicine and theology were then called "philosophy," natural philosophy and moral philosophy corresponding to natural sciences and social sciences and humanities,

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

59

respectively, in today’s terminology. However this earlier usage survives in the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The American Ph.D. now comprises advanced coursework, qualifying examinations, preliminary research proposal, and a dissertation based on original research work. Professional doctoral degrees are those outside the Ph.D., and now include DD, MD, JD (doctor of jurisprudence), Ed.D (doctor of education)., and others. Such degrees usually include coursework and research training with a professional emphasis and are similar in structure to Ph.D. programs. I now turn to doctoral education in architecture and arts, the theme of this workshop. Ph. D. in architecture: is a research degree appropriate for those seeking careers in teaching and scholarship in architecture and its related areas, or in roles in government or professional consultation that require depth in specialization and experience in research- usually interdisciplinary. There is an on-going debate to consolidate all architecture degrees to one, professional doctor of architecture degree, D.Arch, similar to law curriculum's LL.B (lex legis baccalaureus, an undergraduate degree no longer offered in the United States, but offered in the United Kingdom) to JD upgrade in the United States. The following is a randomly selected list of doctoral-level degrees offered in the United States and the United Kingdom in various branches of arts. x Ph.D. in arts education is the standard requirement to be an assistant professor of art education. x Ph. D. in arts is currently replacing Master of Fine Arts (MFA) as a requisite to enter academia. For example: in the Slade School of Fine Arts part of University College London, three options are offered: o Practice-led: a thesis of studio practice that makes an original contribution to knowledge plus a written report of 15,00040,000 words (or 10,000-20,000 words for the MPhil). o Practice-related: a written thesis of 60,000-80,000 words with studio practice that together make an original contribution to knowledge (or 35,000-45,000 words for the MPhil). o Written thesis only: a written thesis of 80,000-100,000 words that makes an original contribution to knowledge (or 50,00060,000 words for the MPhil). x Doctor of Fine Arts is usually an honorary degree, but is also offered in some institutions to holders of MFA.

60

Chapter Three

x Doctor of Music (D.Mus.) students complete advanced studies in one of typically three musical areas: performance (including conducting); musical composition or musicology. Table 3.1 shows the distribution of graduate-level enrolment in the United States in 2010. Table 3.2 shows the distribution of doctoral-level enrolment in the professional fields in 2010. Thus, in the United States, around 500,000 students are working at the Ph.D. level in all fields, and around 50,000 doctoral degrees rare granted annually. Additionally, there are close to 190,000 students enrolled in JD and MD programs with another nearly 50,000 graduates per year. Under communist rule, research and teaching were separated in central and eastern European countries. Research was carried out in laboratories affiliated to the academies of sciences and advanced degrees also were awarded by the academies. For example, Russia has/had a two-tiered structure: Kandidat Nauk and Doktor Nauk. The first one was considered equivalent to the Ph.D., and the second was a sort of “higher doctorate” awarded by the Akademia Nauk (Academy of Sciences). In 2002, 136,242 students were enrolled in doctoral programs. Russia is now a signatory to the Bologna Process, and as such she has to transform her degree system into the American BS/MS/Ph.D. system together with all other European countries.

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey Until the 1960s, Turkish higher education developed under continental European influences, first French in the form of professional schools modelled after the grandes écoles, and later German universities and the Technische Hochschulen. First Ottomans with doctoral degrees were Joseph Zanni (1876, Germany); Halil Edhem Eldem (1885, Switzerland); Mehmet Arif Beylikçi (1891, Germany), all in chemistry and obtained abroad. In the 1933-1934 academic year, the former Darülfünun (the Ottoman House of Sciences) was restructured as østanbul University. This reform was supported by the following two laws: x 1928: Law No.1416 to send students abroad; first 13 doctoral degrees in natural sciences, mostly in Germany, some in France x 1934: Law No. 2557; and 1944: Law No. 4635 to employ foreign faculty members.

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

61

Also in 1934, a doctoral degree or two bachelor degrees in different areas started to be required for appointment as an associate professor in østanbul University. Hitler’s coming to power and the enactment of a series of anti-semitic and anti-dissident laws in Germany coincided with Atatürk’s efforts to reform Turkish higher education. In the 1933-1934 academic year, 85 of the 323 academic staff of østanbul University were foreigners, the vast majority of whom had fled Nazi persecution. This German academic migration to Turkey also marked the beginning of modern graduate-level studies in the country based on research along the German model. No systematic statistics are available on Turkish higher education until the early1980s. The limited available data indicate that in the period 19331961, 277 doctoral degrees were awarded by østanbul University, 47 by østanbul Technical University (f. 1773, restructured in 1944), and 308 by Ankara University (f. 1946), nearly all by immigrant German professors and their students; 46 doctoral degrees were supervised by Germans in 1933-1946 alone. The first doctoral degree in Turkey was awarded in 1937 to Nüzhet Toydemir in astronomy, supervised by E. F. Freundlich in østanbul University. In 1946, Law No. 4936 was passed, which required faculty members to engage in research supervision. First doctoral degree in ITU was awarded to Talat Erben in 1949, in chemistry, supervised by Prof. ø. CÕvao÷lu, who did not have a doctoral degree himself. Although Robert College (f. 1863) was the first US institution of higher education outside the United States, it was not until 1956 when Middle East Technical University (METU) was founded along the model of American state universities that American influences started to permeate Turkish higher education. The American Ph.D. and degree system was introduced through METU, and soon was adopted throughout the country, particularly after the radical restructuring of the system in 1981. Thus, Turkey had the bachelor/master/doctoral degree system long before the launching of the Bologna Process. At the present, both masterand doctoral-level studies essentially follow the U.S. model, other than two differences. Medical specialty degree based on four to six years of residency, depending on the subfield of medicine, after a six-year undergraduate-level education is equivalent to Ph.D. for appointment as an assistant professor. In fine arts and performing arts, proficiency in arts degree is similarly considered equivalent to Ph.D. Systematic statistics are available on Turkish higher education from 1983-1984 on. Figure 3.1 shows the growth in master-level studies, from

62

Chapter Three

9,059 students enrolled in 1984 to 126,378 students in 2011, with a similar growth in graduates in the said period, from 1,473 to 47,419. Figure 3.2 shows the growth in medical specialty training studies from an enrolment of 6,185 students in 1988 to 20,671 in 2011, and from 996 to 5,101graduates in the said period. Figure 3.3 shows the growth in doctoral level studies (Ph.D. plus proficiency in arts), from an enrolment of 6,185 students in 1984 to 42,760 in 2011, and from 996 to 4,684 graduates in the said period. Table 3.3 shows the breakdown of Turkish graduate-level enrolment according to fields. Business and administration has the highest enrolment at the master-level, and natural sciences and mathematics at the Ph.D. level. From 1984 to 2011, enrolment in master-level architecture programs (including city planning) rose from 460 to 2,862, and that in Ph.D. programs from 325 to 1,052. The corresponding figures for the number of graduates are from 98 to 530 at master-level, and from 16 to 96 at doctoral-level. In the same period, enrolment in master-level arts programs rose from 101 to 3,088, and that in proficiency in arts programs from 39 to 1,052. The corresponding figures for the number of graduates are from 4 to 870 at master-level, and down from 109 to 96 at proficiency in artslevel. The growth in graduate-level programs is reflected in the growth in publications shown in Figure 3.4. In 1974, Turkey published a meagre 249 articles in 1974, this number was only 378 in 1981, from which year on it took off, reaching 16,713 articles in 2005, and 24,916 articles in 2010. In its Science Report of 2005, UNESCO described this growth with the following words: “The number of scientific articles published by Turkish scientists in world-renowned journals trebled between 1997 and 2002, as scanned by the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. By 2002, there were 148 scientific publications per million population, representing a spectacular growth rate of more than 500% over the decade. As a result, Turkey moved from 37th place in 1992 in world rankings of the most productive nations for scientific publications to 22nd place in 2002.” Despite the significant expansion in graduate-level studies, Turkey significantly lags behind in international comparisons. Figure 3.5 shows the gross graduation rates at the doctoral level, defined as the percentage of the total population of the age cohort at the typical graduation age of that particular level of study that has been awarded the degree. It is seen in Figure 3.5 that across the 27 OECD countries with comparable data, an average of 1.5% of the population obtained an advanced research qualification (such as a Ph.D.) in 2007. The percentages range from 0.1

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

63

per cent in Argentina and Chile, and 0.2 per cent in Mexico, and 0.4% in Brazil and Turkey to more than 2 per cent in Germany, Portugal, and more than 3 per cent in Sweden and Switzerland. Figure 3.6 shows the “Summary Index of Innovation,” which arguably measures the reflection of graduate-level studies to the macro economy of the country. Again, Turkey is at the bottom with an SII of only 0.09 compared to the EU27 average of 0.45. In conclusion, despite the very significant growth that Turkey has accomplished in the expanding graduate-level studies, she still has a long way to go in order to catch up with the others in organizations where she already is a member and where she aspires to be. Furthermore, there is an obvious disconnect between graduate-level studies and academic research and the Turkish economy.

Note on References In preparing this text, I have quoted freely from the following sources: Aras, N. K., Dölen, E., and BahadÕr, O., (eds.) 2007. The development of the concept of university in Turkey (1861-1961). Ankara: Turkish Academy of Sciences. (In Turkish). Forest, J. J. F, and Altbach, P.G. (eds.) 2006. International handbook of higher education. (2 parts). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Gürüz, K. 2008. Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. Ridder-Symoens, H. de, (ed.) 1992. Universities in the middle ages, vol. 1 (3 vols.) of A history of the universities in Europe, gen. ed. W. Rüegg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watson, P. The German genius: Europe’s third Renaissance, the second Scientific Revolution and the twentieth century (pp. 49-54 and 108-10). London: Simon and Schuster. 2010.

64

Chapter Three

Table 3.1. The U.S. Graduate-Level Enrolment, 2010

Arts and Humanities Bio. and Agricul. Sci. Business Education Engineering Health Sciences Math. and Comp. Sci. Phys. and Earth Sci. Pub. Adm. and Serv. Soc. and Behav. Sci. Other Fields**

Total 105,503 78,771 266,471 335,867 124,312 160,338 65,871 48,579 65,423 137,344 99,169

Doctoral * 41,383 46,027 13,805 57,047 50,250 36,099 21,736 34,781 4,913 55,402 14,147

Master’s 64,120 32,744 252 666 278 687 74,062 124,239 44,135 13,798 60,510 81,942 84,626

Total 1,746,628 430,569 1,310,063 * Excludes MD and JD ** Includes architecture, environmental design and city and regional planning (Source: www.cgsnet.org )

Table 3.2. The U.S. Graduate-Level Enrolment in Professional Fields, 2010 MEDICINE

LAW

x

x 117, 451 students enrolled in JD programs x 32.597 graduates Note: LL.B. (lex, legis baccalaureus) is not offered in the United States. (Source: www.americanbar.org )

70,070 students enrolled in MD program x 16,838 graduates x 4,963 students enrolled in MD/Ph.D. programs x 534 graduates in 2009 (Source: www.aamc.org )

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

Table 3.3. The Turkish Graduate-Level Enrolment, 2011

Humanities Arts Agricul. & Vet. Med Bus. & Adm. Journ. & Inf. Law Education Engineering Arch. & Ct. Pl. Health & Welfare Sci., Math. & Comp. Soc. & Behav. Sci. Services Other Fields Total Ph.D. & Art. Prf.

Total 15,852 6,357 6,461 36,362 1,044 6,097 19,949 23,310 3,730 6,513 27,585 14,160 604 1,145 -

Doctoral 4,757 1,585 2,163 5,307 337 1,346 4,101 6,441 992 3,192 8,652 3,774 329 467 42,760

Master’s 15,862 4,772 4,298 31,055 707 4,751 15,848 16,869 2,738 3,321 18,933 10,386 275 678 -

Medical Sp. Trg. Total

189,499

20,671 63,131

126,368

65

Chapter Three

66

126,378

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009

1993-1994 1992-1993 1991-1992 1990-1991 1989-1990 1988-1989 1987-1988 1986-1987 1985-1986 1984-1985 1983-1984 1982-1983

82,484

16,433

2001-2002

1994-1995

90,333

21,850

2002-2003

1995-1996

92,862

24,009

2003-2004

1996-1997

112,089

27,734

2004-2005

1997-1998

108,998

31,871

2005-2006

1998-1999

104,097

28,758

2006-2007

1999-2000

109,845

33,589

2007-2008

2000-2001

140,043

47,419

73,533

13,719

65,076

9,556

53,553

7,943

50,986

8,518

49,179

8,329

51,335

7,548

49,887

8,070

41,064

5,415

35,820

5,056

33,463

4,620

30,632

4,326

3,332 3,405

Graduates

25,017

4,191 3,847

Enrollment

22,469 18,186 16,919 14,078

3,450 12,285 2,184 11,215 1,831 9,059 1,473 1,099

Figure 3.1. Growth of master-level studies. Source: Annual Higher Education Statistics published by the Student Selection and Placement Center.

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

20,671

2010-2011

21,964

2009-2010

5,101 20,662

2008-2009

3,921 20,943

2007-2008

3,223 19,070

2006-2007

2,283 17,017

2005-2006

2,448 17,010

2004-2005

3,588 15,892

2003-2004

2,939 14,148

2002-2003

2,408 13,454

2001-2002

2,558 12,318

2000-2001

2,588 10,914

1999-2000

2,263 11,193

1998-1999

2,116 10,211

1997-1998

2,323 11,012

1996-1997

2,302 6,693

1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1992-1993 1991-1992 1990-1991 1989-1990 1988-1989 1987-1988 1986-1987

67

Enrollment

2,073 9,869 905

Graduates

9,409 1,460 8,831 1,433 8,219 1,595 7,747 1,825 7,566 1,437 7,109 1,299 6,185 996 1,002

Figure 3.2. Growth of medical specialty training studies. Source: Annual Higher Education Statistics published by the Student Selection and Placement Center.

Chapter Three

68

42,760

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009

3,357

1999-2000 1998-1999 1997-1998 1996-1997 1995-1996 1994-1995 1993-1994 1992-1993 1991-1992 1990-1991 1989-1990 1988-1989 1987-1988 1986-1987 1985-1986 1984-1985 1983-1984 1982-1983

32,575 27,393

2,838

24,891

2,680

2002-2003

2000-2001

33,834

2,594

2004-2005

2001-2002

34,916

3,757

2006-2007

2003-2004

35,946

4,361

2007-2008

2005-2006

44,768

4,684

23,228

2,815

22,565

2,472

21,789

1,985

19,587

2,124

20,412

2,577

20,038

2,364

19,473

1,880

19,718

2,114

16,066

1,620

14,791

1,466

13,987

1,368

12,883

1,365 1,446

10,630 8,921

793

7,749

631 812

522 805

Graduates

11,748

1,008

504

Enrollment

6,702 5,443 5,577 4,336

676

Figure 3.3. Growth of doctoral-level studies. Source: Annual Higher Education Statistics published by the Student Selection and Placement Center

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974

69

24,916 22,995 21,961 18,928 16,718 14,371 12,751 9,664 7,889 6,359 4,742 4,119 3,530 3,108 2,471 1,902 1,587 1,464 1,169 1,015

All publications in SCI, SSCI and AHCI

882 720 636 550 532 415 439 401 378 449 344 371 332 267 226 249

Figure 3.4. Growth in scientific publications in journals covered by the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). Source: data collected by the author from various sources, Web of Science and Turkish Scientific and Research Council data.

70

Chapter Three

Figure 3.5. Innternational com mparison of gro oss graduation rrates at the docttoral level. Source: OECD D Education att a Glance 2011, Table A3.3.

Graduate-Level Studies in Turkey and the World

71

0.73

Sweden 0.64

Finland

0.62

Israel

0.61

Denmark Japan

0.6

Germany

0.59 0.57

UK

0.55

USA

0.53

Luxembourg 0.49

Ireland

0.48

Ntherlands

0.48

Austria

0.47

France

0.47

Belgium

0.45

EU27 Avg.

0.44

Canada 0.37

Estonia

0.36

Czech Republic

0.36

Australia

0.35

Slovenia

0.33

Italy

0.33

Cyprus

0.31

Spain

0.29

Malta

0.27

Lithuania

0.26

Hungary

0.26

Greece

0.25

Slovak Rep.

0.25

Portugal

0.24

Poland

0.23

Croatia

0.23

Bulgaria 0.19

Latvia

0.18

Romania Turkey

0.09

Figure 3.6. European Innovation Scoreboard, Summary Innovation Index (SII) 2007. Source: Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Training Center on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), February 2008, Figure 1, p.5

72

Chapter Three

Brief biography of author Kemal Gürüz is retired professor of chemical engineering at the Middle East Technical University and the former president of the Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Turkey, a national board of governors for all institutions of higher education in the country, which now comprises over 150 universities with a total enrollment of 3.5 million students. His previous posts and positions include visiting professor of chemical engineering and Fulbright fellow at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, rector of Karadeniz Technical University, chairman of the Turkish Fulbright Commission, president of the Turkish National Science Foundation and fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. Between 1995 and 2003, he represented Turkey on the boards of first The European Rectors Conference (CRE), and later The European University Association (EUA). In 2005, he was the first recipient of the Chancellor John W. Ryan Fellowship in International Education at the State University of New York. He is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on various aspects of higher education governance and R&D management. His book entitled "Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy" was published by SUNY Press in 2008. This was followed by a revised and updated paperback edition in May 2011. He holds an honorary doctoral degree from SUNY Binghamton. He was included among one hundred persons whose views influenced higher education worldwide in a recent publication by UNESCO-CEPES entitled “100 Voices” that came out in May 2009. [email protected]

PART II: DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN ARCHITECTURE: PROBLEMS AND POTENTIALS

CHAPTER FOUR A PILOT STUDY ON DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES IN ARCHITECTURE GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER AND FATMA ERKÖK

Introduction This paper aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of doctoral education in architecture. To enable this discussion, it is essential to first focus on the state of doctoral education in the world. This topic is dealt with under subheadings such as the origins of scientific research and the research university; historical development of higher education and doctoral education in particular and, finally, discussions and actions for structural changes in doctoral education that are on the agenda of universities today. Existing problems and developments can be discussed after such a wider look. The main aim is to determine the current situation of doctoral education, particularly in architecture, at distinguished higher education institutions in Europe and the USA. This paper, as a result, provides an overview of the scene worldwide with a focus on changes, developments and essential elements in doctoral education in architecture. The main source of this paper is a pilot study carried out on doctoral programmes in architecture. The results of the conducted survey are used in order to obtain some quantitative facts as well as to emphasise key structural changes in education. While a secondary aim of the pilot study was to evaluate the position of ITU in terms of the quality of doctoral education it provides, the study does not aim to evaluate doctoral education in architecture in different institutions in general, but rather to give an overview of doctoral education with particular reference to doctoral education in architecture. It aims to establish a platform to discuss shared problems, and to exchange good practices to develop better solutions by examining and comparing the nature and structure of doctoral studies in architecture across Europe and the United States of America. In

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

75

2009, with these aims in mind a survey was distributed to some 50 distinguished institutions of architecture in Europe and North America. The survey asked directors of graduate schools and programmes of architecture mainly informative questions about student numbers, programme structure, administrative control, plans for reform and requirements for promotion of academics. 24 institutions took part in the survey. This response rate provided a comparatively comprehensive picture of the state of doctoral education in architecture programmes within prominent institutions. The results of the survey are elaborated and evaluated further in the paper. This paper firstly deals with the on-going discussion on the effectiveness and utility of doctoral education. While doctoral education is growing and becoming much more diversified in the world, there is also criticism of doctoral study made on strong premises that cannot be ignored. The paper then goes on to look at the history of doctoral education in architecture. Historically, Ph.D. programmes have often evolved into well-defined areas of disciplinary interest, which usually is reflected in their programmes of studies and research agendas. Architecture and design, however, have not academically evolved in the same manner or the same direction. Doctoral education in architecture started late, in comparison to that in pure science and engineering fields. The evolution of programmes and leading universities regarding doctoral programmes in Europe and North America are discussed. The paper then discusses what the particulars of architecture and research in architecture are. Architecture is engaged in complex problems, which are nonlinear, ill defined, multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary. Therefore, the processes used to solve architectural problems need to use creative and innovative approaches enhanced with heuristic methods and science and technology. Some of the problems in doctoral studies in architecture are difficulty in narrowing down the research area, long completion time, high drop out rates, limited capacity of the research results to be utilised in architectural practice. The future of architectural research and doctoral studies in architecture should be envisioned by taking into account these problems and the circumstances of the profession. In conclusion the paper describes some skills which future architects in practice should have and proposes the designing of new doctoral programmes that can contribute to the improvement of architectural design and practice.

76

Chapter Four

1. Setting the Scene The first part of the paper is devoted to laying out the facts relevant to doctoral studies in general. In order to set the scene, questions will be discussed such as how doctoral education is viewed today, what are the changing needs triggering this situation, what are the conditions and stakeholders of this discussion and what kind of acts of developments are taking place.

1.1 Need for change in doctoral programmes, latest developments in USA and Europe Doctoral education has moved to centre stage as key in responding to the challenges of the knowledge society in North America and Europe (Denecke, 2007). It is undergoing a paradigmatic change insofar as it is no longer regarded exclusively as an academic affair and has moved into the focus of institutional and national policies. EUA former president, Georg Winckler stated that doctoral education is now a "global growth business" (Winckler, 2006). Chambaz (2008) addresses why reform in doctoral education is needed and concludes with reasons such as: x Globalisation changes spatial and temporal norms x The complexity and interdependence of the problems being faced change the way they must be addressed x The development of a knowledge-based society in the broadest sense requires the dissemination of creative thinking And for Denecke (2007), three global drivers of change in doctoral education are: x The increasing attention (among legislators and business leaders) given to economic competitiveness x The demographic trends occurring in the United States (where minorities will soon comprise the majority population) and in Europe (where policies are seeking to promote more intra-European mobility) x The social and political aspirations of nations and regions Doctoral education has a crucial role in producing innovation and therefore universities have to position themselves well. As a result, in many countries there is an ongoing re-examination of the Ph.D., its role and purpose. For Thurgood, Golladay, and Hill (2006) one of the many factors contributing to the strength of the USA in the 20th century as the world’s

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

77

leading power was the growth of US doctoral education. Currently, a number of reform initiatives are being undertaken to improve the teaching of doctoral students. In the United States and Canada, several doctoral reform initiatives, such as the program called “Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Programme” sponsored by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) (a national organisation to transform the way aspiring faculty members are prepared for their careers) and the “PhD Completion Project” have been ongoing since the early 1990s (Denecke, 2007). Doctoral studies in Europe are also in a process of change today, reflecting the need to adapt research training to meet the challenges of the global labour market, technological advances, new profiles and demands of doctoral candidates, and not least, the policy objectives of European governments (EUA, 2005). Various “innovation scoreboards” illustrate a European weakness in global knowledge-driven technological competition. It is argued by European Commissioner in charge of research, Philippe Busquin that “Europe more than ever needs research” and it is a matter of “economic survival” due to the fact that “half of economic growth is being obtained through innovations” (Sadlak, 2004). LERU (League of European Research Universities) indicates that doctoral training is highly fragmented in Europe, with over one thousand universities conferring doctoral degrees. In contrast, there are only about four hundred Ph.D. awarding institutions in the US, of which fewer than one hundred are responsible for 80% of all Ph.Ds. Because of this fragmentation in Europe, energy and funds are being dispersed, resulting in diffused impact. High-level research and doctoral training must become more concentrated and focused in Europe (LERU, 2007). In response to the Bologna Process and to overcome the general fragmentation problem of Europe, doctoral programmes are being restructured to meet the growing demands of society and the labour market. The EU Flagship Initiative entitled “Innovation Union” (2010) also places great emphasis on innovation for the aim of “Europe 2020: European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth”. It is clear that universities play an essential role in the “innovation chain” (EUA, 2011). Within the execution of the Bologna Process, the EUA launched the “Doctoral Programmes Project 2004-2005” which aims to demonstrate examples of good practice and prepare recommendations for action based upon the pooling of experience of its members. The EUA also established the Council for Doctoral Education (CDE), which organises meetings, discussions, publications, and projects for doctoral education throughout Europe.

78

Chapter Four

1.2 Debates on the issue In addition to the fact that doctoral education is growing and becoming much more diversified all over the world, there is also criticism of doctoral study with strong premises that cannot be ignored. There is actually a debate on the role, status, utility and efficiency of doctoral study. On the one hand, there is the frequently stated opinion that places great importance on it and sees doctoral education as the way out for economic survival and on the other, there is a view that is more doubtful about its utility and effectiveness. Mark Taylor, wrote in The New York Times about the American graduate system being in crisis, stating: “Most graduate programmes in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost.” (Taylor, 2009). Taylor (2009) also blames universities for using graduate students for their own benefits, saying: “Without underpaid graduate students to help in laboratories and with teaching, universities couldn’t conduct research or even instruct their growing undergraduate populations.” Some comments on Taylor’s viewpoint share similarities, such as “Universities are not responsive to market forces or to their customers” and “The most interesting, challenging and rewarding problems faced by engineers and scientists today do not correspond to most of the available paths of graduate work.” An article in The Economist on January 6th 2010 tackles the same issue with the striking title “The disposable academic: Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time” (The Economist, 2010). The article argues that in most countries a PhD is a basic requirement for a career in academia and the requirements to complete one vary enormously between countries, universities and subjects, but one thing many PhD students have in common is dissatisfaction. The article asserts that PhD courses are so specialised that university careers offices struggle to assist graduates looking for jobs, and supervisors tend to have little interest in students who are leaving academia. According to an OECD study (The Economist, 2010), many PhD graduates in European countries were still on temporary contracts five years after receiving their degrees. About one-third of Austria's PhD graduates take jobs unrelated to their degrees. In Germany 13% and in the Netherlands 21% of all PhD graduates end up in lowly occupations. When

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

79

in degree related jobs, PhD graduates do at least earn more than those with a bachelor’s degree. However, ultimately there are not many chances for PhD graduates to work outside academia and utilise their research abilities.

2. Evolution of Doctoral Studies Worldwide In order to evaluate doctoral education either in general or particularly in architecture, there is a need to examine how doctoral studies have evolved at universities and other institutions all over the world. This evolution finds its roots in the paradigmatic change from the classical university type to the research university, which bases its rationale on scientific research. This change accompanied the general recognition of the scientific approach for solving problems, which was pioneered by certain scholars (e.g. Humboldt).

2.1 Origins of the Modern Research University Throughout history, the main function of the university had been education: the preservation of knowledge and transferring it to next generations (Albritton, 2006; Gürüz, 2003). It was only in the 19th century that research started to be included in the functions of the university thanks to the German model based on the Humboldtian philosophy, which placed importance on the pursuit of knowledge rather than its maintenance. This philosophy was centred on the unity of teaching and research (McNeely, 2002; Fehér, 2006; Albritton, 2006) and on analysis by principles of scientific examination and scientific research (Albritton, 2006). Thus, the new German university model laid down the foundations of the modern research university. The University of Berlin, established in 1810 by Humboldt emerged as the academic centre of the world in the second half of the 19th century. Institutions of higher education, in particular the university, had spread to almost all parts of the world by the first quarter of the twentieth century. One of the innovations made at this time was the introduction of the PhD degree, which included research and coursework, as well as a qualifying examination (Gürüz, 2008). The German model pioneered discoveries, innovations and the research-based doctoral degree. It set the standard for the American research universities and institutions in Japan and in other countries. Developments such as industrialisation and mass production caused an emergent need for more skilled and educated manpower, and forced a change of understanding in the idea of ‘science for the sake of science’ to that of ‘science for the sake of the community’ (Gürüz, 2008).

80

Chapter Four

2.2 History of Doctoral Programmes Worldwide Some data on the beginning of doctoral education in different parts of the world can be drawn from the study of Powell & Green (2007) on facts and figures relating to doctoral study in several countries worldwide. In terms of origin, doctoral education is mentioned as having a long history going back to medieval times, yet as mainly a kind of ‘vocational’ degree. Several countries state that the beginning of doctoral education can be traced back as far as the Middle Ages: in France to the 11th, in the UK to the 13th, in Denmark & Poland to the 15th, and in Finland & the Netherlands to the 17th centuries (Green and Powell, 2007). But this was the medieval doctoral degree, which mainly entitled to teach. The PhD was adopted first in some of the German universities: the University of Berlin (1810) and the University of Göttingen (no date provided in sources) and was not introduced in the United States until 1860 (Pelikan, 1992). The PhD became proof of the ability to carry out independent scientific research (Bartelse, Oost, and Sonneveld, 2007). As a reflection of the modern view, Schulman (2008) describes the purpose of doctoral education as: preparing scholars who both understand what is known and discover what is yet unknown. In terms of the modern PhD many European countries started to award degrees in the 1980s (among them Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands) generally adapting the system to regulate the process. Other countries outside Europe that followed the same process are: Japan (1887), Mexico (1929), Australia (1948), India (1958), and China (1983). The first US doctoral degree was granted at Yale University in 1861 (Nerad, 2007; Thurgood, Golladay, and Hill, 2006). The University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University followed in the next 10 years. By the beginning of the 20th century, the distinctive feature of the research university in the U.S. was the doctoral programme. (Thurgood, Golladay, and Hill, 2006). The American model of doctoral education emerged between the 1880s and 1930s (Walker et al, 2008), but the greatest growth in doctoral programmes occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. model of doctoral education has played a major role in the United States’ strong record of innovation and economic growth (NSB, 1998). If we look at some statistical facts on the output of doctoral education around the world, the situation in Europe justifies the current concern and acts of reforming doctoral education. According to the European Research Area (ERA) findings, the EU has turned out more tertiary graduates and doctoral graduates and the growth rates in the numbers were much higher in the EU than in the US and Japan since 2000. However, although

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

81

European PhD graduates vastly outnumber those produced by the US, the proportion of researchers in the labour force is much lower in Europe than in the US and Japan. In the US, 80 % of researchers work in the business sector but only 50% do so in the European Union. A large majority of PhD graduates in Europe are employed in the university system (LERU, 2007). Another striking fact about Europe is that graduate unemployment rates of the population in Europe are much higher than those in USA. These facts clearly illustrate that Europe has a large output of doctoral studies, but is well behind its competitors in engaging this potential in the business sector.

2.3 Doctoral Education in Architecture Historically, PhD programmes have often evolved into well-defined areas of disciplinary interest, which usually is reflected in their programme of studies and research agenda. Generally this has also been the case in the humanities, the sciences, and even many of the social sciences. Architecture and design, however, have not academically evolved in the same manner or direction. It is likely that the reason for doctoral education in architecture starting late in comparison to pure science fields is that the profession of architecture takes place at the interface of art-sciencetechnology. According to Harris, Giard & Pijawka (2004), until recently, the principal area of focus of architecture and design had been the application of knowledge rather than its discovery, and this approach was very evident in the pedagogy of most doctoral programmes. The start of doctoral studies in architecture in the world is not clearly indicated in literature. The history in the US is documented, but such documentation does not exist for Europe. The PhD Programme in Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, which started in 1964, is the oldest in US and is widely regarded as preeminent in the fields of theory, technology and representation (Moore and Templer, 1984). Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan was one of only four doctoral studies programmes in architecture in the US when it was established in 1969 (website of college). Texas A & M University, Cornell University and Harvard have some of the oldest doctoral programmes in architecture, which started in the late 1960s. Doctoral study in architecture in the US is a relatively new phenomenon. There has been a relatively late development and slow spread of doctoral programmes in architecture and other design professions. In spring 2003, there were 25 universities in the US that had doctoral programmes in architecture. This is a small percentage (21%) of

82

Chapter Four

the 118 architectural schools accredited by the NAAB (Harris, Giard, and Pijawka, 2004). An insight into the situation regarding the introduction of architecture doctoral programmes in Europe, can be gained from the survey we carried out which will be explained later in this paper. Institutions such as ETH Zurich (1921), TU Delft (1924), TU Berlin (1946), the University of Cambridge (1949) and ITU (1960) were locations for early doctoral education. This reveals again that Europe played a leading role in the inception of doctoral education in architecture. PhD requirement for academic staff in the field of architecture is still not widely established all over the world (unlike the situation in pure technical fields). Only recently is this requirement becoming prevalent. Differences in trends and applications are clear among institutions in the US and Europe. At ITU, research-based degree studies were first used for academic promotion in the 1940s. This was a transition period towards the doctoral study carried out as an independent scientific research. As the touchstone of modern doctoral study in architecture, the first award was granted in 1960 to Altan Öke/Kemali Söylemezo÷lu.

3. A Pilot Study in Doctoral Education in Architecture A pilot study was planned and carried out with the aim to examine, compare and discuss the nature and structure of doctoral studies in architecture across Europe and the US. The aim was not to evaluate doctoral education in architecture in different institutions but rather give an overview and establish a platform to discuss the problems that they have in common, to exchange good practices in order to develop better solutions by examining and comparing doctoral studies in architecture across Europe and the US.

3.1 Survey In 2009, this survey was distributed to the deans of faculties or directors of doctoral programmes in several distinguished institutions of architecture. It was sent to some 50 institutions in Europe and America, and asked mainly informative questions about student numbers, curriculum, core courses, programme structure, administrative control, funding and intentions for reform. The questions of the survey were as follows: 1. When did doctoral education in architecture start in your institution?

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

83

2. Is doctoral education structured in your institution? If so: x How many credit hours are required for the doctoral education? x What are the minimum and maximum lengths of study? x What is the average completion duration? 3. How many doctorates have been awarded until the present day? 4. What is the distribution of the PhD graduates by year? 5. Have there been any recent reform acts in doctoral education in your institution? If so, when? 6. Is a PhD a requirement for teaching staff (Assist. Prof, Assoc. Prof., Full Prof.) in your institution?

3.2 Participants In November 2011, 25 institutions had responded to ITU’s survey. The distribution of the institutions in terms of countries is varied, including institutions in the USA, Australia and Europe (the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, France, Hungary, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, Romania and Turkey). As such the European representation includes countries with a long tradition of doctoral education in architecture (Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, UK) with also institutions of a younger background (Hungary, Belgium, Italy…), but there is also a variety within countries, so a historical tradition on a country-base is perhaps not accurate. The survey unfortunately does not represent Nordic countries, nor countries like Spain and Portugal. East European representation is present but very limited, with participation from Romania and Greece. The list of participating institutions is as follows: 1. University of California, Berkeley, USA 2. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), USA 3. Harvard University, USA 4. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA 5. MIT (University of Michigan), USA 6. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands 7. Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands 8. ETH Zurich, Switzerland 9. Technische Universität Berlin, Germany 10. Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany 11. Universität Karlsruhe, Germany 12. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium 13. Université Catholique de Louvain - UCL, Belgium

84

Chapter Four

14. The Higher National School of Arch. and Landscape Arch. of Bordeaux, France 15. Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary 16. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 17. Universita IUAV di Venezia, Italy 18. University of Trento, Italy 19. Bartlett, UCL, United Kingdom 20. Westminster University, United Kingdom 21. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom 22. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom 23. University of Sydney, Australia 24. Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Romania 25. Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

3.3 Results The response provides us with a relatively comprehensive picture of the state of doctoral education in architecture programmes within the prominent architectural educational institutions. Below some key findings from the survey are analysed. 3.3.1 Question1: Start of Doctoral Education in Architecture at Different Institutions The answers to the first question have helped to shed some light on both the introduction and location of doctoral education in architecture, a topic on which information is lacking. ITU proved to be the 6th oldest regarding the introduction of doctoral programmes. Before ITU, 5 universities were recorded as having such a programme: the oldest, ETH Zurich (1921) was followed by TU Delft (1924), Harvard University (1925), TU Berlin (1948) and the University of Cambridge (1949). The starting date given as an answer for Harvard University seems to be contradicting with the information given before about the history of doctoral education in architecture in the USA, where the date was given as the 1960s. The date of 1925 is thought to be that of a PhD from the architectural history department, not from a programme of architecture. The youngest institute is Vrije Universiteit Brussel, established in 2009 (Fig 4.1). The location of ITU in the time scale is noteworthy: 50 years of experience is not inconsiderable and its having started doctoral education earlier than internationally reputed architecture institutions (e.g. MIT, UCLA, Berkeley) is also remarkable.

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

85

If we look at the sequencing of the earliest starting institutions, we can see that from the beginning (1921) to the 1950s, we have 6 institutions, from which Harvard as mentioned before might be exempted as the PhD is from architectural history, 4 out of the 5 institutions are European (ETH Zurich, TU Delft, Cambridge, TU Berlin), and the 5th is the University of Sydney. This shows that European institutions pioneered doctoral study in the field of architecture, while the prominent institutions of architectural education in the rest of the world started doctoral study in the 1970s and 80s (Bartlett-1970, UC Berkeley-1972, MIT-1975, UCLA-1982) (Fig 4.1).

Fig 4.1. Starting year of doctoral education

3.3.2 Question2: Structured/Unstructured Doctoral Education This question explores if doctoral education is structured or unstructured at the institution in question. If it is answered positively (for structured education), the question has 3 sub-questions. These subquestions seek to find out about the fundamental elements of doctoral education that are defined and executed as principles, and which render an education programme structured. The fundamental elements are: length of study, average duration of study and requirements for credit hours.

86

Chapter Four

Among the 25 institutions, 11 of them answered that their doctoral education is structured. 8 of them, without replying “yes” to question 2, are accepted to have replied as having a structured education, as their answers to the sub-questions indicated some length constraints or credit requirements. Therefore, in total, 19 universities have a structured programme. Of the rest, 4 institutions stated they did not have a structured programme. Finally, one (TU Delft) responded that their programme is only partly structured and they are working on a more robust framework in the form of a Graduate School. It is noteworthy that 3 of the 4 institutions responding as not having a structured education are all the German universities (TU Berlin, TU Kaiserslautern, and Universität Karlsruhe), the fourth being the institution at Bordeaux, a very young institution that started doctoral education in 2007. These answers can be compared to the findings of a project executed by the EUA, on the organisation of doctoral education in European universities. The answers to a questionnaire and site visits were gathered in a country-based evaluation. Three basic organisation types of doctoral education were defined: individual education only, structured programmes only and doctoral/graduate research schools only, as well as different combinations of these three types. Such a comparison can be seen in Table 1 below. The findings of the EUA report are laid out in the first two columns of the table, under the heading “EUA trends V report”. The findings of the survey have been placed in the next 4 columns of the table, under the heading “Evaluation based on the ITU survey”. The aim is to check the results of the ITU survey against the report findings of EUA. The response of the surveyed institution to question 2 revealed a certain organisation type. So, when this organisation type (in the 5th column in the table) coincided with the type stated for the country of that institution in the EUA report findings, then the comparison is found to be positive and is marked with + in the final column of the table. Interestingly, almost all the results compare positively. (Table 4.1)

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

87

Table 4.1. Comparison of the findings of the ITU survey with EUA Trends V report EUA trends V report (Crosier, Purser, Smidt) Country Organisation of doctoral education Turkey Doctoral/graduate research schools France Doctoral/graduate research schools Greece x Individual education (mixed) x Structured programmes Romania x Individual education (mixed) x Structured programmes Italy x Structured (mixed) programmes x Doctoral/graduate research schools Belgium- x Individual education x Doctoral/graduate Wallonia (mixed) research schools Belgium- x Individual education Flanders x Structured (mixed) programmes Netherlands x Individual education (mixed) x Doctoral/graduate research schools Switzerland x Individual education (mixed) x Structured programmes x Doctoral/graduate research schools UK x Individual education (mixed) x Structured programmes x Doctoral/graduate research schools

Germany (mixed)

Evaluation based on the survey of ITU Institution surveyed 25.ITU 14.Bordeaux

Response to Organisation C Q2 of survey type Structured Doctoral/graduate + research school Unstructured -

16.Aristotle

Structured

Structured programme

+

24.Ion Mincu

Structured

Structured programme

+

17.IUAV

Structured

18.Trento

Structured (c&l) Structured

Doctoral/graduate research school + Doctoral/graduate research school Doctoral/graduate + research school

13.UCL 12.Brussels

Structured (c) Structured programme

6.Tu Delft

Partly structured Structured

7.Eindhoven 8.ETH Zurich

19.Bartlett

Structured (c&l)

+

Doctoral/graduate research school + Doctoral/graduate research school Structured + programme

Structured (l) Individual education 20.Westminster Structured (l) Doctoral/graduate + research school 21.Cambridge Structured (l) Individual education 22.Edinburgh Structured Individual education x Individual education 9.Berlin Unstructured Individual x Structured education programmes + 10.Kaiserslautern Unstructured Individual x Doctoral/graduate education research schools 11.Karlsruhe Unstructured Individual education

88

Chapter Four

Required Credit Hours The answers to this question have been too unclear to allow making an objective comparison among the stated credit hours of the institutions. The lack of clarity occurs in the difference of units and definitions provided for the credit hours, difference in requirements for students with different backgrounds and also in the way research work is included in credit requirements. As a result of this lack of clarity, the answers have not been put into graphics, but will be evaluated in a descriptive way. Among the 25 universities, 15 require certain credit hours varying between 12-180 ECTS (1 ECTS credit is defined as 25 work hours). In total 9 universities stated they do not require credit hours for PhD work, out of which 4 (Westminster, Aristotle, Cambridge, Bartlett) are considered to have structured programmes. These might be considered as in-between structured and unstructured. The remaining university (TU Delft) stated a ‘proposal workout’ stage, which is a research stage not evaluated with credit hours. Among the answers for credit hours some European universities declared the same required amount of a total of 180 ECTS credit hours (Budapest, Venice and Louvain). This might be the initial step towards standardisation in European doctoral education. ECTS is one of the cornerstones of the Bologna Process, which is a learner-centred system for credit accumulation and transfer based on the transparency of learning outcomes and learning processes. The first two Bologna cycles are associated with certain ECTS credit ranges (first cycle, Bachelor: 180-240, second cycle, Master’s: 90-120 ECTS credits), but there is no consensus on the usefulness of credits for the third cycle, that of doctoral studies which were included for the first time in the Bologna structure in 2003 (ECTS Users’ Guide). In 2007, 34 countries had a majority of institutions reporting the use of ECTS for credit transfer for all 1st and 2nd cycle degree programmes (Crosier, Purser, Smidt, 2007). At ITU, requirements for background study might be a master’s or bachelor’s degree. The credit hours requirements then change accordingly, for master’s degrees 24 credit hours (corresponding to 60 ECTS) and for bachelor’s degrees 45 hours (corresponding to 112.5 ECTS). Length of Study (Maximum and Minimum) Another aspect of structured education is the definition of the length of doctoral study. Among the 25 universities, common minimum and maximum lengths of study are 3 years minimum and 6 years maximum.

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

89

Fig 4.2. Graphic for minimum length of study

For this question, the majority of the universities indicated some minimum and maximum durations. Out of the remaining ones, most stated that they do not have any maximum or minimum length defined for doctoral study, but some out of these noted some average duration intervals (Berkeley, Sydney, Kaiserslautern) and some indicated that they have identified only a maximum length, but no minimum. The shortest period given for the minimum length of study is at ITU: 2.5 years. Following ITU, the duration of 3 years is shared by 10 of the European universities. Based on the recent European policy of supporting PhD candidates with a state scholarship for only 3 years, this minimum completion period turns out to be a shared target related to the common strategies of education budgets. Meanwhile, the longest minimum period is at MIT at 5 years. A clear distinction is seen between American and European universities in terms of minimum length, European universities being 3 years (except TU Delft and Eindhoven) and American universities 4 years. Thus it is possible to identify indicators of two different structures. On the other hand, for specified maximum duration for study, both European and American universities have most commonly indicated the duration of 6 years. However, periods longer than 6 years, such as 7, 8 and 10 years have been stated by American universities, and periods shorter than 6, such as 5 and 4 years have been stated by European universities (Fig 4.3). This distinction enables us to infer that the specified study length of doctoral education at American universities is longer than European universities.

90

Chapter Four

Fig 4.3. Graphic for maximum length of study

Average Completion Time This question seeks to find out the average time spent on doctoral studies at different universities. Some universities provided exact statistics, while others gave estimated periods. For the sake of comparison, these periods are expressed as averages with 3-4 years, for example, becoming 3.5 years). According to the results, the average completion time varies from 3.5 to 6 years for full-time students. For part-time students, the average is 4.5 and 6 years (Westminster and Bartlett respectively). 5 universities have the shortest average: 3.5 years. The highest average completion period is at 4 universities: 6 years. Similarly to the results of the previous question, American universities illustrate longer study durations. All American universities responded to this question with 6 years as the maximum.

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

91

Fig 4.4. Average duration of study

3.3.3 Question 3: Total Number of Doctorates Awarded The results for the third question are shown in Fig 4.5. These numbers indicate a far higher number of ITU (architecture) doctorate graduates in comparison to the other institutions in the study. The total number of 434 ITU doctorate graduates in architecture is followed by Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism with 373, IUAV with 240, and TU Delft with 224, a little more than half as many. Even if mass is not the most appropriate criterion for the evaluation of doctoral education, it could still be of some considerable significance. The noteworthy number of total doctorate awards at ITU is related to a particular condition in the history of the university. In 1949, the ITU Senate decided to set a precondition for senior academic staff (associate professorship and professorship) to have a doctoral degree. This decision was an early driver of the development of doctoral education and has increased the production of doctorates at ITU. Evaluating the quantitative outcomes of the institutions in relation to the starting time of education might be useful. The earliest institutions with doctoral studies in architecture are: ETH, TU Delft, Harvard, TU Berlin, Cambridge, Sydney, ITU and Ion Mincu. When we look at their production, we can see that all have awarded more than 100 doctorates, excluding two, which had no statistics on this (Cambridge, Berlin). It is noteworthy that some comparatively younger institutions, such as the

92

Chapter Four

University of Karlsruhe and IUAV, stand out among the institutions with a high number of doctorate awards (more than 100 awards).

Fig 4.5. Total number of PhD awards

3.3.4 Question 4: Yearly Distribution of Doctorate Awards For the fourth question about the distribution of the PhD graduates into years, a difference in the kind of information provided by the contributors was observed. While some indicated the yearly average number of admissions (PhD candidates), others indicated the yearly number of doctorates awarded. Admission numbers given are: by Berkeley 4-6 students, by Harvard 3-5 students, by Illinois 3 students and by Bordeaux 3-7 students (there are no graduates yet). Although the stated admission numbers could be presumed to be equal to the yearly distribution of graduates, but a certain number of dropouts will affect graduation numbers. For this reason, the results shown in the graph exclude those providing the admission numbers. From this information, we can highlight some of the findings. For the average number of PhD graduates in the 5 years prior to the survey, the average number of graduates was 18 at Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, 13 at Delft University of Technology, 10 at Eindhoven University of Technology, 7 at Bartlett, and 5 at Aristotle University, so these institutions have considerably increased their graduate

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

93

numbers in recent years. Showing a similar trend, ITU has recently produced on average 15 graduates yearly, while the overall yearly average since the beginning of the programme is 8.7 (Fig. 4.6). The highest average of yearly doctorate awards belongs to IUAV, with 20 awards.

Fig. 4.6 Distribution of awards to years

3.3.5 Question 5: Presence of Reforms Among 25 universities, 17 universities stated that they have had or they are in a reform process and the remaining 8 stated that there have been no recent reforms in their institutions. No meaningful grouping can be found among the institutions that have responded as not having made any reforms. If we examine the positive responses with their components of reform, we can place these into categories: these reform processes are in relation to: x Content/Curriculum Design (implementation of new programmes, new PhD routes such as ‘PhD by design’, new focus areas, new mandatory courses for all incoming PhD students, revision and restructuring of present programmes, introduction of new follow-up structures and increase of transferable skills) x Organisation (establishment of a graduate school) x Funding (full funding + dissertation grant) x Administration (updating regulations on the basis of Bologna criteria, new staff, new legal structure)

94

Chapter Four

In recent years the EUA has carried out remarkable research projects and surveys on doctoral education and they defined the important questions related to doctoral education in their Trends V report as follows: “In the Bologna process, many of the questions which have arisen with regard to first and second cycles are now being posed increasingly with regard to the third cycle. Questions are as such: “What are the purposes of the cycle? Is there a need for better, or at least clearer structures? What should be the conditions for access? How can funding be used most effectively? How can inter-disciplinary collaboration be strengthened? How can mobility be improved and increased? Should the third cycle be made more relevant for the labour market, and if so, how? How is the labour market for third cycle graduates changing? What is the role of doctoral candidates in the reforms? How can the primary emphasis on research be kept as other demands are considered? Are credits necessary and helpful? Are the changes that are taking place all coherent?” (Crosier, Purser, Smidt, 2007).

3.3.6 Question 6: PhD as a Requirement for Teaching Staff Among the 25 universities, 5 universities stated clearly that PhD is not a requirement for the teaching staff. Of the remaining 20 institutions, 6 replied that it is a requirement for all levels. The responses of the other 14 universities are conditional. The dependent situations are as follows: x subject area: PhD required for teaching in architectural history, theory, architectural technology, urban & regional planning, building law, planning and building economy, and not required for teaching in art and design in order to attract the outstanding architects in practice to teach in these institutions x full positions and research tasks: PhD required for full professorships and for professors who have teaching and research responsibilities, who teach or supervise doctoral students and not required for teachers who have only teaching responsibilities x supply: PhD will possibly be mandatory in future years as more applicants will be coming forward after having completed a PhD by design The answers give the overall impression that even though a PhD is not required legally, it is preferred and highly recommended in many institutions and the proportion of the teaching staff without a PhD is shrinking.

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

95

4. Some Observations In order to identify the problems of architectural doctoral education, it would be useful to explore the distinguishing features of architecture and research in architecture. It is a fundamental premise of architecture that is engaged in complex problems, which are: nonlinear, ill-defined, multidimensional and multi-disciplinary. The processes used in solving architectural problems need to use creative and innovative approaches in combination with heuristic methods and science and technology. The particular characteristics of architecture have also given rise to the emergence of problems in the area of doctoral studies in architecture as below: x Designing is a way of living. Most young talented graduates prefer architectural practice instead of research. x PhD candidates have difficulty narrowing their research areas and focussing on specific problems as they are used to dealing with very complex architectural design issues. x Completion time of PhD studies in architecture is long: 5-8 years x Drop out rates are high x The research problems that PhD candidates are involved in in the field of architecture are mostly theoretical and their results have limited capacity to be used in architectural practice. Therefore, there is a gap between architecture/architectural practice and architectural research. Consequently, most graduates of doctoral programmes work in academia and thus having a doctoral degree in architecture does not make any difference in terms of job opportunities in architectural practice. As architecture exploits science and technology intensively, there is a strong need in practice for new creative and innovative architects with critical thinking ability, equipped with transferrable skills. New architects should also have an access to new developments in science and technology and be able to adapt and use new technologies in their designs and construction processes. New architects have to be aware of historical, cultural, social and environmental issues and be able to cope with the complex problems that these may present. Industrial doctoral programmes may be a solution to the design of new doctoral programmes that will make a meaningful contribution to the improvement of architectural design and practice.

96

Chapter Four

5. Conclusion One concept that is central to Humboldtian science of the 19th century is that of a general equilibrium of forces. This idea of equilibrium can be exemplified in a revolving balance of the trio of teaching, practice and research in higher education. In practice-based fields like architecture, the distribution of teaching, research and practice is balanced, compared to pure sciences, where the practice part is weak. The opportunities of architectural practices may generate income in the university environment for the academics if the law permits and this may help to complete the third component of the trio. Some of the important issues related to doctoral education in general can be listed as follows: x The doctoral programme worldwide has been an important indicator of the modern research university. It plays a major role in the production of innovation and economic growth. x The increase of industrial doctoral schemes that are carried out in cooperation with the building and construction sector will create opportunities for new developments and new funding for architectural research. x Multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary doctoral programmes are becoming more and more important. Therefore, universities should be able to provide the necessary conditions for this kind of programme. x Doctoral programmes should not produce candidates only for teaching positions, but also graduates who carry out solid research and create an innovative force for economic growth. x Efficiency and effectiveness in doctoral studies should be achieved through continuous quality improvement. x Architectural schools should be strong partners of the greater scientific and technological community in order to address especially urgent global challenges and make contributions to areas such as sustainability, climate change and energy issues through their graduate programmes. x Architectural schools should also be responsible for encouraging and supporting research activities and doctoral programmes that will make contributions to the integration and sustainability of artistic, cultural and social values and for utilising these studies to create a more humane environment for the future.

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

97

References Albritton, F. P. 2006. Humboldt's Unity of Research and Teaching: Influence on the Philosophy and Development of U.S. Higher Education. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=939811 Bartelse, J., Oost, H. & Sonneveld, H. 2007. Doctoral Education in the Netherlands. In S. Powell & H. Green (Eds.), The Doctorate Worldwide (pp. 64-76). Open University Press. Chambaz, J. 2008. Reforming Doctoral Education in Europe: a Response to Global Challenges, CGS 48th Annual Meeting, December 3-6, 2008, Washington, D.C. Crosier, D., Purser, L., Smidt, H. 2007. Report Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area, EUA Publications. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/publications/eua-reports-and-studies.aspx Denecke, D. 2007. US Council of Graduate Schools and European University Association Joining Forces: a Transatlantic Dialogue on Doctoral Education, Bridges 13, April 2007. Retrieved from http://www.ostina.org/content/view/2019/695/ ECTS users’ guide, EC Education and Training, 2009. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdf EUA 2005. Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society, Report on the EUA Doctoral Programmes Project 2004 -2005. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Doctoral_Programmes_Project_Report.1 129278878120.pdf EUA 2011. EUA news: ‘Smart People for Smart Growth’: EUA publishes response to ‘Innovation Union’ strategy ahead of European Heads of State Meeting, February 03, 2011, Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/News/11-0203/Smart_People_for_Smart_Growth_EUA_publishes_response_to_Innovatio n_Union_strategy_ahead_of_European_Heads_of_State_Meeting.aspx Fehér, M. I. 2006. The Humboldtian idea of a university: The bond between philosophy and the humanities in the making of the modern university, Neohelicon xxvÕÕÕ/2, 33-37 Gürüz, K. 2003. Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Yüksekö÷retim: tarihçe ve bugünkü sevk ve idare sistemleri, Ankara: ÖSYM YayÕnlarÕ. —. 2008. Higher Education and Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Harris, R., Giard, J. & Pijawka, D. 2004. Interdisciplinary Doctoral Education in Environmental Design: Assessment of Programs, Issues, Structure, and Vision, Retrieved from http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/CD_doNotOpe n/DED/d_final_paper/d_04.pdf LERU (League of European Research Universities) 2007. Doctoral studies in Europe: excellence in researcher training. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/business/lerudoc_en.pdf McNeely, I. 2002. The Unity of Teaching and Research: Humboldt’s Educational Revolution, 32-35. Oregon Humanities. Retrieved from

98

Chapter Four

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/1456 Moore, G. T., Templer, J. A. (Eds.). 1984. Doctoral Education for Architectural Research: Questions of Theory, methods and implementation. Washington, DC: Architectural Research Centers Consortium, p. 3-27. Nerad, M. 2007. Doctoral Education in the USA. In H. Green, S. Powell (Eds.), The Doctorate Worldwide, McGraw Hill, SRHE and Open University Press. NSB (National Science Board) 1998. The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral Education. 97-235. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Pelikan, J. 1992. The Idea of University: A Reexamination. New Haven: Yale UP. Powell, S. & Green, H. (Eds.). 2007. The Doctorate Worldwide. Open University Press. Sadlak, J. (Ed.). 2004. Doctoral Studies and Qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and Prospects, 7. Bucharest: UNESCO Cepes Studies on Higher Education. Busquin, P. (2004). Un entretien avec le commissaire europeen chargé de la Recherche – L’Europe a plus que jamais besoin de recherché. Schulman, L. 2008. Foreword in The formation of scholars: rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century, Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C., Hutchings, P., (eds.) The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Taylor, M.C. 2009. End the University as We Know It, The New York Times, April 26, 2009, p. A23. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?pagewanted=all The Economist, 2010. The disposable academic: Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time, Dec 16th 2010. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/17723223 Thurgood, L., Golladay, M. J. & Hill, S. T. 2006. U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century. Special Report, National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/ Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C. & Hutchings, P. 2008. The formation of scholars: rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Winckler, G. 2006. Global Context of Doctoral Education: the EUA role. Salzburg presentation.

Brief biography of authors Prof. Dr. Gülsün Sa÷lamer, Former Rector of Istanbul Technical University (ITU) (1996-2004) is a professor of architecture. She received her PhD from ITU, carried out her post-doc studies in Cambridge University (1975-1976). She was a Board Member of European University Association(2005-2009). She is a member of the Advisory Group of Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (2006-) and the Chair of the Advisory group of

A Pilot Study on Doctoral Programmes in Architecture

99

MSCA since 2013 and is a member of European Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters(2011-). She was awarded Honoris Causa by Carleton University, Canada (2001), Universitatea de Nord Din Baia Mare University, Romania (2002) and Ovidius University of Constantza, Romania (2009). American Institute of Architects (AIA) awarded her “Honorary Fellowship (Hon FAIA) in 2006 and SEFI (Société Européenne Pour la Formation Ingénieurs-European Society) awarded her “Leonardo da Vinci Medal” for Engineering Education in 2005-2006. [email protected] Fatma Erkök is Associate Professor in ITU Faculty of Architecture, Architectural Design Unit. She received her PhD from ITU in 2002. She has been a visiting scholar at IUAV Venice in 1997 and Tudelft in 2007/8. She has been involved in many international workshops. Her research areas focus on doctoral education in architecture, urban issues, water & city relations, body & space relations. She takes place in the executive board of ITU Institute of Science & Technology, Architectural Design M.Sci and PhD Programme since 2012. She teaches at both graduate and undergraduate levels in ITU Faculty of Architecture. [email protected]

CHAPTER FIVE FROM DSD TO A+BE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AT THE TU DELFT FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE HANS BEUNDERMAN

The development of doctoral education in Architecture and the Built Environment in Delft runs parallels with a growing awareness that the domain it covers does not easily fit in traditional moulds to measure research performance. This awareness cumulates in the so-called Evaluation Research in Context (ERiC) pilot, which produced specific performance indicators that are unique to the field. These indicators were successfully applied in the Research Assessment Exercise of 2010. Both developments, establishing an environment for doctoral education and the maturing of design-oriented research cumulate in the new Graduate School of Architecture and the Built Environment (A+BE). The Faculty of Architecture (Bouwkunde) as part of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) is by far the largest Dutch “school” that provides a Bachelor (BSc) and Master of Science (MSc) education in architecture and the built environment. It comprises roughly 2000 BSc students and 1000 MSc students. These numbers are in stark contrast to the yearly number of Ph.D. theses. Since the first thesis was completed and defended in 1924, over 285 Ph.D. theses were successfully completed. It lasted until 1980 before more than one Ph.D. diploma was issued. Currently the yearly number of completed PhD theses ranges between 15 and 25.

From DSD to A+BE

101

Fig 5.1: Graph showing the development of PhD research at the Faculty of Architecture in Delft

A doctoral degree was back in the 1980s considered to be appropriate for persons with an affinity towards history and theory, or… for those with an “underdeveloped design competence”. Designers snuffed at the idea of conducting a PhD research. They preferred to use their design skills in practice. However, TU Delft stressed at the end of the 1990’s the strategic importance of innovative research and education in each of its disciplines. The delivery of graduated Doctors was stated to be essential for the raison d’etre of a Faculty of Architecture within a university context, and as key distinction from “academies” and “beaux arts schools”. An orientation within the international architecture disciplines at academic level, especially in universities of technology, made the doctorate program as distinctive key feature of a university identity and standard explicit. Establishing a research culture at the Faculty of Architecture proved a bigger challenge than kicking-off a PhD programme. The faculty struggled to get its research quality recognised within a university that is dominated by science and engineering. This struggle became for the first time evident in the 1997 research assessment.

102

Chapter Five

The exploring phase: the Delft School of Design Since 1993, publicly funded research in the Netherlands has been subject to a national evaluation system. Similar systems are in place in countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) supervise this system1. Together, these organisations ensure that publicly funded research is evaluated once every six years via a peer review assessment according to a periodically updated standard evaluation protocol (SEP). The institute awaiting assessment performs a self-evaluation to be used by the review committee in preparation for the site visit. Based on both the self-evaluation and the site visit, the review committee writes an assessment report. This assessment report is intended to help the research organisation to make better decisions about future research, research management and research policy. The first such assessment of Dutch architecture research took place in 1997 and included research conducted by the Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). Prof. Hans-Wolf Reinhardt (University of Stuttgart) chaired the review committee, and among its members was Peter Nijkamp, who later served as chair of the NWO between 2002-2008. The review committee came to the following conclusion: A fundamental problem in reviewing the research performance of architecture is that there are no clear-cut criteria for research in architecture. Architecture is neither science nor technology. It contains part of technology and part of science. It contains part of social sciences but it is less empirical. Architecture depends on intuition, ideas, sometimes also on ideology. Some facets of art are present. Architecture depends for a great deal on persons, on individual personalities who create new things, which cause imprints in the landscape, in the town, in neighbourhoods etc. The central product (one might say “experiment”) of architecture is design, but simply design is not recognized as research. This suggests that a core activity of a faculty of architecture does not contribute to scientific quality, productivity, and relevance. There is a systemic error in assessing the performance of a faculty of architecture since a large part and a most important part cannot be assessed by the rules (which apply to scientific research). […] The Review Committee has felt that architecture is not adequately represented in NWO and that this situation should be improved.2

It is difficult to determine whether the review committee’s observation is a case of “special pleading” 3 (architectural research is fine; the

From DSD to A+BE

103

assessment system is inadequate and incapable of measuring this), or whether, on the other hand, the observation actually stems from a bias that underestimates the values of design and engineering (architecture research is fundamentally flawed; there is nothing wrong with the assessment system). Regardless of the answer, the conclusions of the review committee are based on significant omissions and have retrospectively proven to be counterproductive. The review committee refers to technology, art and social science in an attempt to determine the proper position of architectural research. In doing so, the review committee seems unaware of the general consensus that the core of the faculty’s research (architecture) is a humanities discipline. The review committee seemed unfamiliar with the realities inherent to the daily practice of architecture, which includes design competitions to which architects, building engineers and urbanists frequently submit their works, and which are reviewed by a jury of peers. In many countries these competitions are strictly regulated. The jury assessments are not based on intuition, ideas or ideology but on explicit criteria, the very same criteria that the committee claims do not exist. Moreover, the review committee fails to debunk a myth, which suggests that staff spend their time and energy on producing designs instead of producing other scientific output. In fact, the number of designs produced by the Faculty of Architecture is limited, if we exclude designs that result from education or professional work. The most troubling aspect of the 1997 assessment is that it resulted in a major setback for those who are of the opinion that architecture indeed represents a mature field of science; the review committee seems to contradict that opinion. Similarly, the 1997 assessment provides a justification for those who prefer not to comply with generally accepted academic principles. The argument that proper assessment of architecture cannot be based on academic principles is an argument you might expect from those who would not expect to fare well in such an assessment, but certainly not from a review committee itself. As such, research in architecture became the victim of the first attempt to measure its level of performance. In response to the outcome of the research assessment, the Faculty started in 2002 the so-called “Delft School of Design, Design Methodology, Design Research and Research by Design", better known as DSD. It encompassed in various degrees the disciplines of architecture, urbanism, building technology and real estate & housing. The structure, educational modules, and community of PhD students can be considered to be the predecessor of the recently founded “Graduate School for Architecture and the Built Environment” at the TU Delft. One of its aims was to grow the number of PhD educated individuals in the field of

104

Chapter Five

architecture, built environment and urbanism. Although there is a formal requirement for (associate) professors to have a PhD, the limited number of PhD educated designers has made it difficult to enforce the rule. In these same years clear criteria for architectural and urban “design” to be acknowledged as “scientific output” were described. Scientific design pilots had to be original, relevant to other fields of science. It should cover the interests of society at large and be linked to the broader base of (inter)national design research. It should stress a specific Dutch design responsibility or tradition and it had to respond to new developments. As long as a designer is able to comply with such a framework he or she is able to obtain in Delft a doctors degree, at least in theory. Only a handful took advantage of this provision. The Faculty was not yet able to use this opening to gain broader recognition in the eyes of the traditional sciences. Its reputation remained high among its peers though.

Evaluating research in context Architecture is not the only academic field that struggles with the divide between perceived performance and measured performance. This type of “evaluation gap” poses a delicate problem for organisations that are responsible for managing public research funding, such as the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Excluding a specific discipline or even an entire faculty from funding may create a political problem that can require immediate attention. It is this context in which the idea emerged that the “evaluation gap” can be bridged if assessments review the social impact of research on equal terms as the scientific quality of research. One initiative used to measure the societal impact of research in this context emerged from the work of the Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development. The project was called “Evaluating Research in Context” (ERiC) and represented a joint initiative between the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (HBO-raad). The stated objectives of the ERiC project were manifold and included the following: ERiC develops and disseminates information about how to measure the social impact of research. ERiC raises awareness of the possibilities for assessing the social impact of research.

From DSD to A+BE

105

ERiC develops methods for measuring the social impact of research, by carrying out projects with universities and universities for applied sciences.4

ERiC's objective, which represented a relatively new phenomenon, was to explore how to measure the social impact of research. Funding organisations have become sensitive to societal demands in the wake of “grand challenges” such as economic recovery and climate change. This sentiment is reflected in the 2010 PPP-calls by the EU's Seventh Framework Programme, which addressed topics such as Energy-efficient Buildings, Factories of the Future, the European Green Cars initiative and the Future Internet project.5 The description of research that emerged from the ERiC project was broader than the description that had been originally requested under the prevailing standard evaluation protocol (SEP). The participation of the KNAW, the NWO and the VNSU ensured that the ERiC’s findings would become part of an amended protocol.

Architecture pilot The ERiC project developed its ideas through pilots. In late 2007, Jacob Fokkema, Rector Magnificus of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), initiated an ERiC pilot at the Faculty of Architecture. The Faculty of Architecture perceives a serious conflict between the demands and criteria in evaluation procedures and the ambition to be relevant for the practice of architecture, planning and building. The goal of this ERiC pilot is to develop an evaluation method that judges research in the Faculty of Architecture on all its merits and takes into account the specific characteristics of architecture research.6

Researchers from the Rathenau Institute, an autonomous organisation funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, conducted the pilot. The responsibility for its governance is vested in the KNAW. The fields studied at the Rathenau Institute include technology assessment and science system assessment. The Rathenau Institute goals are to assist in the political decision-making regarding the social, ethical and political impacts caused by modern science and technology and to study the way the science system responds to scientific, social and economic developments. The Rathenau Institute's work at the Faculty of Architecture consisted of three phases. In the first phase of the pilot, the concept of “designoriented research” was investigated. In the second phase, the formulation of assessment criteria was investigated. In the third phase, the assessment

106

Chapter Five

criteria from phase two were tested by evaluating two research groups. The main focus of the Faculty of Architecture's “design-oriented research” is not understanding for the sake of understanding but rather to understand in order to be able to change or optimise what is understood by means of design, engineering, planning or management in architecture and the built environment. The Rathenau Institute identified four types of research that gained favour at the Faculty of Architecture; the four types of research were evaluation research, historical research, conceptual research and practical research: 1. evaluation research, which is characterised as the empirical study of existing objects and processes. It analyses the effects and consequences that manifest themselves once architectural objects or processes have been realised. 2. historical research, which interprets, understands and explains designs, while taking site characteristics into account. 3. conceptual research is exploratory and experimental and aims at innovative, revolutionary concepts, manifestos and visions of the built environment. 4. practical research is research done for educational purposes and for professional practices and refers to the research architect’s need to find optimum solutions for certain building assignments.7

Each research type has its own specific methodologies, outputs, and relationships with both scientific literature and architectural practices [see Table 5.1]. In the second phase of the pilot, the Rathenau Institute and the Faculty of Architecture developed improved indicators for use in reviewing the scientific quality and societal relevance of architecture research. These indicators were to be tested in the third phase of the project and included scientific quality, scientific production, scientific recognition, responsiveness of agenda setting, collaboration with (potential) users, dissemination and knowledge transfer related to the mission and actual results, and the impact and use of research.

From DSD to A+BE

107

Table 5.1. Four types of research identified by the Rathenau Institute8 Historical research Books

Texts

Non-texts

Exhibitions (and catalogues)

Peers Scientific stakeholders Social stakeholders

Evaluation research ISI Publications Professional Publications Policy Reports Tools

Peers Architects Urban Designers Spatial Planners Building Contractors Governments (Municipalities/P rovinces/National Government)

Conceptual research Conference Proceedings

Practical research

Exhibitions (and catalogues) Designs (Drawings/Comp uter Animations/ Scale Models/ (Prototypes) buildings or constructions Peers

Exhibitions (and catalogues) Designs (Drawings/Comp uter Animations/ Scale Models/ (Prototypes) buildings or constructions

Architects Client who Spatial Planners commissioned Building the work Contractors Building Managers Governments (Municipalities/Pr ovinces/National Government)

Research assessment “Architecture & the Built Environment” The ERiC pilot helped the Faculty of Architecture to bring the presentation of societal relevance on a par with the presentation of scientific quality. The pilot developed an overview of relevant indicators. Jointly with the Rathenau Institute, the Faculty integrated these criteria into the format for self-evaluation9 that is included in the new Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP 2009-2015)10.

Chapter Five

108

Table 5.2. Additional guide for SEP self-evaluation by architecture research groups11 Results of ERiC pilot Relevance of research agenda with regard to societal issues and for stakeholders Staff with part-time positions at 2 external organisations (architecture bureaus, policy bodies, consulting firms) Specify: • Commissioned research by societal actors • Earmarked/structural funding related to societal concerns/issues 3 Research National and international positioning • Actual collaboration with environment (“soft” benchmarking based on SWOT stakeholders and analysis), • Participation in consortia embedding • number and affiliation of guest researchers (internally and externally funded) 4 Quality and • 3-5 most significant results/highlights • 3-5 outputs with major impact on scientific relevant to the discipline per architectural practices and policies relevance group/subgroup • 3-5 key publications per group/subgroup (references; full text may be published on secluded website) • Number of articles in top 10% of publications relevant to the discipline; same for top 25% • 3-5 most important books or chapters of books insofar as applicable 5 Output • Number of publications • Number of conference papers • Number of Ph.D.s (completed and in • Edited volumes of conference papers progress) • Number of major reviews of • Use (number of users) of research literature and exhibitions facilities (if part of institute’s mission) 6 Earning Acquiring projects and programmes Capacity through competitive funds: public and private, national and international 7 Academic Most important signs of recognition for Professional reputation, based on roles reputation research staff (prizes, awards, invitations in professional contexts, policyto speak at major conferences, making etc. conference organisation activities, Include stakeholder feedback on quality of the group if available editorships, membership in academies) 8 Societal Socio-cultural and/or technical or This section includes four issues: relevance: economic • The most significant knowledge quality, quality, impact, valorisation contributions made in the review valorisation period to architectural practices and and impact policies • Evidence of the appreciation of stakeholders of these contributions • Strategies for disseminating these contributions (outputs, media) • Evidence of impact of these contributions 9 Viability Viability of the unit to be evaluated in terms of resource management, available infrastructure and innovative capacity 10 Next Information about Ph.D. training generation 11 SWOTProcedure associated with the SWOT analysis analysis and outcomes 12 Strategy Based on the SWOT analysis 1

SEP item Objectives and research area Composition

SEP explanation Vision, mission and objective(s) of the institute Research area and programmes Composition of the research unit to be evaluated based on two indicators • total number of employees in each job category (including contract-Ph.D. candidates) and • overview of the various sources of financing (internal and external)

From DSD to A+BE

109

The SEP 2009-2015 takes an evolutionary step, clearing the way for a concise “mean and lean” self-evaluation. The research assessment entitled “Architecture and the Built Environment 2010” is one of the first assessments under the new SEP, and it is the first that implemented the insights offered by the ERiC-project. The prospect of yet another research assessment did not elicit much enthusiasm at TU Delft. Due to past negative experiences, the staff did not immediately recognise the strategic opportunity presented by incorporating additional performance indicators (as identified by the ERiC project) into their mandatory self-evaluation. The faculty faced the challenge of motivating its staff to produce the missing data related to the ERiC pilot’s performance indicators and to deliver a self-evaluation that truly reflected the creativity and innovation of its design-oriented research. To get this process moving, the faculty decided to produce a high-quality book in the tradition of architecture research, using graphic design to organise the copious amounts of available information and communicating the identities of the various research groups involved. With 1000 copies printed, the book provides a point of reference for research performance and excellence in architecture and the built environment and can be read as a structured effort to establish a benchmark in its field.12 The actual site-visit occurred between November 22nd, 2010 and November 25th, 2010 at TU Eindhoven, TU Delft and the Berlage Institute. 13 In accordance with the faculty's new policy of promoting openness, all the sessions conducted between the review committee and the Delft research groups were public, a strategy that worked remarkably well. During the site visit at TU Delft on November 23rd, 2010, staff members joined each other’s sessions. Twenty to thirty visitors witnessed each session. On November 25th, 2010, the chairman of the review committee (Peter Russell, the Dean of the RWTH Aachen Architecture Faculty) provided his initial feedback, which detailed the review committee’s findings. The session was streamed live to Eindhoven using the TU Delft Collegerama system and has remained available on-line since the date of its publication.14 Altogether the Faculty for Architecture and the Built Environment made a very good impression on the committee, despite the fact (or in lieu of it) that merely 30 Months ago, the Faculty's accommodations were consumed in a freak fire one fine sunny day in May 2008. The faculty's predominance within the metier of Architecture in the Netherlands is both a privilege and a curse. In the former, it allows faculty members access to industry that are long fought over by other universities. In the latter, the Faculty is expected to continually deliver research and graduates that set the standard for

110

Chapter Five Architectural Faculties not only in the Netherlands, but also in Europe and the rest of the world. 15

The TU Delft Graduate School Just as the ERiC pilot started at the Faculty of Architecture, its building burned down as the result of a freak fire, in May 2008. The academic community was scattered over the campus for about half a year before the renovation of the current BK-City building was completed and staff members were reunited. At the same time severe budget cuts kicked in, resulting from reduced funding of TU Delft. As the dust settled in the spring of 2009, the shake-up was complete and the original DSD had virtually disappeared. That original DSD had converged over the years on architectural theory. In parallel it remained the motor behind a lecture and workshop programme that served a much broader base in the faculty. Key to that programme was the DSD lecture room and a strong financial backing of the dean. The fire had destroyed the lecture room and the subsequent austerity choked off the lecture and workshop programme. The austerity measures had an important side effect. It had a direct impact on the size and composition of the body of PhD researchers at the faculty. The Faculty of Architecture experiences an “evaluation gap”. Its ability to obtain funding from organisations that are responsible for managing public research funding (such as NWO) is very limited. From 2000 on this was compensated through financing PhD researchers from the Faculty's own funding. Due to the budget cuts that set in from 2008/2009 onwards, that funding run dry. However, instead of a decreasing influx of PhD students the faculty saw a big increase in 2009, almost doubling previous numbers. The incoming PhD students were no longer Dutch nationals but came predominantly from countries that provide scholarships to their students, such as China and Turkey. In this context the Faculty of Architecture faced late 2008/early 2009 the challenge to start a new cycle in the development of its doctoral education with a larger and more diverse body of PhD students than ever before. A strategic opportunity emerged as the TU Delft was looking for faculties that wanted to pilot its new concept of doctoral education. That activity was the prelude to the establishment of the overall TU Delft Graduate School. Architecture did become a pilot. By means of the overall Graduate School, the TU Delft decided to address the synchronisation with the European/Bologna 3rd cycle in education, the further structuring of its doctoral programs – building on good practices within and outside the university, and its dissatisfaction

From DSD to A+BE

111

with PhD performance ratios. The performance ratio is especially a challenge for architecture. Just 20% of the PhD students that started in 2006 finished within four years time, which is the official duration of the PhD track. About 50% of the PhD students that has started in these years are expected to complete their PhD. This needs to improve. A concept was designed with the following features: • an overall TU Delft Graduate school, setting and safeguarding the collective standard • local schools per faculty or combination of disciplines • a university-wide framework for doctoral education including the requirement to obtain 45 Graduate School credits (such a credit is equal to a course day or a ECTS). • guidelines and practices for doctoral supervision • standardised processes for intake, monitoring and reporting The process included the participation of all faculty/disciplines involved. It also paid full attention to collectively establishing a transparent professional culture. For that purpose codes of good practices for supervisors as well as for PhD students were developed.

Fig 5.2. Kick-off TU Delft Graduate School of Architecture and the Built Environment

112

Chapter Five

September 2011 the newly designed TU Delft Graduate School was “in the air”; the first three faculty schools started according to this new model, including the Graduate School of Architecture an the Built Environment (abbreviated as A+BE). [see Figure 5.2]. One challenge remains to be dealt with: developing a series of doctorates, firmly rooted in design work, that is able to settle the discussion on the relation between research and design.

Notes 1. Standard evaluation protocol 2009-2015, protocol for research assessment in the Netherlands (Utrecht, VSNU, NWO, KNAW, 2009) 2. Architecture, Building and Planning, Series: Quality Assessment of Research (Utrecht, VSNU, 1998) p.9 3. Sebastian Macmillan, 'Criticising criticisms of research assessment, A caution against disciplinary special pleading, Architectural research and its enemies', ARQ, vol. 14, no. 1, 2010, pp.11-16 4. NWO - Context Group - Evaluating Research in Context, accessed online at [accessed: 1 January 2011] 5 . The European RTD Framework Programmes: From economic recovery to sustainability, Conference proceedings (Valencia, Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation, 12-16 April 2010) 6. Barend van der Meulen & others, Evaluating Research in Context, Pilot Study at the Faculty of Architecture TU Delft, Final Report - confidential (The Hague, Rathenau Institute, 2010) p.7, accessed online at < http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3Af0a713f1-1564-4b79-be664f5299ebba2c/ > [accessed: 1 March 2011] 7. Architecture and the built environment, research in context 2003-2009, ed. by Frank van der Hoeven (Delft, TU Delft Architecture, 2010) p.15 8. Barend van der Meulen & others, Evaluating Research in Context, Pilot Study at the Faculty of Architecture TU Delft, Final Report - confidential (The Hague, Rathenau Institute, 2010) p.41, accessed online at < http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3Af0a713f1-1564-4b79-be664f5299ebba2c/ > [accessed: 1 March 2011] 9. Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: A guide, Series: ERiC publication, 1001 EN (KNAW, NWO, VSNU, Rathenau Institute, HBO-raad, 2010) pp.20-21 10. Standard evaluation protocol 2009-2015, protocol for research assessment in the Netherlands (Utrecht, VSNU, NWO, KNAW, 2009), accessed online at < http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3A8fa07276-cf52-41f3-aa70a71678234424/ > [accessed: 1 March 2011] 11. Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: A guide, Series: ERiC publication, 1001 EN (KNAW, NWO, VSNU, Rathenau Institute, HBO-raad,

From DSD to A+BE

113

2010) pp.20-21, accessed online at < http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3A8fa07276-cf52-41f3-aa70a71678234424/ > [accessed: 1 March 2011] 12. Architecture and the built environment, research in context 2003-2009, ed. by Frank van der Hoeven (Delft, TU Delft Architecture, 2010), accessed online at < http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3A40384e73-fd94-4419-bc43828b5a020c3f/ > [accessed: 1 March 2011] 13. The Research Assessment Committee Architecture and the Built Environment in Delft, November 25th 2010. Chair: Peter Russell, Dean at RWTH Aachen. Members: John Worthington, Sheffield; Rachelle Alterman, Technion; Dirk Donath, Weimar; Per Heiselberg, Aalborg; Dinar Camotim, Lisbon; Pieter Uyttenhove, Gent; Michael Hebbert, Manchester; Nicholas Bullock, Cambridge. Secretary: Frank Zuijdam, Technopolis|Group|. 14. Collegerama < http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/sitevisit > [accessed: 1 January 2011] 15. Review Architecture and the Built Environment TU/e and TU Delft; Review of research groups and programmes (Amsterdam, Technopolis |group|, 2011), p.29

Brief biography of author Hans Beunderman (1948) is emeritus Professor of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. He holds Master degrees in Architecture (Delft-NL) and Business Administration (Rochester-USA). For his university he served as Vice Rector, Director of the Strategy/Policy Department and Dean of the Faculty of Architecture. Amongst others he designed the layout of the TU Delft Graduate School, and founded the Delft School of Design- Faculty of Architecture. In his professional career he worked as an architect/urban designer and - in public service- held several senior managing positions in the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment. As emeritus professor (former Vice Rector and Dean) he is currently involved in various activities for the TU Delft Board, and the Faculty of Architecture. For the European University Association he is actively participating in the Institutional Evaluation Program, evaluating universities a.o. in Romania, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Turkey. [email protected]

CHAPTER SIX THE NEW PARADIGM: PHD BY DESIGN MURRAY FRASER

This chapter deals specifically with the emergence of a new form of doctorate, the PhD by Design, which is currently being created as a symbiosis of design investigation and theoretical writing. As such, it is somewhat different from the dominant form of doctoral education in architecture, with the latter still tending to rely upon an entirely textual study, which is then amplified by visual images. The more open-ended and experimental basis of a PhD by Design has caused it to be treated with scepticism, or even mistrust, by many architectural academics. It was in defiance of this intellectual opposition that a special 2006 issue of The Journal of Architecture on the subject – based on papers from a symposium at Sint-Lucas School of Architecture in Brussels the previous year – was provocatively titled as “Unthinkable Doctorates?”1 Thankfully, the narrow-minded criticisms of PhDs by Design appear now to have abated substantially, and in part this is also due to the realisation that experimental doctorates “by” or “through” creative practice have been commonplace in art and other creative disciplines for several decades. Indeed, they are positively embraced by these cognate academic fields. Given that this is the case, what then has been so problematic about PhDs by Design within architectural education? A few misconceptions ought to be addressed at the outset. Firstly, students embarked on a PhD by Design have to produce meticulously researched and closely written textual components as part of their study. The required word count in such cases is usually a minimum of 40,000 words, while the total that they actually write is probably somewhere more in the region of 50-60,000 words for a typical design doctorate. The level of intellectual rigour needed for this architectural writing is exactly the same as for those who are producing entirely written doctorates, even if overall required word count is reduced for the PhD by Design because of

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design

115

the concomitant requirement to also produce high-level design investigations. Hence the basis for any successful PhD by Design is an intensive and innovative combination of design work and textual analysis, and indeed a design doctorate cannot be produced at all unless its written element reaches the same intellectual standard that any doctoral student is expected to meet. A second point to make is that there is no set format for a PhD by Design, or indeed any idea of what an orthodox thesis of this kind ought to look like; perhaps it is this lack of a ready-made and easily digestible format that some academics find so troubling. Instead, it is necessary to embrace a climate of diversity in which every student undertaking a PhD by Design is able to seek their individual path of discovery. Again, this degree of openness is nothing new or in any sense worrying, as the need for a wide variety of investigations is plain to see. Borrowing from art practices, the famous 1993 essay by Christopher Frayling about three distinct forms of design research that could be carried out either “into, through, or for” artistic practice was subsequently reframed for the architectural world a decade or so later by theorists like Peter Downton at RMIT in Melbourne.2 If we look at how PhDs by Design now sit within the international academic scene of architectural schools, there are two major models that have emerged to date, both of which started to emerge in the mid-1990s. The first model is that being followed by an extremely large cohort of PhD students at the Bartlett School of Architecture in London. In a programme devised by Jonathan Hill, these kinds of doctoral studies primarily involve design research investigations that are carried out as speculative and theoretical attempts to advance the discourse of architecture as a broad intellectual subject. In this regard, it is notable that the Bartlett’s PhD by Design programme is not exclusively intended for architects, but also includes artists and those from many other disciplines. As a result, the diverse range of research subjects being tackled serves to demonstrate the breadth of architecture as a discipline. It has always been Jonathan Hill’s intention that the PhD by Design programme should reflect the spectrum of approaches undertaken in the Bartlett School of Architecture as a whole, so that any Masters student who wishes to is easily able to find relevant doctoral supervisors. Much of this climate of investigation in the Bartlett focuses on the nature of drawing and other forms of representation in architecture, or in the active participation of other kinds of agency, such as the building user, in the creation of works of architecture. The conscious aim is to create a highly theoretical and challenging intellectual environment for doctoral students. Hill’s own PhD by Architectural Design in 2000, was the first to be awarded anywhere, and was then

116

Chapter Six

published as the book Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users.3 The second major model derives from the Graduate Research Conference system which is run by the Melbourne Institute of Technology, largely under the aegis of its founder, Leon van Schaik, and which has since expanded to taken on students in Europe and South-East Asia. The RMIT approach places its emphasis much more on enabling architectural practitioners to rethink and represent their existing body of built work through the format of a doctoral study, and this in turn provides them with an opportunity to uncover meaning for their role as architectural practitioners who are designing buildings out there in the “real world”. As noted, the RMIT system has now been extended to satellite courses run in Belgium and Vietnam, with the former being run through the Sint-Lucas School of Architecture by Johan Verbeke and others. There are undoubtedly strong merits for both these approaches, as well as for other emerging variants, but it is not the aim here to suggest that any single approach holds primacy over others in terms of offering a single paradigm for PhDs by Design. Instead, this chapter will refer to a few groundbreaking design doctorates produced in Britain to show some of the possibilities of the format. Indeed, in attempting to bridge a range of positions between practice and academia, the PhD by Design will by necessity probably always be varied in tone and structure. As such, it is able to cover a great variety of subject areas including design method, visual representation, textual analysis, social processes, and strategies for action. As noted, any design doctorate needs to contain a substantial amount of serious and innovative historical/ theoretical research as written text, with this being combined with creative propositions realized through a mixture of drawings, models and textual analysis. In this regard, the design projects might well be drawn, built, filmed or rely upon a range of other investigative media. Yet in all case a deeper textual analysis absolutely has to be present. Indeed, it is this essential symbiotic interplay between designing and writing which creates the essential framework for a design doctorate in architecture. The precise nature of this interplay of text and project in the PhD by Design model remains a much debated and open issue, something which is of course symptomatic of the conditions that face any newly emerging kind of doctorate. The broader questions and theoretical structures of PhDs by Design only serve to show that far more intellectual work has to be done. But there is also the need to establish a body of knowledge and methodology through actual worked examples, with such studies enabling their authors not just to explore, propose and reflect upon their specific subject-at-hand, but also to reflect upon the nature of design research in

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design

117

more general terms – thereby allowing others to use them as exemplars or to take issue with them through reasoned critique. In that spirit, this chapter seeks to contribute to the process by discussing three very different yet also representative PhDs by Design, which have been produced in two schools of architecture in London over the last decade. These doctorates were created by Penelope Haralambidou and Yeoryia Manolopoulou, both at the Bartlett School of Architecture, and by Yara Sharif at the University of Westminster, and each will be referred to in turn.

Penelope Haralambidou, “The Blossoming of Perspective” (2003) (Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL; Supervisors: Professor Phil Tabor and Professor Jonathan Hill) Penelope Haralambidou’s doctoral thesis consists of a subtle textual and practice-led architectural analysis of specific works by the famed modernist artist, Marcel Duchamp. In particular it focuses on a close and methodologically innovative examination of Duchamp’s final and highly enigmatic work, Étant donnés (often translated into English as “Given”). This piece is a constructed installation/assemblage that is now permanently installed at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in the USA, and is a project that Duchamp developed in secret for more than twenty years during the latter stages of his life. Although this artwork’s mise en scène is often seen as a breach with the rest of his oeuvre, Haralambidou used her thesis to show how it in fact reflects a culmination of several of Duchamp’s lifelong preoccupations. By challenging and expanding upon Jean-François Lyotard’s famous linking of this artwork to the Renaissance technique of linear perspective, Haralambidou’s thesis advances an original argument in regards to both its fabrication and significance. The artwork Étant donnés was regarded therefore in her doctorate as in effect a built drawing which was the product of Duchamp’s search for an expanded spatial representation schema influenced by his study of non-Euclidean geometries and the 19th-century technique of stereoscopy. In other words, and to use Haralambidou’s vivid phrase, the result was a “blossoming” of perspective to embrace a more complex visual reading of the world around us. Inspired by Duchamp’s artistic legacy, and following the example of some of Duchamp’s analysts (such as Richard Hamilton and Ulf Linde) who have studied his work, Haralambidou’s analysis of Étant donnés is largely underpinned by subtle practice-led experimentation. In contrast to the previous scholars of Duchamp, who have tended to rely upon art historical or fine art processes for their research, her PhD thesis instead

118

Chapter Six

offered an original use of architectural design and speculative drawing and model-making techniques as an investigative approach. While there were no particular new design projects produced by Haralambidou, her doctoral study was perhaps more akin to the sorts of techniques used in archaeology or forensic science. As such, her PhD thesis proposes a novel research methodology deriving from architectural design principles, arguing that this more spatialised form of intellectual and spatialised inquiry is better suited to approach new interpretations of Duchamp’s work. Conversely, the thesis methodology recognizes the analytical, and often pseudo-scientific, inclination, which existed within Duchamp’s artistic practice, and thereby uses, his example as a viable paradigm of research into visual practices. Overall, it is Haralambidou’s ingenious use of architectural design, drawing and making, as analytical thinking tools for research which places her PhD by Design within the territory of alternative academic practices inspired by Duchamp’s groundbreaking example. “The central hypothesis of my thesis originates in the allegorical narrative of The Fall, a project for an imaginary building, which sees the nude figure in Marcel Duchamp's assemblage, Given: 1° the waterfall, 2° the illuminating gas … as a “fallen” Mona Lisa. In representational terms, Leonardo da Vinci's portrait represents linear perspective, expanding as a result from the fall into Duchamp's built pornographic diorama. Following Jean-François Lyotard’s reading of Given as an incarnation and inversion of the rules of linear perspective to expose its hidden assumptions, each constituent element is studied in comparison with the perspectival equivalent: the squared linoleum, seen as the embodiment of the Cartesian grid, the wooden door, carrying two peepholes instead of the single apex of the visual pyramid, the gas lamp, an incarnation of the vanishing point or the focus of the geometric “light”, the brick wall, the physical equivalent of the picture plane, the twigs, their complexity revealed in binocular viewing, and the cast nude, the material projective alternative to a form composed from an orthographic plan, section and elevation. Stereoscopy is a spatial representation technique, isolating and revealing binocular depth and allowing an image to “blossom” in space. “Blossoming” is a vivid phenomenological effect, combining intellectual and affective attributes, which cannot be directly apprehended through monocular vision nor represented by linear perspective. This analysis of Given identifies stereoscopy as its central and intentional theme, influencing its intellectual content and guiding its manufacturing process. So Duchamp's inversion of perspective in Given is read as a physically constructed stereoscopic view, attempting to unlock perspective's erotic potential: a “blossoming of perspective”.

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design The drawing-and-text research method designing this thesis, and the process by which it developed are intentional analogies of the blossoming phenomenon.”4

119

120

Chapter Six

Figs. 6.1 and 6.2. Visual analyses by Penelope Haralambidou

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design

121

Fig 6.3. Studies of Marcel Duchamp's artwork Étant donnés (Given) by Penelope Haralambidou

Yeoryia Manolopoulou, “Drawing on Chance” (2003) (Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL; Supervisors: Professor Phil Tabor and Professor Jonathan Hill) In notable contrast, Yeoryia Manolopoulou’s thesis engages explicitly with the design processes that are used by architects in their work. It does this by examining the study and practice of chance in architecture. Hence it can legitimately claim to be the first-ever PhD study to theorize and critically frame the concept of chance from an architectural standpoint, and what Manolopoulou suggests thereby is a new area of knowledge in architecture that is able to acknowledge chance as a spatial concept of thought – and, to push things further, she also shows how it could be developed as a technique for design action in its own right. The interplay of necessity and chance is a fundamental aspect of the creative consciousness of the world and as such is a principal form of enquiry in philosophy, science and the arts. This makes it even more extraordinary that architecture, which directly exposes its artefacts to the indeterminacies of life and the human environment, has so little to say about its relation to chance. Manolopoulou points to the “aleatory” in the

122

Chapter Six

production of spaces and buildings, this term being defined by Lefebvre as the dialectical unity of the necessary and the accidental; as such, he regarded it as an essential characteristic of modernity. But this only makes it even more problematic that architects have resisted the acknowledgement of chance so persistently. Through their everyday interaction with chaos, buildings have rather silently inspired the development of chance-related theories and practices outside the disciplinary limits of architecture. But while artists have methodically recognized the value of chance within their work, especially after the advent of modernism in the twentieth century, architectural designers and theorists have tended to suppress the use of the concept. They have instead used other terms to describe the slippage. More productive would be if architecture could redefine its concerns about programme, form and occupation more radically through the study and use of design and chance as a dialectical relationship in architectural practice. If accidents are unavoidable in the way that we experience space, what could be a more creative role of the “aleatory” in architectural design? How can chance be acknowledged and even used within the drawing process? What can architects learn from art? Or to put it more simply, how can they develop design techniques and strategies that are open to embrace chance during the architectural process? Manolopoulou’s PhD by Design contains a rich textual and visual study of diverse and multidisciplinary examples, which aim to give a critical context for the study and use of chance within the architectural field. The strategies she discusses do not try to offer absolute models but instead suggest that designers ought to pursue a dual dialogue with chance, welcoming and resisting it at once. The thesis seeks to achieve three critical positions: a) to establish a new area of design research in architecture that systematically studies and develops the practice of chance through drawing, building and situated spatial action; b) to expand the scope of architectural research so that it reveals a bigger whole than the building, including the lived experience of space as affected by habits, rhythms and encounters; c) to develop a dialogic mode of design research that places the architect in a continual dialogue with other authors, other histories, disciplines and projects, such that this multiple dialogue is embodied in the making and concrete reality of the architectural project itself. Manolopoulou offers design work in two distinct project portfolios that deal with the themes of chance in perception and chance in design. In doing so, it identifies three major thematic of chance: impulsive, systematic and active. These “species of chance” are open to interaction and evolution> Indeed, as techniques they complement each other and

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design

123

favour collaboration with other working modes, and this is precisely what Manolopoulou demonstrates in her own design projects. “If chance influences the perception and use of architectural space, this thesis proposes that architecture should value the implications of chance in the process of design. It argues that while architects have dabbled in aleatory manoeuvres, mainly in order to defy the functionalism, rationalism and aesthetics of modernism, architecture can benefit from more radical abandonments to chance. Chance should be one of architecture's main drawing tools. Chance is mainly favoured as an apparatus that can disrupt determinism and suppress habitual working modes.... It should be explored in its own right. Chance can trigger the mechanisms of imagination in playful and collaborative ways, and release spontaneity, humour and surprise. It can extend rather than eliminate aspects of modernism … to the function, logic and aesthetics of indeterminacy. Whether or not architects intend it, architecture is a producer of design and chance and a product of both. All drawing involves chance, but it can never abolish chance. Chance will always evoke change affecting all architecture. To bring together the last and first lines of Mallarmé’s poem Un coup de dés: All Thought emits a Throw of the Dice [but] a throw of the dice will never abolish chance.”5

Fig 6.4. Site context analysis by Yeoryia Manolopoulou for the New York pier competition

124

Chapter Six

Figs 6.5 and 6.6. Design models for New York pier competition by Yeoryia Manolopoulou

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design

125

Yara Sharif, “Spaces of Possibility and Imagination within the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict” (2012) (University of Westminster, London, UK; Supervisors: Professor Murray Fraser, Dr John Bold and Samir Pandya) Yara Sharif’s astonishingly original thesis consists of an endeavour to investigate – via the mechanism of the PhD by Design – the relationship between architecture, politics and power by examining the way these factors interplay in relation to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. In this sense, Palestine is taken as a key testing ground for the intellectual inquiry into the very essence of architecture by looking at the spaces between people, lines, documents and maps for the meaning of architecture of resistance. Above all, Sharif searches in her thesis for potential spaces of possibilities that can empower a fragmented society and bridge the gap between the divided spaces, working against the deliberate Israeli project of marginalisation of Palestinian residents. Looking at everything that has already been discussed, proposed and imposed in relation to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it might well appear that there is nothing more left to be said. Sharif believes that we are now faced with two lopsided “entities” of Palestine and Israel that are superimposed onto one another; neither can be truly integrated, nor can they be separated. The outcome of the various political agreements, summits and talks from the Oslo Peace Agreement through to the “Road Map” to the Camp David, Washington and Sharm-Al-Sheikh Agreements has laid bare the failure of any prospect of finding a “just peace”. Rather, the result has only been to leave Palestinian people with endless maps, lines, boundaries and designated areas that mean nothing to their lives, apart from separating and fragmenting and destroying their social and physical space. The urban morphology of the land is thus being pushed to its extreme condition. As a result, Palestine today is left with an absent mental map, no longer making sense of where its spaces start or end. Stemming from the need for an alternative architectural discourse in such a problematic status, especially with the unbalanced economic and political forces which prevail, the aims of Sharif’s doctoral research is thus to explore and propose spatial possibilities through different means. She attempts to re-read the Palestinian landscape from a new perspective by stripping it of the dominant power of drawn lines – including any imagined ones – in order to expose the hidden dynamic topography born

126

Chapter Six

from social conditions. Her explicit aim is to redraw the other side of the Palestine/Israel conflict that has been ignored or overlooked by the dominant power structures. Looking at the dialogue of daily Palestinian resistance also shows that within the current Israeli policies of trying to harden the border zones, including the notorious Separation Wall, the quest for counter spaces is carving out new cultural and urban realities against the hegemonic forces of power. Perhaps the most outstanding outcomes of this reality are the everyday examples of Palestinian spatial resistance which are recasting the geo-political map by displaying creative tools that architecture and planning have so far failed to match. The emergence of small-scale Palestinian social and economic networks appears able to overcome and adapt to the difficult situation, and as a result they are also able to redefine, sometimes invisibly, the meaning of the built environment around them. These collective and informal networks/events are now also drawing up their own lines for a new kind of thinking within architecture. Ostensibly, their task is to subvert spaces of pure oppression and change them into spaces of play and creativity so that social life can be recuperated. What is so vital in Sharif’s PhD by Design research is her involvement with “live” design projects and site-specific interventions in various locations in the Palestinian West Bank, which together add a unique dimension to the design process. It also paves the way for imagining new possible moments of spatial stitching inspired and nourished by the matrix of informal Palestinian networks. Sharif intends her outcomes to provoke a deeper and more critical kind of architectural thinking which, in its explicit engagement with political and social realities, can, as I have suggested elsewhere, “move on from Koolhaas” and towards a more truly embedded critical architecture and design practice.6 “Lying between dream and realism, the series of design proposals need to be seen as moments of slow change for those who are currently unable to fit into the Palestinian/Israeli planet, and who have been forcefully removed from the front line of debate due to political realities. These moments are not meant to enforce themselves onto the map, or onto Palestinian people. Instead, they must be seen as spatial possibilities that are inspired and nourished by everyday social and political events The design interventions in the “live” project for Birzeit’s historic centre are intended to be subtle and indeed invisible. They are very much embedded within local practices and everyday life to create the social and spatial conditions which will allow local citizens to take over. Birzeit’s

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design regeneration is seen as a moment of reality that I started from and always returned to. On the other hand, the “Underground” and “Air” chapters offer a tactical critique of the current strategies of Israeli occupation, and indeed offer a sort of ironic and subversive form of reclamation. The two highly speculative design chapters – titled “Underground” and “Air” – place an emphasis on the need to step above and underneath the exhausted surface of Palestine to look for possibilities. Both chapters share Lefebvre’s quest for a counter-space and re-imagine the “play and creativity” of the ordinary while inhabiting and recasting space. By going underground, the design language can be seen as a form of confrontation. It addresses the “other” while by capturing, crushing and excavating their underground territory. This is why the existing machinery that is viciously taking over the Palestinian landscape – cranes, bulldozers, trucks, lifts, etc – are deliberately retained for my proposed interventions. Their familiar dystopian face is kept as a fake moment of normality, and is then masked by invisible tactics for healing. On the other hand, the “Air” with its bird machines is a process of “quiet encroachment” that should be seen as a collective ideology born from the sky.7

Fig 6.7. Proposal by Yara Sharif for “stitching the land”

127

128

Chapter Six

Figs 6.8 and 6.9. Design proposals for insertions in the Palestinian West Bank by Yara Sharif

Concluding comments These three examples of PhD by Design show in microcosm the different possibilities offered by this new doctoral format. Penelope Haralambidou’s thesis uses the design and spatial skills of the architect to

The New Paradigm: PhD by Design

129

rethink how artists conceive and create their artistic works, and how we in turn understand these artworks as viewers. In many regards it forms a parallel with Philip Steadman’s remarkable deconstruction of the studio practices of Jan Vermeer in his seminal book on Vermeer’s Camera.8 For an architect and writer such as Yeoryia Manolopoulou, however, the issue is much more about using the PhD by Design to question and expand the ways that architects design. If there is a greater acceptance of factors such as chance in architectural design, she suggests that more innovative and tantalising projects, such as demonstrated by her own portfolio, can result. Here study thus presents an open challenge to practicing architects. Even more provocatively, Yara Sharif suggests that architecture itself might well cease to exist in a volatile and highly charged condition such as is created by the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. In such an instance, it is not the architect, but the robust but invisible processes of Palestinian resistance to occupation which are driving the agenda. Architects in Palestine and elsewhere are hence forced not simply to augment their modes of practice, but to question what it is that they do. Of course there are myriad other subjects and approaches which can be studied in PhDs by Design, and the aim here is not to close things down but hopefully to open them up even more widely. What seems essential in this new paradigm is open-mindedness by architectural academics, while also insisting on adequate intellectual rigour in the process. Even more essential is the need to disseminate and discuss the results of the PhD by Design in countless schools across the world. With this point in mind, I have recently co-founded with my colleagues Jonathan Hill and Jane Rendell at the Bartlett School of Architecture, and also with Teddy Cruz of Estudio Teddy Cruz and the University of California at San Diego, the first book series on “Design Research in Architecture”. It is being run by Ashgate with the aim of publishing three or four new volumes within the field each year, with these individual books being drawn from scholars and practitioners across the globe – thereby also mixing up doctoral research with the kinds of design research that is created by architects through their daily practice. We have now published six books in the series, including those by Penelope Haralambidou and Yeoryia Manolopoulou based on their doctorates.9 For the series, I have also edited a book of essays on architectural design research by a wide range of international experts in the field, including Jonathan Hill and Leon van Schaik.10 My book sets a new standard for discussion about the subject. Once that even more examples of the incredible richness and purpose of PhDs by Design are publicly available for architects and scholars to read, then the benefits of this new paradigm of doctoral research will become ever more apparent. Indeed, the .

130

Chapter Six

PhD by Design represents the key innovation in architectural education for our times, and is the one we need to embrace wholeheartedly.

Notes 1. The Journal of Architecture, special issue on ‘Unthinkable Doctorates?’, vol.11 no.3, 2006, pp. 277-357. 2. Frayling, Christopher. ‘Research in Art and Design’, Royal College of Art Research Papers, vol. 1 no. 1, 1993/94, pp. 1-5; Downton, Peter. Design Research, Melbourne: RMIT, 2003. 3. Hill, Jonathan. Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users, London: Routledge, 2003 – see also, Hill, Jonathan. The Illegal Architect, London: Black Dog Publishing, 1998; Hill, Jonathan. Architecture: The Subject is Matter, London: Routledge, 2001. 4. Haralambidou, Penelope. ‘The Blossoming of Perspective: An Architectural Investigation of Spatial Representation’, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2003. 5. Manolopoulou, Yeoryia. ‘Drawing on Chance: Perception, Design and Indeterminacy’, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2005. 6. Fraser, Murray. ‘Beyond Koolhaas’, in Jane Rendell, Jonathan Hill, Murray Fraser and Mark Dorrian (eds.), Critical Architecture, London/New York: Routledge, 2007, pp. 332-337. 7. Sharif, Yara. ‘Spaces of Possibility and Imagination within the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict'’, PhD Thesis, University of Westminster, 2012. 8. Steadman, Philip. Vermeer’s Camera: Uncovering the truth behind the masterpieces, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 9. Haralambidou, Penelope. Marcel Duchamp and the Architecture of Desire, Farnham: Ashgate, 2013; Manolopoulou, Yeoryia, Architectures of Chance, Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. 10. Fraser, Murray (ed.), Architectural Design Research: An overview, Farnham, Ashgate, 2013.

Brief biography of author Murray Fraser is Professor of Architecture and Global Culture at the UCL Bartlett School of Architecture, London, UK, where he is also ViceDean for Research. He has published extensively on design, architectural history & theory, urbanism, and cultural studies. In 2008 his book, Architecture and the “Special Relationship” (Routledge), won a RIBA President’s Research Award as well as the CICA Bruno Zevi Book Prize. He is co-editor for a major book series on “Design Research in Architecture” (Ashgate). A qualified architect, he has jointly set up the Palestine Regeneration Team (PART). He also chairs the RIBA’s Research and Innovation Group. [email protected]

CHAPTER SEVEN STATISTICAL FACTS RELATED TO THE DOCTORATES FROM “ION MINCU” UNIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM STEFAN SIMION

This chapter proposes a statistical overview of the Doctorate Theses from “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism of Bucharest (UAUIM). In the first part, the academic context is presented by referring to the published historical and administrative information on the University’s web site. As a frame for the proposed statistics, here are cited the principles, problems and intentions of the Doctoral School of UAUIM as they appeared in 2009. In the second part of this survey, the statistics and their sources and criteria are presented. The third and final part points out some brief conclusions.

Context. A Short Presentation of UAUIM and of its Doctoral School In the context of the new higher educational system undertaken as a consequence of the Bologna Declaration of 1999, the entire Romanian architectural education process has changed and is now subject to different debates and contradictory points of view. The concept of the doctorate itself is being reevaluated while trying to adjust the stated principles in European and Romanian higher education (in architecture) one to another. This process takes place against the background of the contemporary cohabitation of three interrelated entities: the academia, the profession, and the society. While academic freedom has to be maintained, it is obvious that raising the necessary funds for a doctoral school has become not only a stringent

132

Chapter Seven

necessity, but also a quality indicator. In this context, the key concept which seems to accord the three above mentioned entities, is research by design. Such a doctorate could at the same time meet the academic and the professional requirements while responding to the society’s demands. The interdisciplinary characteristic of a research, reflects this contemporary condition of the tripartite background. Yet, the tighter the relationship between academia, profession, and society should grow, academia has to remain objective and somehow exterior to the ongoing world, as a critical presence able to provide valuable judgments. This inquiry takes the form of a statistical report of the recorded doctorates that have been awarded by UAUIM. It is conducted in the light of the above mentioned contemporary issues of the doctorate in architecture. Numbers can deceive, but taken with precaution, they can be useful in different and unexpected contexts. Universities from Europe, America and Asia are in the process of gathering up this kind of statistical data in order to provide a common informational platform regarding the doctoral schools. It is considered that quantitative information is necessary in order to be able to decide on future actions and developments of the doctoral schools. UAUIM is deeply interested in the future of postgraduate studies. For example, UAUIM has recently been invited to the workshop on “Doctoral Education in Architecture” which took place on 28-29 November 2011 in Istanbul. Universities from Europe and Turkey were invited to present statistical data regarding their doctoral schools.

“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Historical Facts UAUIM is the oldest and most important academic institution in architecture and urbanism in Romania. Its tradition comprises an entire series of architectural schools closely linked to the rise of modern Romania. In this context, during the second half of the 19th century new institutional and cultural structures emerged. There have been nine changes in name, type and structure of the Educational Unit. In 1864 the first form of architectural education was established as a part of the School of Bridges and Roads, Mines and Architecture. In 1892 the Romanian Society of Architects set up a private school of architecture under its authority. In 1897, under the effect of the Education Reform, the private school became the National School of Architecture and was financed by the Government as a part of the School of Fine Arts. In 1904 it gained its independence as an institution and was renamed the Higher School of Architecture. In 1931 the School was

Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University 133

renamed the Academy of Architecture. In 1938 the Academy of Architecture was integrated into the Polytechnic School of Bucharest, under the name of the Faculty of Architecture. Between 1943 and 1948 there was a special program dedicated to the study of urbanism. In 1948 the Faculty of Architecture became independent again under a new name the Institute of Architecture. After a brief period of autonomy, it becomes again Faculty of Architecture as a part of the newly created Civil Engineering Institute. In 1952 the Faculty became independent again, returning to the name of the Institute of Architecture. In 1953, based on a decree, the Institute was named after Ion Mincu. In 2000 the name was changed to “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, which is still the current official denomination. This change reflects the broadening of the educational offer after 1990, as two new Faculties were added to the old Faculty of Architecture in the last decades: the Faculty of Urbanism in 1997 and the Faculty of Interior Design in 2003, each of them offering several degree programs.’ 1

Department of Advanced Studies The department is open to graduates in Architecture, Urbanism, liberal arts, and other connected fields, according to the curriculum of each program. The subjects to be studied cover different professional, administrative, cultural and social aims and needs. Today, the PhD is an important requirement for the teaching staff in UAUIM. One can become lecturer only if he/she is accepted as a PhD student but he/she has to obtain this diploma in order to be fully accepted on the job. For higher university titles the PhD is compulsory. In this regard, most of the programs are focused on the theoretical approach. There are also practice-related topics, such as those concerning urban management, restoration and preservation, management of the historical heritage. These topics are closely related to the local context. As a consequence, several programs have a more pragmatic focus toward the main topical problems in the Romanian society. In this logic, Bucharest is an excellent study case and in recent years it has been used as a "laboratory" for design and research in courses and projects. The intentions of the department are articulated through several types of programs: Advanced Architectural Design Programs (AADP), Postgraduate Study Programs (MAP or PGSP), Doctoral studies (DS), and Training courses.

134

Chapter Seven

Recent History in Doctoral studies Organization The doctoral studies conducted in UAUIM approached several research areas in the fields of Architecture (Architectural Theory, History of Architecture, Architectural Critics, Architectural Technology, etc), Interior Architecture and Urban Planning. A specific distinction in the doctorate title was not always stated by law. The recent history can be summed up by citing a few important facts and rules of an administrative nature. The following periods are determined by the changes of the education law. Before 1989 (from approximately 1980). The topics were imposed by the ministry. The individual research was guided by a supervisor. A public presentation of the thesis was required. 1989 - 2004. Topics could be freely chosen by the doctoral student. The individual research was guided by a supervisor with several intermediate exams and papers. A public presentation of the thesis was compulsory, after a period of 4 - 8 years of study allowed by law. 2005 - 2011: Topics could be freely chosen by the doctoral student. Three semesters of the so-called doctoral school (compulsory lectures, colloquiums, exams) and 5 semesters of individual research with at least 5 papers, guided by a supervisor. A public presentation of the thesis was required, after a period of 4 - 6 years of study allowed by law. 2011 - future: The doctoral student can freely choose a topic from those indicated by the supervisor. He will be guided by a research team (the supervisor and two other researchers). The doctoral school becomes optional, lasting a maximum of three months and without exams. The student has to submit a research report any maximum 12 months. A public presentation of the thesis is required after a period of 3-5 years of research allowed by law. Some other requests may be introduced within the reorganization process (August 2011 - August 2012).

Doctoral School ‘Space, Image, Text, Territory’ 2005-2011 Principles The stated principles of the doctoral school address the research process understood as a way of investing in the student (as a future active member of the academic society) and the output (the actual thesis): 1. Conceiving and organizing an original research project. 2. Focus on adequate research methods. 3. Interdisciplinary. 4. Quality of communication of the doctoral thesis.

Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University 135

Context The International context is defined by the Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. The National context is defined by the Government Decision issued according to the proposal of the Ministry of Education. There is also a Local context, within the university. The Doctoral School is named Space, Image, Text, Territory (SD-SITT) and is organized by the Consortium between the University Bucharest and UAUIM. The two universities are represented by the Center of Excellence in the Image Study (CESI) for the former, and by the Department of Advanced Studies (DSA) for the latter. This Consortium is completed by the Center of Hermeneutics (CH), the Philosophy Faculty (FF) from the University ‘Al.I. Cuza’ from Iasi. The Consortium has a partnership treaty with Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane (SUM) located in Firenze, and especially with Università di Siena (US), the latter being a part of SUM. All these institutions have the ability of hosting doctoral studies in Romania, respectively in Italy. Doctoral School Organization SD-SITT is run by a scientific Committee, an Executive Office composed by three members CESI and three members DSA, one president of the Scientific Council, one director and a scientific secretary that are assisted by two secretaries for the administration and two experts IT (for CESI and DSA). Studies Structure The studies are structured in two important parts: Advanced University Training Program - 3 semesters; and Scientific Research Program - 5 semesters (UAUIM) - actual work on the doctoral thesis. Priority research directions at SD-SITT are the followings: The priority research directions at CESI are: 1.Space, text and image: space and image in text, text and narrative in images and public space; 2.Different image types: visual, audio-visual and mental; 3.Image, imaginary and society; 4.The philosophy and semiotics of space and of the image, their ethics and esthetics; 5.Art and power: reflexes and reflections in texts and images; 6.Cultural, national, group identities through text and image; 7.Communication through texts and communication through images; 8.Social and institutional visibility in the urban and rural worlds; 9.Visual culture – studies on the relationships between space, text and

136

Chapter Seven

image – in diverse historical periods and its way of defining certain mentality types. The priority of research directions at DSA are, in the case of Architecture: 1. History and conservation of monuments (restoration); 2. Theory; 3. Building’s architecture; 4. Interior architecture and design; 5. Architectural technology. The priority of research directions at DSA are, in the case of Urban Planning: 1. Spatial planning and regional development; 2. Environment and landscape design; 3. Urban politics. There are also the following three specific subjects: 1. The architecture (cult/ vernacular) and the urban planning in Romania within the European context, from theoretical, historical and interdisciplinary perspectives; corollary: Bucharest – urban and architectural form. 2. Contemporary habitation (especially those social, economic and sustainable, emergency architecture). 3. Sacred Byzantine space and the cult architecture (through different space perspectives: historical, contemporary, interdisciplinary and ecumenical).

Regarding the Future There are two kinds of problems that need to be addressed in the near future by the Doctoral School from UAUIM: contextual problems and actual, specific issues that necessitate nuanced analyses and interior debates. Both types of problems require a vision of how and where the Doctoral School and UAUIM want to position themselves in the future. Contextual Problems focus on rethinking the Architectural Doctorate by taking into account three essential factors: the new legislation provided by the Ministry of Education; The Bologna set of values; new requirements by the contemporary society, academic and nonacademic. The central particular issues in this category could be summed up as follows: 1.after Bologna, it has been agreed on that the Doctoral School is the essential part which could confer an academic identity to the entire University to which it belongs; 2.in the contemporary world, the Doctoral School is used as a fundamental tool in positioning the University in the context of different markets. This is a very controversial fact because it raises the question of academic autonomy. The values that inform the inner structure of the university tend to be forgotten in the light of the logic of the different markets in which the University becomes an actor. The interior debates address the following subjects: the Interdisciplinary character of the conducted Research; the new generations of Academic Research that fulfill the spirit of an Architectural Doctorate; the methods of Quality-Control of the Doctoral Thesis; the mobility of the doctoral

Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University 137

Students and Professors; the relationship between doctoral programs and professional (outside academia) world; defining the PhD by Design into the architectural context and into the Romanian context.

Statistics The following statistics have two main documentary sources: the Doctoral School Register and ‘PhD Theses Repertoire entered in the UAUIM Library until 01.10.2005’ as published in the ‘Informative Bulletin of the Library nr.2/2005’. The information presented here contains: Name of the Doctor; the order number of Doctorate; Title of the Thesis; Year of thesis presentation; Number of pages (only in library repertoire); Nationality (only in the doctoral school register). The next categories are based on this information. In November 2011 the Doctoral School counted 144 PhD students with compulsory attendance: 97 tuition free students, 47 paying students; and 200 PhD students with non-compulsory attendance: 61 tuition free students, 139 paying students; 26 doctoral advisors. For the academic study year 2011 - 2012, the tuition was 3000 lei (the approximate equivalent of 690 Euros). 1. Total number of Doctoral Degrees issued and numbered by UAUIM by 2011: 375 2. Number of Doctoral Theses submitted to the Library of UAUIM: 373 3. First recorded Doctorate: #9. Horia Maicu: “The Basics of Architectural Composition”, 1962, 105 p. Among the 10 first recorded doctorates in UAUIM2: #1. M. Enescu: “The Architecture and the Industry of Tomorrow”, academic advisor prof. arch. I.Adler; #2. Assist.-prof. eng. C. Pestisanu: “Basic criteria regarding designing and dimensioning the higher education units”; #3. Arch. Dinu Theodorescu: “Archaic Greek Architecture in Histria and its relation to the Aegean basin”, Bucharest 1968, academic advisor prof. arch. Grigore Ionescu; #4. Assist.-prof. arch. Aurelian Tanasescu: “Contributions to the study of representational systems with applications in architecture and constructions”, Bucharest 1969, academic advisor prof. arch. Horia Maicu; #9. prof. arch. Horia Maicu: “The Basics of Architectural Composition” 3; #10. arch. Mihai Enescu: “Increasing the functional efficiency and social aspects of the contemporary hospital”, academic advisor prof. arch. Octav Doicescu.

138

Chapter Seven

4. Gender repartition: Female: 118; Male: 255.

5. Student Nationality: Romanian: 302; European: 10 (France: 1, Italy: 5, Moldavia: 2, Russia: 1, Yugoslavia: 1); Asian: 59 (R.P.R. Guinea: 1, Iraq: 28, Jordan: 5, Lebanon: 1, Mongolia: 1, Pakistan: 1, Palestine: 1, Syria: 2, United Arab Emirates: 4, Vietnam: 6, Yemen: 2); African: 8 (Algeria: 1, Egypt: 7); South American: 1 (Ecuador: 1).

6. Language of the Doctoral Thesis. It is assumed here, that the used language of doctoral thesis is the same as the one used for the official transmitted title: Romanian: 360, French: 3, English: 5, Italian: 5.

Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University 139

7. Decade repartition of Doctoral Degrees: before 1970: 18; 1971-1980: 46; 1981-1990: 42; 1991-2000: 87; 2001-2011: 180.

8. Quantitative criteria – number of pages of the Thesis (until 2005, from a total of 234 theses): under 50 pages: 2; between 51 and 100 pages: 5; between 101 and 200 pages: 103; between 201 and 300 pages: 86; between 301 and 500 pages: 33; under 1000 pages: 5.

9. Field repartition: Architecture: 273; Urbanism: 87; Design: 13

140

Chapter Seven

10. Interdisciplinary Criteria (it has been considered that if the title announces or implies at least one confrontation between the studied discipline and another one, than the paper has an interdisciplinary nature): Interdisciplinary character: 220; Isolated discipline character: 144.

11. Subject definition 4: Clearly defined area of research: 104; Vaguely defined area of research: 128; Non-defined area of research: 134.

12. Subject typology: Functional criteria: 145 (Residential buildings: 47, Cultural centers: 17, Educational buildings: 16, Sport buildings: 4, Sanitary/Health buildings: 4, Tourism architecture: 13, Offices: 5, Religious architecture: 12, Industrial architecture and Infrastructure: 12, Others: 15); Urbanism and Landscape: 50; Theory and History: 101; Rehabilitation and Heritage: 14; Decoration and Design: 7; Construction methods and Technical material aspects of architecture: 26; the impact of Digital/ Virtual world and the new Media on architecture: 12; Monographic theses: 2.

Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University 141

Conclusion It can be observed that the Romanian Revolution from 1989 was deeply felt in the academic environment at the organizational level. The number of awarded doctorates doubled in the next decade. In this immediate period following these radical social and political changes, many students signed up to study and to obtain their doctorates, but many did not finish until the next decade (2000-2010). In this last period the number of awarded doctorates practically tripled. UAUIM’s academic environment was always in close contact with the research values of Western Europe, but without adopting them in their spirit immediately - a more formal approach taking place. While most of the conducted research has a significant interdisciplinary character, a wide area of interest, and a close attention to society’s needs, only a third of the awarded doctorates present a clearly defined area of research. This fact shows that the methodology involved has not been highly valued. As a general recommendation, this survey raises the questions of methodology and of the quality of the output, evaluated in close connection to its sources and the ways of putting them together. In the light of contemporary debates on the questions related to doctorates in architecture, these statistics should be read in conjunction with the local history and, more specifically, in relation to two local particularities: 1. The doctorate has always been a prerequisite for any architect who wanted to be part of the pedagogical system. In the 1960’s, when the first doctorates were awarded, the Ministry of Education was the one that demanded that teachers should become doctors. This fact was not received with enthusiasm by most of the architects that used to teach in the university at that time. Some of them did not even want to comply with this ministry requirement. This ambivalent attitude has stayed within the spirit of the doctorate in architecture in UAUIM through the present day.

142

Chapter Seven

A clear research tradition does not exist, even though some isolated, but extremely valuable, researchers in the fields of architecture and urbanism have produced several excellent works. Recent years have proven a clear change of the trends in this regard. 2. In the last decades of the past century, the degree of the doctorate in architecture was supposedly attributed to already established professors and teachers that had already reached a certain maturity in the profession. This distorted perception had several implications. The most eloquent example is that the doctorate could take the form of a personal and subjective meditation. The objective nature of the study did not represent a central issue in structuring the doctoral thesis which was not mainly understood as a research that implies a certain methodology and a certain theoretical discourse. These two aspects could not be challenged until the 1989 Romanian Revolution, after which the academic society opened up toward contemporary debates. From this moment on, things began to change and in the last ten years there have been clear signs that a certain academic society has formed. UAUIM should fight the misunderstandings of the notion of doctorate and think of a strategy to try to make the future doctoral students understand what real contemporary research consists of, before they enroll in the doctorate program. Another important issue is that the doctorate should be able to emancipate itself from the restrictive notion of being a demanded requirement by the ministry, in order to be a part of the higher architectural education. Finally, the doctorate shouldn’t be conceived independently of its environment: the Doctoral School and the University of Architecture itself. The focus should be centered on the correlated different works (theses) and on confronting different ideas, rather than on isolated research. In the end, what is very important today is to continue searching for two things applied directly to the local Romanian context of UAUIM: 1. a possible theory of the doctorate in architecture; 2. a vision of the possible practical use of an architectural doctorate in Romania. Only after having accomplished these two steps, could our architectural academia properly evaluate its relations to the profession and to contemporary society.

Bibliography Informative Bulletin of the Library nr.2/2005 http://www.uauim.ro/universitatea/ The Government Decision issued according to the proposal of the Ministry of Education (published in the Official Gazette in August the 3rd 2011)

Statistical Facts Related to the Doctorates from “Ion Mincu” University 143 Official Regulations of DSA for the interval 2007-2011 Official Statistics issued by DSA for the interval 2005-2010

Notes 1. See http://www.uauim.ro/universitatea/ 2. The data listed here respects the information written on the original manuscripts of the doctorates (as they were kept in the library of the UAUIM) - such as: name of the doctoral student, academic advisor, title of the work, year of graduation, etc. The numbers of the doctorates were given by UAUIM and they are listed in the library as such. The doctorates registered under the numbers #5, #6, #7, #8 were awarded in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich in 1966 and 1967 to foreign doctoral students and also accepted in Bucharest and are not relevant to the general research area in Bucharest at that time. 3. The awarding year 1962 is only mentioned in the Informative Bulletin of the Library nr.2/2005 and could not be confirmed. 4. The area of research could be defined using a functional criteria, a time span, a geographical area, a specific entity, such as city, architect, theoretical or historical notion, etc.; if the title announces or implies three of the above mentioned criteria, than the paper is to be placed in the ‘clearly defined area of research’.

Brief biography of author Stefan Simion is Lecturer at the “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania. He had teaching experiences at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in 2014 and at Pratt Institute of New York in 2011. As a laureate of the SCIEX award attributed by the The Rectors' Conference of the Swiss Universities, he has conducted a post-doctoral research on the work of Livio Vacchini during the academic year 2013-2014 in EPFL (www.liviovacchini.ch). He was speaker in international conferences in Bucharest, Thessaloniki and Istanbul. As an architect he is founding partner of the architectural office “Poster” (www.theposter.ro). He has won national prizes for several built works. [email protected]

CHAPTER EIGHT POTENTIALS AND DIFFICULTIES: THE CSONKA PÁL DOCTORAL SCHOOL, FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS KATALIN MARÓTZY

1. Regulations of doctoral schools and of obtaining degrees in Hungary 1.1. Legal background, university regulations, system of school provisions In Hungary, the operation of doctoral schools is determined by acts and regulations that are built on each other in hierarchy. The highest level is the Higher Education Act, on basis of that the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) adjudicates the different decree, which are effective for all higher educational institutions being run in the country. Within the frames defined this way, universities can set up their own regulation too; and on the lowest level, the different faculties may form the special casemaps valid for their own field in terms of the degree obtaining and the operational order of the doctoral school.

1.2. Foundations and operation of schools According to the prevailing1 Act on Higher Education an institution has the right to give any academic degree (PhD or DLA), if it ran a doctoral school as well. In founding a doctoral school, for the given higher educational institute it is absolute essential to be entitled to launch BsC

Potentials and Difficulties

145

and MsC or one-cycle, five year MA course in its specialty; which means that for starting the post-gradual level all levels of higher education have to be operable from the bases. Beyond the existence of the educational structure, it is also important to provide a level of academic potential high enough for the doctoral training. At present, for the establishment and the operation all doctoral schools have to provide at least 7 permanent members – so called regular members -, who have a high standard, continuous publication activity in the given academic field and whose supervisor suitability is proven by at least one postgraduate student of their – obtaining PhD or DLA degree. At least half of the members have to be academic teachers and the doctors of Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS)2. The foundation of their own doctoral school might be said a vital interest for universities since for running the BsC and MsC courses continuously, a certain number of lecturers with degree is required. The quite high number of courses – either basic or post-gradual – launched in the same professional field has resulted in a kind of competition, where efficiency is measured by the number and talent of the admittable students.3 It plays an important role in this process that the financing of the institutions is primarily determined by the number of the admittable students.

1.3. Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC), Hungarian Doctoral Council (HDC) The quality control process of the higher educational content is done by HAC with the frequency of some years according to the educational forms. In case of doctoral schools, the quality control surface is the data base maintained by HDC, which can be found on the URL: www. doktori.hu, partly in English too. Here all doctoral schools are listed (curricula, quality assurance and bylaws), personal data sheet of regular members, supervisors and lecturers (academic degree, university status, graduated PHD or DLA students, 10 important publications), and the currently announced research topics for the students.

2. The specialties of Budapest University of Technology and Economics 4 (BME) BME is a university basically focusing on technical fields, its 8 faculties represent particularly the education of technical sciences: 5 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty

146

Chapter Eight

of Architecture, Faculty of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Faculty of Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences. In the set up of university's own bylaws, a special attention was paid for the high standard of academic quality, thus regarding the operation of doctoral schools and the degree obtaining the bylaws contain stricter conditions than the higher regulations.

3. Two doctoral schools at the Faculty of Architecture 6 Among the departments of BME – regarding the number of lecturers and students – the smallest one is the Faculty of Architecture. 7 The undergraduate education provides artistic and technical training at the same time, the two groups of subjects – with some slight differences by specializations – have the same importance. The courses are kept by departments of completely different characters: Department of Architectural Representation, Department for History of Architecture and of Monuments, Department of Design, Department of Building Energetics and Service System, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Department of Building Constructions, Department of Mechanics, Materials and Structures, Department of Industrial and Agricultural Building Design, Department of Public Building Design, Department of Residential Building Design, Department of Urban Design. As it might be evident from the list, the professional activity beyond the education has three basic types: artist-designer, functional technical and theoretical academic. Accordingly, the research works can also be divided to several types; beside the 'heavy technical' sciences like statics, mechanics or energetics also the disciplines adapting the approach of 'liberal arts' too – like history of architecture, architectural theory or urbanism - are strong enough. The Faculty of Architecture tries to cover this diversity by running two doctoral schools in parallel The Doctoral School of Architecture – issuing DLA degree – approaches architecture from a creative, artistic direction. In the process of DLA degree the masterpiece – a completed work – has high importance beside the written work. At the Faculty of Architecture, PhD training is provided by the Csonka Pál Doctoral School where a wide variety of fields is represented but the criteria of theoretical academism are handled uniformly.

Potentials and Difficulties

147

4. The specialties of the Csonka Pál Doctoral School8 4.1 The educational concept of the Csonka Pál Doctoral School The education at our Doctoral School covers a wide range of architectural sciences from the theoretical issues of statics to the historical type of researches. During the decade long operation, our training program has been developed through continuous monitoring and adjustments. Taking into consideration the specialties of the given scientific field and the diversified topics of the different areas of research – our curricula pays special attention to provide a base for the acquirement of the needed knowledge in a way customized to the students' single themes. The goal of the training program is to enable the students to prepare their dissertation at a high standard and to meet the publication requirements needed for the degree obtaining. The most important part of the doctoral course is the research work done in the topics announced by the supervisors of the Doctoral School. One and only supervisor belongs to all student; and with all his/her responsibility he/she directs and helps the studies, research work and preparation for the degree obtaining of the student working on the issue. The announced research themes are accredited by the Board of the Doctoral School (DIT) in every year during the spring semester. After the anonymous consideration, in the accreditation process the concreteness of the research topic is taken into consideration – whether it can be prepared within a reasonable time or not –, as well as the chance for the research results' to be published and the professional potential of the supervisor. The productive supervisors are allowed to undertake the supervision of maximum three students. The school evaluates the research work of the students with credit points in the academic record book under the title 'Research work' and 'Publication'. The content evaluation is based on the work plans, research reports and idea papers presented during the semesters. During the doctoral studies, in the first four semesters the students have to accomplish compulsory, optional and language subjects according to the sample curricula. The compulsory subjects are courses, which give basic knowledge helping all students in their research work and in the preparation of their thesis paper. The more flexible system of optional subjects is built on the compulsory subjects. The Csonka Pál Doctoral School, in collaboration with the Doctoral School of Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture – which helps its students in obtaining the DLA degree – announces optional subjects in its own organization. Beside the

148

Chapter Eight

subjects in own organization, with the support of their supervisor the students have the possibility of choosing other optional subjects that fit their research topic. These subjects may belong to the MsC or specialist courses of the Faculty of Architecture, if the student has not accomplished them before; or they can choose other courses as well from the trainings of other Faculties or from MsC or PhD courses of other higher educational institutes. Taking these kinds of optional courses are always uniquely considered by the school, examining the conformity of the subject and the research topic. On the basis of the above, the students always go through a customized, single process of education, where the primary control is provided by the guidance of the supervisor superintended by DIT.

4.2. Small faculty, small school Making possible the above introduced training method, which is customized nearly for all students, is reasonable not only for the diversity of the scientific fields9 but also for the small size of the school itself. 4-7 students per year are passed in, their total number is usually not more than 20, and presently the students are working with topics announced by 16 supervisors.

5. Specific conditions for obtaining the degree – the steps of CsPDI The criteria system of obtaining the PhD degree has already been mentioned many times above. According to the current rules, PhD degree can be obtained at BME with a positively considered, publicly defended thesis work and with a publication activity of high standard. The completion of the school is not a condition of obtaining the degree. In 2009, the publication requirements significantly changed at BME, since then a proofread article written in foreign language, accepted or published by a periodical recorded in the database of Scopus, Web of Science, ASCE or ICONDA is a must for obtaining the degree. This condition, though not without difficulty, may be met in case of technical topics that are of global interest. At the same time the more local academic fields – preparing specifically Hungarian themes – are in trouble with meeting this requirement. On one hand the specifically Hungarian themes – regardless of their standard – are less interesting for international periodicals, on the other hand these fields are in 'historical arrears'. After the Hungarian regime change in 1989 the representatives of the different

Potentials and Difficulties

149

academic fields have started to search for international relationships with different intensity, and formed their publication practice accordingly. The changes in the regulations of degree obtaining – the external compulsion for international assessment – hopefully will have influence on the entire publication activity of some departments. The Csonka Pál Doctoral School is able to control this process with the accreditation of the topic announcements and can preclude the start of such research programs where either the lack of the supervisor's personal competence or the lack of international interest in the scientific field would hinder the student in obtaining the PhD degree.

6. Obtaining the degree and career development model Usually, students apply for our Doctoral School right after completing their undergraduate studies. The best applicants can take part in education with scholarship, the amount of which covers a modest cost of living. According to the experiences gained by now, if the student is not supported with scholarship – or his/her department cannot provide him/her with regular monthly allowance from other sources – the degree obtaining efforts will fail. In Hungary, in the field of architectural sciences, there is no significant industrial interest in researches, thus besides state financing, the tender funds of other research projects may be involved in order to support the PhD students. Our doctoral school has a two-decade long history; in the first period applying for this education was typically equivalent with the start of the university career. The students were socialized into the university world in parallel with the start of their doctoral research work; they were involved in the education and the projects of our department. At the same time, this naturally meant that the period of doing researches and obtaining the degree was extended. The Doctoral School tried to have influence on this rather negative process by restricting the lecturer activity of the students and assisting the supervisors who were strongly motivated in scientific researches. Meanwhile, the university statuses have been gradually filled and in parallel the requirements of degree obtaining have become more difficult to meet which forced the doctoral school to concentrate on obtaining PhD degree as a first priority. This process is strengthened by the method of distributing the scholarships in the system of state financing in relation with the efficiency of the degree obtaining, in this way doctoral schools are motivated for making arrangements needed for the success. Despite the statistical uncertainties arising from the small size of the

150

Chapter Eight

school and the slowness of the procedures, the improvement in efficiency is already traceable. In the last decade, students have completed the educational program of the school during 7 semesters on the average; the 6 semester long course defined by the sample curricula is typically prolonged due to maternity leave or scholarships spent abroad. In the last 10 years, the average time of obtaining the degree has been 6,5 years, which is a relevant improvement compared to the previous average number of 10,5 years. The rate of students getting out of the training – the ones who failed both in the course and in obtaining the degree – is around 24% at present in contrast with the previous 65%. This development, which can be observed in the better thesis works, publications and numbers as well, is overshadowed by the doctoral degree's worthlessness on the labor market. Though PhD degree is a basic requirement in filling the higher educational statuses, it is not a demanded or respected factor in architectural jobs offered by market participants. This will conceivably lead to the significant setback in the students' attendance in the doctoral school.

Notes 1 At time of the essay's preparation the new higher educational concept of the government is under preparation. 2 http://mta.hu/english/ 3 In Hungary, the number of students who can be accepted for state-financed status at the different faculties is determined by the assigned ministry in every year on the bases of different index numbers. The 'quality' expectation of the students is suggested by the points they have achieved during the entrance examination process. 4 http://english.www.bme.hu/ 5 In order of the faculties' establishment 6 http://www.epitesz.bme.hu/english/ 7 Number of lecturers in 2011 is 180, the students are around 1800, while these numbers are approximately 2000 and 20000 for the whole university. 8 http://www.szt.bme.hu/doktori/ 9 Some examples of the wide range of the research activities done at the faculty: Gömböc http://www.gomboc.eu/en/ Fiber Reinforced (Composite) Beams and Columns http://doktori.bme.hu/bme_palyazat/kutato_muhely/kompozit/kompozit_en/index.h tml Historic building archeology workshop http://doktori.bme.hu/bme_palyazat/2011/tudomanyos_muhely/Torteneti_epuletku tato_muhely_en.htm

Potentials and Difficulties

151

Brief biography of author Katalin Marótzy (PhD) is senior lecturer at the Department of History of Architecture and Monuments, Faculty of Architecture, Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Special research fields: architecture history of 19th century in Hungary, architectural literature of the 19th century, building survey (Bauforschung). 2004-2013 Scientific secretary of Csonka Pál Doctoral School, 2008- Scientific secretary of Habilitation Comittee and Doctoral Council at the Faculty of Architecture. [email protected]

CHAPTER NINE (RE)SEARCHING DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI VILMA HASTAOGLOU-MARTINIDIS, GEORGE PAPAKOSTAS AND CONSTANTIN SPYRIDONIDIS

Founded in 1956 the School of Architecture offers a 5-year integrated First-and-Second-Cycle program leading to the degree of Architecture, equivalent to a Masters Degree. The number of active students is 936 out of a total of 1,160 registered students. The number of Faculty members presently (2012) accounts to 56. The School has three cross-disciplinary Postgraduate Programs, of a 3semester duration each, which award Postgraduate Diplomas of Specialisation: 1. Preservation, Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Monuments (jointly with all Schools of the Faculty of Engineering, A.U.Th.), 2. Landscape Architecture (jointly with Agriculture School, A.U.Th.), 3. Museology (jointly with the School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Pre-school Education, A.U.Th., as well as the School of Primary Education, University of Western Macedonia). The School of Architecture has a Doctoral Program, of a 3 to 6 year duration leading to a doctoral degree. Doctoral research in the School of Architecture of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki is being carried out since the 1960s, soon after the foundation of the School. Following the views and the dynamics of the international debate, practice and experience, the School approached a significantly broad spectrum of research topics and methodologies. This research is attached to a variety of disciplines and knowledge fields considered as adequate to offer a better insight into architecture as a way of thinking and creating space to be lived, experienced and appropriated.

(Re)searching Doctoral Education in the School of Architecture

153

Besides doctoral research, in the last 20 years the School of Architecture has been actively engaged in applied research, carrying out more than 100 projects, funded by national and international organizations, and the EU. Though this activity is not formally attached to the Doctoral Program, many doctoral candidates are involved in these projects. Furthermore, we need to highlight an important aspect of our Doctoral program, which concerns the involvement of doctoral students to the teaching activity of the School. According to University Regulations, doctoral students may get a stipendiary position in the teaching activity of their School. For instance, in the first semester of the academic year 20102011, 20 of our doctoral students had participated in the teaching of various courses in our School. Being part of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the largest of the country with 12 Faculties and 37 Schools covering all scientific disciplines, and with a total of 80,000 students, the School of Architecture is unvaryingly subjected to the laws and regulations valid for the entire university. This fact, together with the official qualification of Architecture (along with the Arts) as an academic discipline where the elaboration of a doctoral dissertation is considered “rare or uncommon” (as compared to the exact and theoretical sciences, such as Physics, Law, etc.), has created over time an ambiguity as to the specifications of our doctoral program.i We will return to this point later, when discussing the length / duration of doctoral studies.

The procedure and the structure of the Doctoral Program The Doctoral Program of our School is a research-based program with no core course requirements. In that respect, there are no ECTS or other similar credit-units system applied in the Doctoral program as carried out to date. The official procedure for the admission and the elaboration of Doctoral Dissertations is subjected to the general law for the universities and to the A.U.Th., Regulation for the Doctoral Studies, enacted in 2000. In accordance with the above, the School of Architecture since 2004 enacted its own Internal Regulation for Doctoral Studies,ii which specifies the following procedural steps: I. Candidate evaluation and approval Candidates’ qualifications are a degree of Architecture or of relevant discipline, a post-graduate degree or publications on the thematic field, or a documented research activity. Candidates submit their applications –with their qualifications– to the Postgraduate Studies Committee (P.G.S.C.) of

154

Chapter Nine

the School, and identify their topic and supervising professor. Proposed supervisors have to submit to the P.G.S.C. a recommendation letter recounting the candidate and the thematic area for the PhD dissertation. The P.G.S.C. submits a statement of whether the candidate is accepted or not to the Supervisor’s Department. The proposed dissertation is then reviewed by the Department’s faculty assembly who recommend two more members for the Advisory Board of the Dissertation (A.B.D.). The dossier is subsequently forwarded to the School’s Board, and the Board sends their recommendations to the School’s General Assembly for acceptance. All necessary legal documents, after having been verified by the School’s Secretariat, are subsequently submitted to the Supervisor’s Department and the School Assembly for official registration. II. Elaboration and Completion Once the candidate is accepted and the A.B.D. has been established, the candidates have a period of 3 years minimum to 6 years maximum to complete their work. An additional year may be only granted after a fullyjustified proposal by the A.B.D. The A.B.D. in cooperation with the candidate defines the topic/title of the dissertation. Within six months after the admission, candidates must present their dissertation proposal, i.e. a detailed research plan including a literature review, objectives, methodology and timetable to the A.B.D. in a session open to all faculty members and postgraduate students. The A.B.D. supervises the work at all stages. Candidates must present an annual work report to the A.B.D., who will further submit its well-documented annual reports of progress to the P.G.S.C. Secretariat. III. Examination – Evaluation Candidates will write their doctoral dissertation only after the ABD has granted their consent. The final draft of the dissertation, accompanied by the A.B.D. concluding report is submitted to the Head of the School. An Examination Committee (Jury) consisting of seven members is appointed by the Special School Assembly (4 external faculty members, 4 of them full professors). Within two months after its appointment, the Jury schedules the defence of the dissertation. Candidates must give an oral presentation of their dissertation within 45 minutes, after which the Jury poses questions to the candidates. Subsequently the Jury formulates the final decision in a closed session. The Jury assesses the degree of originality and the contribution of the dissertation to the progress and evolution of the discipline as well as the candidate’s responses to the questions raised. IV. Safeguard of the doctoral dissertation’s quality

(Re)searching Doctoral Education in the School of Architecture

155

The text of the doctoral dissertations includes the title of the dissertation and an extensive summary in both Greek and English. The captions of all tables, drawings, figures and photographs of the dissertation must also be in both languages. Hard copies of the doctoral dissertation together with digital ones must be submitted to the Library of the School and to the Central Library of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Members of the teaching staff are allowed to supervise up to five doctoral dissertations each. Lecturers are not allowed to act as supervisors. The supervisor should specialize in the proposed field of study. The two other members of the A.B.D. should also be relevant to the topic of the dissertation.

Capacity and duration of the Doctoral Program – quantitative data The overall records of our Doctoral Program are the following:iii The number of doctorates completed during the initial period of our School –that is between 1965 and 1983 when the School was operating under the provisions of the University Law 5343/1932– were 35. Out of those, 24 had been undertaken as members of the teaching staff –mostly teaching assistants– who subsequently moved to permanent teaching positions as faculty members. The remaining 11 had been awarded to external persons who used the title as a necessary qualification for acquiring a position in the public sector and administration. With the change of the legal framework for the Universities in 1983 (Law 1268/1982), new procedures were established aiming at the institutional and organisational restructuring of the postgraduate studies in Greek Universities to encounter a growing demand for doctorate title. A total of 104 doctoral dissertations have been completed in the period 1984 – 2012 raising the total number of dissertations awarded by the school since 1965 to 139. Among these doctorate holders, 41% are women and 59% are men. The total actual number of dissertations under preparation is 131. To this figure, the 8 completed dissertations and the 19 under preparation in the 3 Postgraduate Schools, for the period 2001–2012 have been incorporated. In 2011, a new University Law (4009/2011) has been enforced, imposing changes in doctoral education. However, the impact of these new provisions is to be seen in the next decade, since only few applications have been submitted after the law has been enacted.

156

Chapter Nine

Fig 9.1. PhD enrolments per period

To better appraise the data on doctorate research in our School of Architecture, we can make two interesting remarks: The first concerns the apparent rise of interest for doctoral studies, represented by the increasing number of students enrolled for doctorates over the last twelve years, as compared to the previous periods, in both School of Architecture and its Postgraduate Schools. As shown in Fig 9.1, 62% of the total number of dissertations enrolled in our School since 1983 has been initiated between 2001 and 2012. This shift can be explained by the fact that Architecture was for years considered as an academic discipline where the elaboration of doctoral dissertation is “rare or uncommon”. Although all university laws established after 1984 define as a condition for the recruitment of teaching staff the possession of a doctorate degree, there is an exception for thematic fields related to architectural creation like architectural design, interior design and landscape design. However, during the last years we can observe a changing attitude towards Architecture, which has increasingly established itself as an appropriate field for doctoral studies. The rise of interest for doctoral research is clearly presented in Fig 9.2, which presents the number of completed doctorates per year from 1984 to

(Re)searching Doctoral Education in the School of Architecture

Fig 9.2. PhD’s awarded per year

157

158

Chapter Nine

2012. We can see the growing number of doctorates per year as we are approaching nowadays. It is interesting to stress that the average number of awarded doctorates per year was 2 doctorates for the period 1984-1990, 3 doctorates for the period 1991-2000 and 5 doctorates per year for the period 2001-2012. The second remark refers to the length of doctoral studies. There is an uncommonly long duration of the elaboration–completion phase of the dissertation, which (for the period 1984-2010) reaches an average of 7 years, with a maximum of 27 years and a minimum 3 years. According to the data in Fig 9.3, the majority of doctorates have been completed in more than 6 years and 28% in more than 9 years.

Fig 9.3. PhD’s time to completion

This can be explained by taking into consideration some factors that affected, in a negative way, the structure of the Doctorate Program: The first important factor that had interfered, and actually affected the outsized length for the doctorates’ completion time is the lack of any serious financial support for the candidates. Beyond those candidates who are part of the teaching staff of the School, the majority of the candidates enrolled

(Re)searching Doctoral Education in the School of Architecture

159

are either working as civil servants or as practitioners, and had not spent the time necessary for the timely completion of their dissertation. The second factor is the lack of specifications by the University Law 1268/1982 in terms of maximum duration permitted for the completion of the dissertation until the year 2000, when the University Doctoral Regulations imposed the six-year ceiling. Once this matter was settled at university level (in 2000) and at the level of the school (in 2004), the Doctoral Program acquired a much more reasonable pace. The average duration of the completed dissertations initiated after 2004 is now 5 years, significantly lower of the average duration of 7 years during the period 1984-2003. Equally positive effects can be noticed in the rates of the titledefinition-step, especially after our School ratified its Internal Doctoral Regulation in 2004.

Doctoral Program’s thematic fields Over the period since 1984 and up to 2012, the doctorates awarded in our School of Architecture focused on a large spectrum of thematic fields presented in Fig 9.4. These fields span across all scales of design and spatial planning, from industrial design to regional planning. Doctorate candidates have the possibility to select the specific topic of their dissertation among the entire range of topics offered by the School curriculum. As the School remains in contact with the international dynamics of architectural education, new topics emerge in the contents of the curriculum attracting the interest of students and graduates. As a consequence, new thematic fields for doctorate dissertations appear. Such is the case of 14 under development dissertations focusing on Architectural Design assisted by digital tools and 4 on Museology expected to be completed in the coming years. An overview of the evolution in the relative gravitation of the various thematic fields, in which the topics of doctorate dissertations can be grouped, reveals significant changes in time. In Fig. 9.4 we can see that the 33 dissertations started in the decade 1980-1990 are mainly treating themes related to Architectural History (27%), Architectural Typology and Analysis of Buildings (18%), Regional Planning (15%), Architectural Technology (12%) and Theory of Architecture. This reflects the “state of the art” at the time, when architectural research valued in a very prominent manner architectural history, as well as theory in order to achieve a better understanding of architecture as an academic field.

160

Chapter Nine

Fig 9.4. Thematic fields of awarded doctorates

Among the themes of the 57 doctorate dissertations initiated during the period 1991-2000 Architectural History appears to enhance its dominance in the preferences of the candidates (38.6%), but there is a significant rise in the preference to Town Planning (12%) and History of Town Planning (11%). During this period the spectrum of the thematic fields is enlarged with the Conservation-Restoration, Landscape Design and Industrial Design. It is also interesting to notice that there are no doctorate dissertations on Urban Design initiated in this period. Between 2001 and 2012 the thematic field of Conservation-Restoration attracts the interest of a large number of candidates. 17% of the dissertations initiated in this period select themes from this thematic field, 15% from Theory of Architecture, 10% from each one of the thematic fields of History of Architecture, Architectural Design supported by digital tools and Town Planning. It is worth noticing the extension of the spectrum of thematic fields towards Architectural Design supported by digital tools (10%), Environmental Design (8%), and Museology (3%).

(Re)searching Doctoral Education in the School of Architecture

Fig 9.5. Thematic fields of doctorates being elaborated (1984-2012)

161

162

Chapter Nine

When investigating the changing dynamics in terms of popularity of the different thematic fields, the following conclusions can be reached. The doctoral research in the School of Architecture of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki is dominated by the presence of thematic fields attached to the humanities and the social sciences. In the same period there is also a significant presence of dissertations focusing on the technical aspects of architectural creation strongly attached to engineering. After 2000 we can observe an interesting articulation of the logics of the humanities with the logics of engineering in the context of Conservation – Restoration, which appears as the most attractive thematic field in the last 12 years. Influenced by the present dynamics of architectural research, we can also observe a very important shift from a search focusing on the architectural product or the discourses on this product to the action through which this product is created. This research defined as a main subject the act of architectural creation, i.e. architectural design, though indebted for its conception, methods to other scientific disciplines, as well as to new digital tools. The dissertations concluded or being prepared under that new light aspire to produce knowledge on the act of designing, and thus to contribute to the improvement of the quality of architectural production. Lastly, a sizable number of doctorates have been focusing on environmental issues as well as Town Planning and Urban Design at various aspects like formal, social, technical or ecological.

Future challenges and expectations for doctoral education Our School is actually trying to (re)define its research strategy in the new international architectural education and research environment, within the new institutional framework and in relation to the contemporary dynamics of the mobility of architectural ideas practices and researchers. As the debate on this new strategy has already opened, but as it is far from reaching a coherent formulation, we will underline some of the main dilemmas our school is facing in the effort to update its research record and profile. Concerning the content of doctoral research the School has to decide whether it will keep the research topics open to the entire spectrum of the thematic fields appearing in its curriculum or it will focus on a limited number of fields in order to develop a more focused research outcome and expertise; whether it will organise a more formal research procedure in research areas in order to assure research coherence within the same area, or it will keep the “autonomous” elaboration of the dissertations within the

(Re)searching Doctoral Education in the School of Architecture

163

already established dynamics between the candidate and the advisory board; and lastly, whether the organisation of the doctoral research will be more properly articulated with the structure of the School curriculum or it will keep its autonomy and will be based upon different priorities, principles and development strategies. Concerning the system of doctoral research, that is to say the way that doctoral studies are structured, our School has to consider whether doctoral research will be asked to have a direct impact to the educational process of the School or it will remain attached to its own research priorities and records. It is to be decided whether the School will apply more specific criteria to appraise the quality of candidates and evaluate their research performance or will the supervisor and the advisory board remain responsible. Within the above line of considerations the School has also to decide whether an overall and more regular control on the elaboration of dissertations should be implemented, regarding the duration and the elaboration process, or that will be left to the capacity of the advisory board and its understanding of the constraints encountered by the candidates. As a first step in the right direction, the School is considering the possibility to undertake initiatives towards the better exchange of information, ideas and experiences among the doctorate students, by organising seminars, meetings or conferences that would better articulate the development of the Doctoral Program to the benefit of architectural education.

Notes 1. According to the Decree 123/1984, still valid today, thematic fields dealing with the synthesis of spatial forms such as architectural design, interior design, and landscape architecture are considered as fields that cannot be, or very rarely could become thematic areas for doctoral research. This is the reason why faculty members recruited to teach these thematic fields are excluded from the obligation defined by the law, to have a doctorate degree compulsory for all faculty members in higher education institutions in Greece. 2. http://www.arch.auth.gr/english/main-page/studies/cross-field-postgraduate-studies. html. Applications are submitted to the School’s Secretariat twice a year by the following deadlines: Autumn applicants by 30 October and spring applicants by 31 March. 3. All data presented in this section are drawn from the official register of Doctorate Program of the School of Architecture, A.U.Th.

Chapter Nine

164

Brief biographies of authors Vilma Hastaolgou-Martinidis is Professor Emerita of the School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, where she taught urban history and design until 2012. She has lectured in European and US universities, and conducted various research projects commissioned by the European Union. She published numerous articles on the planning history of the Greek and the Eastern Mediterranean cities. Among her books are: Town Plans in the 19th century Greece; Volos, Portrait of the city in the 19th and 20th c., Restructuring the City. International Urban Design Competitions for Thessaloniki. Her forthcoming book focuses on the modernisation of the Levantine ports in the late 19th century. [email protected] George Papakostas is Professor of Architectural Design, School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece and Director of the Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Program of Studies “Landscape Architecture”. He has been Scientific Associate at the Institute for Lightweight Structures, University of Stuttgart (IL) obtaining the title of “Spezialist fuer Leichte Flaechentragwerke” (1977). He has been a Visiting Researcher at the Faculty of Architecture, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, N. York, U.S.A. (1981-1982), Visiting Professor at the Royal School of Architecture Copenhagen, Denmark (1990-1991) and Head of the School (2009-2013). His architectural research includes 42 scientific articles published in Greece and abroad. [email protected] Constantin Spiridonidis is Architect (Univ. of Thessaloniki) Urban Planner (Univ. Paris VIII), Dr. in Architecture and Urban Design (Univ. of Thessaloniki). He is Associate Professor in School of Architecture of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece and teaches Urban and Architectural Design Theories and Design. His research interests are in design theory, architecture and urban design, architectural education and design pedagogy. He is involved in many academic initiatives and events in Europe, USA, Latin America and Australia, European Union projects and committees related to architectural education. He has contributed as author or as editor to a big number of publications related to architectural education and the teaching of architectural and urban design. [email protected]

CHAPTER TEN NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF PHD STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE: THE CASE OF THE FRENCH-SPEAKING COMMUNITY OF BELGIUM OLIVIER MASSON AND JEAN STILLEMANS

As a result of the exchanges made during the Workshop on Doctoral Education in Architecture organized by the Istanbul Technical University on the 28th and 29th November 2011, this paper tries to present the case of the French-speaking community of Belgium1. It portrays the political, legal and institutional contexts of architectural Education and Research. The paper also focuses on research fields and incentives to assist researchers. These themes are addressed specifically by the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL). The paper looks into the past and the future of doctoral education in a new faculty that offers various formations leading to architectural practice.

1. The landscape of Architecture education in Belgium Belgium is a ten-million people country. Education is under the responsibility of the three linguistic communities: the Dutch, the German, and the French ones. The Dutch community is the largest one with more than 6 million people. The German one is the tiniest one with around 50.000 people. In Belgium, two distinct curricula prepare students for architectural practice: Architect and Engineer-Architect. Following the Bologna agreements, both are organized in a five year cursus: a Bachelor (3 years) also known as the first cycle of higher education and the Master (2 years) also known as the second cycle. Each year is composed of 60 ECTS (ECTS stands for European Credits Transfer System; 1 ECTS = 30 hours

166

Chapter Ten

of a work of an average student for an average score). An entrance exam in mathematics must be successfully completed to gain admission to the Bachelor Engineer-Architect program. Architecture schools have various backgrounds: some have their roots in artisanal traditions and technical apprenticeships; others were originally part of Fine Arts schools; still others originate in the break provoked by the modern movement. As for civil Engineer-Architects programs, they were born during the industrial revolution. With the freeing of energies and the growth of both sciences and mass production in the 19th century, new competences were needed. As a response to the expectations of the industrial world, les ‘Ecoles spéciales des arts et manufactures, de construction et des mines’ (Special schools of arts and manufactures, construction and mining) were created in Leuven in 1864. These specialized schools later became the ‘Faculté des Sciences Appliquées’ (Departments of Applied Sciences). This course of study belongs to the sciences of engineering; a solid foundation in mathematics and physics is needed in order to act in a concrete manner on the realm of inhabited spaces. Taking into account the specific backgrounds of the two curricula of the two main communities (there is no architectural school in the German-speaking community) along with the different teaching entities (public and parochial schools) managed by the Ministry of Education or municipalities, the total number of architectural schools in Belgium was 17.

2. The Teaching of and Research in Architecture in the French Community: an Overview Following the Bologna Process, the teaching of Architecture entered a framework provided by the Decree of March 31, 2004 that defined the teaching done in higher education in the French community, promoted its integration within the European Realm of Higher Education and reorganized the financing of Universities2. This framework is common for all Higher Education programs. In addition to this framework there has been a recent and major change specifically aimed at reorganizing the Architecture curriculum. If Engineer-Architect degrees were conferred by Universities, Architecture degrees were conferred by ‘Higher Institutes of Architecture’ (ISA in French for ‘Institut Supérieur d’Architecture’). The seven Higher Institutes of Architecture, distributed in four cities (Brussels, Liège, Mons, Tournai), had no mandate for research and were considered to be exclusively oriented toward ‘professional education’, whereas the Universities could

Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture

167

prepare students for both professional and research careers. But through a decree dated 30 April 2009, the teaching of Architecture in these Higher Institutes was handed over to Universities. This became effective during the school year 2010-2011. Since then all the Higher Institutes have integrated the Universities. And since former Higher Institutes can now promote research, the Universities’ two curricula are now equally responsible for both teaching and research in Architecture. Due to some recent fusions between Universities, the French-speaking community now has six Universities: Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, Namur (FNDP) ; Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Bruxelles (FUSL) ; Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) ; Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) ; Université de Liège (ULg) ; Université de Mons-Hainaut (UMH).

Fig. 10.1 Belgium, French-speaking Universities (main campus) and UCL (different sites)

168

Chapter Ten

These Universities were assembled in three Academies: the Louvain Academy, which comprises UCL, FUNDP and FUSL; the WalloniaBrussels Academy, which comprises ULB and UMH; the WalloniaEurope Academy, centered around the ULg. The term ‘Academy’ implies that, while remaining autonomous, Universities share some ambitions and a common vision. The members of an ‘Academy’ can also have a common set of rules and regulations. Ever since the publication of a new decree (November 7, 2013), defining the landscape of Higher Education and the academic organisation of studies, those Academies have been replaced by the ARES, Académie de Recherche et d’Enseignement Supérieur (Academy of Research and Higher Education). Among the six Universities, the four major ones (UCL, ULB, ULg, UMH) have a civil Engineer-Architect program. Since July 2010, these four Universities also host an Architecture program. Generally the civil Engineer-Architect program is part of a Polytechnic School and the Architecture programs form a new Faculty of Architecture.

3. UCL’s position regarding the teaching of architecture UCL, ‘Université catholique de Louvain’, is the oldest University in the country. Founded in 1425, the University was deeply connected to the city of Leuven, in the northern part of the country. In 1968, the French and Dutch components split and the French-speaking part was banned from Leuven. The city of Louvain-la-Neuve was then created to host the French wing of the University. While Louvain-la-Neuve remains the main campus of the University, the UCL today encompasses a series of departments or institutes that are located in different cities within the francophone half of the country (Brussels (Louvain-en-Woluwe, Saint-Gilles), Louvain-laNeuve, Mons, Saint-Gilles, Tournai). UCL offers courses in every possible discipline: it offers 42 Bachelor’s programs (180 ECTS), 153 Master’s programs (60 or 120 ECTS) and 220 continuing education programs3. UCL represents a large, international community: it gathers more than 29.000 students of 127 different nationalities, a 5.695-member teaching, research, administrative and technical staff and 150.000 alumni worldwide. With regard to Architecture, UCL presents a unique configuration: civil Engineers-Architects and Urban Planners (responsible for the Advanced Master in Urban and Regional Planning) have left the Polytechnic School, to form, along with the Architects coming from two Higher Institutes, a new Faculty named LOCI or Faculty of Architecture, Architectural Engineering, Urban Planning. Three kinds of education connected to dwelling artifacts are therefore gathered within the same

Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture

169

entity. The Faculty counts approximately 1.400 students. The uniqueness of the Faculty is also due to its location on three different sites: SaintGilles (a neighborhood of Brussels), Louvain-la-Neuve and Tournai. It was decided early on that all available means would be mutually shared and all competences gathered together. Ultimately, the University’s framework should strengthen the foundations of architectural studies and render unnecessary the current balancing act between art, technique, and human sciences, which leads to a sterile division for the theory and practice of Architecture. The newly created LOCI Faculty will enable the Architects/instructors who are now joining the University to take up the missions entailed by research: to develop fundamental knowledge, enhance skills, and provide expertise. This matters for society as a whole, and attaining such goals is therefore crucially important. The places we inhabit (whether individually, collectively, institutionally or environmentally) are not sufficiently questioned – not with the depth they demand - or safely kept from short-term pressure. If all the means and objectives available in a sizeable faculty are structured to the utmost, this challenge can be met.

4. The Structure of Doctoral Research in Architecture in the French-speaking Community of Belgium Since the 2004 Decree, a legal structure of graduate training common to all doctoral studies in French-speaking Belgium has been implemented. The third cycle of studies comprises the actual training (60 credits), which leads to a certificate in research education and a minimum of 120 credits of research work resulting in a dissertation and the academic title of ‘Doctor’. The minimum length of the study is 3 years. There is no maximum set by law. Such a doctorate is required for professors who have teaching and research responsibilities. It is not required for instructors who have teaching responsibilities and no research responsibilities (in this case, however, the instructors’ resume must be deemed equivalent). In the French-speaking community graduate training rests on two pillars: ł The first one considers regulatory matters. It was up to the three academies, but it is now framed by the ARES that establishes the jurys in charge, within the Universities to award research degrees. ł The second one is more concerned with issues of epistemology and the way the doctoral candidates’ training (whether specific or transversal) is organized beyond the traditional curriculum defined by the program of each University. This pillar is

170

Chapter Ten

determined in mutual agreement by the Universities, under the aegis of the F.R.S.-FNRS (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique). This ‘Fund for Scientific Research’ is a foundation for public utility that is 90% financed by public funding. The F.R.S.-FNRS promotes the development of fundamental research in the French community of Belgium. To this end, it strengthens individually the training of researchers and finances research programs in the Universities of the French-speaking Belgium4.

4.1. Regulatory issues With regard to the first pillar, every University has incorporated the regulation of the ARES in its own doctoral regulation. The doctoral regulation of the UCL sets forth a series of steps to be accomplished by PhD students. Those steps are overseen by the thesis supervisor and an advisor committee (consisting of the supervisor and at least two other members). Their role is to provide active scientific guidance and support as well as orientation guidelines throughout the doctoral thesis process: ł Admission to a doctorate. This step consists in a quality check of the candidate's cursus and its suitability to the requirement of the proposed research. It also consists in a legal check of the admission conditions. ł Confirmation. This intermediate step has to be achieved within the next two years following the admission. It consists in a presentation of the candidate's work in front of his advisory committee. It is then decided whether the doctoral thesis should be continued or not. At stake are often the work orientations for the second half of the thesis ł Private defence. This step consists in a presentation of the research works (once the dissertation manuscript is completed) in front of a jury (composed of at least five members and at least one person outside the UCL). The private defence can have two outcomes. On one side, it allows to defend the thesis publically. On the other side, a number of corrections are indicated to the PhD student. Those comments can be simple writing remarks but they can also imply to re-write full chapters of the manuscript. According to the regulation, those (substantive) changes should take no more than three full-time months (there is no maximum delay for organising the public defence). ł Public defence. This step consists in a public lecture of the PhD thesis for a wider audience.

Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture

171

The 60 credits of the doctoral training consist in: ł 40 credits devoted to research training and scholarly communication (advanced seminars, active or passive participation in conferences or other scientific meetings, writing articles). ł 20 credits for the formal evaluation of progress toward the doctorate (confirmation, private and public defenses of the thesis).

4.2. Graduate training as organized under the aegis of the F.R.S.-FNRS The Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique - FNRS ‘mission is to develop scientific research. It favors the production and development of knowledge while supporting both individual researchers and also research programs undertaken within laboratories and services located primarily in the Universities of the French community of Belgium5. Scientific fields of research are divided into 20 domains. To each domain corresponds a graduate school. The mission of the F.R.S.- FNRS’ sponsored Graduate Colleges is to welcome, coordinate and promote thematic Graduate Schools and stimulate their creation6. Among the 20 Graduate Colleges is the Graduate College in ‘the Art of Building and Urban and Country Planning’. In this Graduate College, 2 thematic schools (graduate schools) are organized: ł Territorial development7 This thematic school centers its research work around the study of interactions between evolving spatial structures and all of the economic, social, cultural and environmental processes that contribute, in a diversified and plural manner, to the production of the conditions of territorial change. ł Architecture, town and country planning, architectural and urban engineering8. This thematic school defines its field of research as all those techniques and instruments that allow territories to be collectively and individually inhabited, at all relevant scales of investigation. Graduate Schools provide the research environment, graduate courses and seminars necessary for graduate training. Students wishing to enroll in a doctoral program are required to enter into a graduate school and take 60 credits worth of graduate courses and seminars. It is worth remembering however that unlike what happens in other countries or systems, this thematic graduate school can neither verify nor certify the graduate

172

Chapter Ten

curriculum or education. The academic steps of verification and control depend on the first pillar, which is managed by ARES and Universities.

5. The Topics of Research in Architecture within the French Community A study of the list of PhDs as published by the FNRS shows that the themes tackled can be listed as follows9: ł Architecture understood both as discipline and as an artefact. This type of research tends to call into question the field of Architecture in order to better define it. This research talks about architectural space, theories, ethics and aesthetics. It also questions the architectural discipline through the resources, supports of the thinking, whether graphic or verbal. It sets out in search of logic, the systems, explicit or otherwise, mathematical and geometric, that structure Architecture. Sometimes, it leaves the field of Architecture behind to put it in its artistic, anthropological or sociological context, in order to come back to it from a different angle. Finally, it sets Architecture against its context, seen as a vector of conception. ł Town and country planning, landscape and territorial development. This research relates to the territory in its wider sense. It covers both urban and territorial projects. The geographical, social, economic, political, historic contexts are mobilized with a view to sustainable development. Necessarily, this field has a multidisciplinary base. ł The design process linked to modelling This research is found in the particular field of design and the relationship that sets in between representation, modelling and Architectural Design. ł Technology and structures This research covers both general questions linked to the structure, the shell, the relationship between Architecture and its infrastructure. Furthermore, the status of the materials and of the structure in the design process is questioned. More specific aspects, linked to particular situations and close to engineering, are also tackled. ł History and heritage Issues linked to the preservation of heritage alongside typological studies and monographs of structures.

Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture

173

Needless to say, these various themes overlap and fertilize each other: the above-described organization into rubrics is a provisional tool. Architectural research is both resolutely disciplinary and necessarily multidisciplinary: it cannot avoid the political question, or the sustainable aspect, or its historical and cultural context. All these research themes have a collective dimension in common. They set out to produce new knowledge by different means: either is putting the discipline under the microscope to better identify it, or by extracting one of its components to compare it with related disciplines before reintroducing this knowledge into the field of Architecture, thereby opening up new horizons.

6. Doctoral Education in Architecture at UCL: history, topics, financing, issues 6.1. History Research is historically linked to the Engineer-Architect program and the Advanced Master in Urban and Regional Planning, in Louvain-laNeuve. At first, research primarily related to the engineering part (physics of the building, technology of construction). Gradually however, research began to widen its scope to include the field of Architecture (fundamental theory, urbanism and territorial development, the pedagogy and methodology of the project). From the late 80's, doctoral theses have increased, opening up many areas of research. The first PhD in the Engineer-Architect field was conferred in 1988; the first PhD in Architectural Theory was conferred in 1989. The first PhD in the Architecture and Urbanism field was conferred in 1992. In the 90’s, there used to be one PhD presentation per year, but since 2000, an average of 3 PhDs has been delivered every year. 62 doctoral awards have been offered from 1988 until summer 2014. The average completion duration is 5 years (for theses presented since 2000). Nowadays, there is a total of approximately 70 researchers and 20 PhD students within the LOCI Faculty.

6.2. Topics Three major fields of research can be found among the completed PhD’s at UCL: Ɣ Objective technical conditions of dwelling These questions pertain to living spaces as artefacts, and the technologies that make them possible. The field is based on hard

Chapter Ten

174

Ɣ

Ɣ

science and mathematical modeling to examine the constructions through different questions: structure, soils, construction, applied physics, and equipment. Urban and territorial structures: analyses and developments These questions pertain to living spaces as collective practice as well as to the logics that make them possible (from urbanism to territorial planning). Inhabited large structures are studied to be understood and anticipated from different disciplines: geography, agronomy, law, economics, ... Architectural structures: analyses, composition, conditions of production These questions pertain to habitat and living spaces, a theoretical study of their fundamentals and their methods of production. It is based on the humanities and the history and theory of Architecture to understand the invariance, recurrences and features of architectural corpus or to question the human dimension that is the habitat.

6.3. Teams At present the Faculty hosts two large research teams (20-25 people): ł Architecture et Climat10 Since 1980, the research team of Architecture and Climate aims to elaborate and develop a theory of climate- and sustainable Architecture, within the context of sustainable development; search for the highest possible energy efficiency in buildings and equipment. With a view to satisfy residents’ comfort needs, while making the best possible use of available sources of energy ł CREAT Centre de recherche et d’études pour l’action territoriale11 (Research and study center for territorial action) Research undertaken since 1965 focus primarily on the spatial mutations and territorial rearrangements as well as on the best possible use of existing means of territorial management. Besides these two entities, other ones present flexible and more recent structures: Ɣ Structures & Technologies12: This unit undertakes research in the domain of structural design and its methods – particularly involving concrete and wood – as well as the procedures and tools used for analysing masonry structures, the application of graphical and geometrical methods and/or methods that are

Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

175

analogous to contemporary engineering, the rules of good practice for construction in wood. LAA Laboratoire Analyses Architectures13 This laboratory for architectural analysis promotes the development, the editing and the completion of speculative works focusing on the Architectural Theory. LAPs Laboratoire d’Architectures Potentielles14 The LAPs aims to study the potential habitat revealed by means of Research by Design. The group seeks to establish foundations and to develop methods for this recent academic discipline. Réseau Architecture et Complexité (network Achitecture and Complexity)15 The group’s members come from different Universities and target the field of Architecture from various and crossed approaches such as complex thinking, constructivism or systemic approach.

6.4. Financing There are 4 kinds of financing for Doctoral education in Architecture. The freedom of choice of research subjects varies according to the financing body. Going from the more restrictive to the more open topics, the sources of financing can be ranked as follows: Ɣ External research contracts = in this case, pre-determined questions must be addressed within a very precise framework and specific calendar. Ɣ Institutional Scholarships: these consist in more or less openended calls for projects launched by various institutions such as the FNRS for fundamental research, political regions for a more applied type of research, Universities themselves or private foundations. Projects compete: every candidate’s purpose and profile in the competition are taken into consideration by the experts who rank them. Ɣ Institutional financing within the structure through Assistant positions. These Assistants are granted a 6-year contract during which they must complete teaching assignments as well as research work (usually the completing of a PhD dissertation). In this case de PhD candidate gets a relatively great freedom in the choice of subject. Ɣ Personal: the choice of a dissertation topic is free to the extent that a thesis supervisor agrees to direct it.

176

Chapter Ten

As the organization of education depends on means and on the number of students and staff members, it is important to mention that registration fees are low in comparison with other areas of the world. The Incomes are 1X 835 € the first year + 32 € every other year. If the thesis is completed within a few years, this income can stay below 1.000 €. This tells a lot about democratization of education in Belgium and the restricted means for doctoral education.

6.5. Issues The new Faculty is facing specific organizational and strategic issues such as: Ɣ The incorporation of Architects coming from the former system of Higher Institutes who were not traditionally mandated for research. Future initiatives should take advantage of their skills and potential. This situation has led to the constitution of a Research commission made of 12 persons coming from the three sites and the three programs of the Faculty. This commission has taken several initiatives: Ɣ A Research Day is organized every year. The first one, on the 20th October 2011, was structured around the double theme of ‘Measuring our potential/Opening possibilities’. Its main objective was to give voice to the various positions and interests that coexist within the faculty in the context of a collective event. Ɣ An outlet aimed at publishing the research performed by LOCI Faculty members was created, and a Reading Committee of 3 professors was set up. Ɣ Under the same Committee’s supervision, a budget was set up to sustain the initiatives taken by Architects in the field of research Ɣ The establishment of a research group in Architectural Theory in order to be more competitive for research grants. Ɣ The place of ‘senior’ researchers with long established professional experience in the field of Architecture. The new faculty also deals with largely shared epistemological questions: Ɣ The improvement in publishing opportunities and recognition of research quality. Ɣ The development of a more reliable methodology of research in Architecture.

Nature and Structure of PhD Studies in Architecture

Ɣ Ɣ

177

A better definition for both the autonomy of Architecture and the trans-disciplinarity of its research. Research by design.

7. Back to Teaching The respective places of research and teaching are not always clearly defined. Although graduate research is usually considered to form the third cycle of University studies, Universities themselves tend more and more often to separate teaching and research for the sake of effectiveness. Whatever their positions, it is clear that research and teaching affect and need each other: the competence to do research must be prepared during the first two cycles of studies; students must from day one learn to speculate and to put certainties into question; the manufacture of a course is an opportunity to ask questions that can feed research; conversely, research produces effects on teaching, through questioning existing knowledge; researchers are actively involved in the guiding of students; … In the Engineer-Architect program is a seminar called: Introduction to research. Students have the opportunity to hear presentations from PhD students, to follow their research, to take a small part in the process themselves. Curriculum reform is planned which will offer a research seminar (meaning a seminar with the requirement of research) every semesters of the second cycle. Each seminar will be supervised by a fulltime academic in-charge of research. These seminars will follow one another by visiting questions of history, theory, structure or applied physics. These seminars will help to establish links between training and disciplinary doctoral education in Architecture. Whether through teaching or research, Universities are first and foremost a place where students find opportunities to shape themselves, and become thinking and active citizens.

Notes 1. The official name of the ‘French Community of Belgium’ is now ‘the WalloniaBrussels Federation’, but we will use the previous name here as it stresses the reality of a common cultural foundation and makes us keep in mind that the situation might be different in other communities within the country. 2. http://www.enseignement.be/index.php?page=25837 3. http://www.uclouvain.be/6209.html. 4. http://www1.frs-fnrs.be/fr/decouvrir-le-fnrs/notre-histoire-nos-statuts.html 5. http://www1.frs-fnrs.be/fr/decouvrir-le-fnrs/notre-mission.html

Chapter Ten

178

6.ihttp://www1.frs-fnrs.be/fr/financer-les-chercheurs/ecoles-doctorales-congrespublications/ecoles-doctorales.html 7. http://www.developpement-territorial.net 8. http://www.archurb.frs-fnrs.be 9. Wittevrongel, Bernard; Stillemans Jean, La recherche en architecture, in Architectures, Wallonie-Bruxelles #0 Inventories 2005-2010. 10. http://www-climat.arch.ucl.ac.be 11. http://sites.uclouvain.be/creat-loci/ 12. http://sites.uclouvain.be/structech_loci/ 13. http://www.lelaa.be/ 14. http://www.lap-s.be/ 15. http://www.architecture-et-complexite.org/

Brief biography of authors Olivier Masson is Engineer-Architect. He received his PhD from the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. He has been an invited professor at the Université Laval, Canada. Since 2006 he is professor at Université catholique de Louvain where he teaches design studios, history and theory. He is currently President of the program commission Master: civil Engineer-Architect. [email protected] Jean Stillemans is Engineer-Architect. Trained at the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), he is there teaching and researching since 1983. He was co-founder of the architectural firm "Sessions" which led many projects of buildings and public spaces in Paris and in Belgium (1985-2000). Since 2000, he’s a full-time professor at UCL where he follows up his research and teaching in the areas of theory and architectural project. His current work focuses on the development of an anthropological theory of Architecture. He is currently Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Architectural Engineering, Urban Planning, UCL [email protected]

CHAPTER ELEVEN DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN ARCHITECTURE AT ITU FATMA ERKÖK AND GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER

The main aim of this paper is to present the state of doctoral education in architecture at ITU, with an evaluation of aspects such as historical background, statistical facts, current problems and potentials. The paper will firstly examine the situation in the context of ITU as a whole, looking at the start of doctoral education, institutes providing doctoral education at ITU today, the structure of doctoral education and finally some statistical facts on the number of doctorate awards. After this, the situation in architecture will be examined. Statistics for architecture from the last decade will be provided in terms of completion time, distribution of programmes among different fields and gender distribution. Finally, an evaluation of ITU will be provided, laying out its strengths and weaknesses and outlining more general problems that are also present in other contexts. Doctoral education in ITU started in the 1940s, the first award being in 1949. The requirement for academic promotion previously had been the proficiency thesis, but in 1949, when the ITU Senate set the preconditions for senior academic staff to have a doctoral degree, this was the early driver of the development of doctoral education in ITU. There are four milestones for doctoral education at ITU: 1949, 1969, 1982 and 2002. These comprehensive reforms can be defined briefly as: x 1949: the start of doctoral education x 1969: transition from the 5-year system to the 4 + 2 year system and restructuring of doctoral programmes x 1982: restructuring of programmes under institutes / graduate schools (with the establishment of the Council of Higher Education of Turkey -YÖK)

180

Chapter Eleven

x 2002: revision and restructuring of programmes. Apart from these comprehensive reforms, other smaller improvements have also been carried out. Doctoral education in architecture at ITU is offered by ITU Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology. The components of doctoral education are: courses, doctoral qualifying exam, dissertation proposal and dissertation. These components are clearly defined in ITU regulations. In terms of the number of doctoral awards, ITU presents an impressive output: between the first and 2010, 2,605 doctorates were awarded, 434 of these in architecture. The figure closest to ITU’s at other institutions providing doctoral education in architecture is one third of this. Besides the strengths like this critical mass and the high quality of students, there are also problems like long completion times, insufficient relations with industry and lack of mobility - it might well be time for comprehensive reform at ITU.

Start of Doctoral Studies at ITU Doctoral education at ITU started in the 1940s and the first doctoral grants were awarded in 1949 (3 awards out of 2 were to women). Previously, the proficiency thesis was the requirement for academic promotion. In 1949, the ITU senate decided to set a precondition for senior academic staff (associate professorship and professorship) to have a doctoral degree, with possible differences of applications between the faculties. The first doctoral admission in the Faculty of Architecture started in 1955, with the first doctoral award given in 1960. This change can be considered as an early driving force for the development of doctoral education at ITU. This is a remarkable fact bearing in mind that many prominent universities have still not completed this process.

Milestones of Doctoral Education at ITU There are 4 milestones for doctoral education at ITU. These are 1949, 1969, 1982 and 2002 respectively. 1949 is the year in which doctoral education became a precondition for senior academic staff at ITU. Until 1969, courses were not essential in doctoral education at ITU, instead the typical master-apprentice method was functioning. It offered a 5-year educational programme, which covered bachelor and master’s degrees together, and the degree was ‘Master’s degree in Engineering’ (Diplôme d'Ingénieur) for the engineering departments and ‘Master’s

Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU

181

degree in Architectural Engineering’ for the architecture programme. In 1969, the ITU senate decided to change its 5-year continental European system to the Anglo-American system, which consisted of two cycles of bachelor’s and master’s degree (4+2). The master’s degree programmes became operational in 1974 when the first graduates of the bachelor’s degree programmes completed their first degree. The system became a 4+2 year system leading in architecture to the title of “Master of Architecture”. ITU carried out a fundamental reform in 1969, comparable to that which Europe has been trying to execute with the Bologna process since 1999. The Bologna process has generated extensive structural changes in national higher education systems. The basic framework for a common higher education structure, which was adopted in 2005, consists of three cycles: Bachelor, Master and Doctorate. This structure of different cycles has been applied at ITU since 1974, much longer than its European counterparts. In Turkey the establishment of a central body (YÖK-The Council of Higher Education) for the planning, coordination, governance and supervision of higher education in 1981 led the way for a radical nationwide restructuring act. With the enactment of the basic Law on Higher Education in 1982, the whole higher education system in Turkey became centralised. Graduate studies, previously the domain of individual faculties now came under graduate schools called ‘institutes’. In 1982, as a consequence of this radical act, ITU established three institutes as graduate schools. In these institutes/graduate schools, doctoral education was structured to incorporate four stages. The doctoral candidate had to complete a certain number of credit hours from courses related to his/her field of study. When the courses were completed, the candidate took a proficiency exam in order to go on to the third stage of conducting his/her research. Finally the candidate completed his/her dissertation and submitted it to the graduate school to be evaluated according to the defined procedure. This transparent structure encouraged students to embark upon this third cycle. The number of doctoral students and awards in most universities in Turkey has risen markedly since 1982. Figures on the distribution of doctoral graduates before and after 1982 at ITU overall, as well as in architecture prove this fact. Of the total of 2,605 doctoral degrees awarded in all fields by ITU, 75% (2,046) were awarded after 1982. In architecture the percentage is almost identical: of a total of 434 total doctoral awards in architecture, 321 were obtained after 1982.

182

Chapter Eleven

The essential elements in creating a more structured education at ITU have been: restructuring both elective and compulsory courses, the requirement of certain credit hours and restructuring of the ‘proficiency exam’ before thesis work, all of which were already being applied before 2000. A further improvement realised by ITU in 2002 resulted in an overview of programmes and led to the closing of some inactive old programmes and the launch of some new ones, changes to the credit hours required and the introduction of a ‘dissertation monitoring committee’. The monitoring committee aims to evaluate the development of each doctoral student every 6 months by means of a written report and an oral exam. Also, course credit hours were revised, training elements and courses in transferable skills were increased and the proficiency exam was improved. Restructuring reforms within the last 10 years include the increasing of training elements (generic/transferable skills) such as foreign languages, communication, IT, and management skills. The aim of developing these skills is to also prepare the candidate for industry by providing certain skills that will put the candidate in an advantageous position when competing for jobs in industry. Doctoral education at ITU is noteworthy in that it made an early start in the restructuring of its programmes.

Institutes Providing Doctoral Education at ITU ITU currently has six institutes/graduate schools providing Master’s and doctoral programmes, i.e. institutes of Science, Engineering and Technology (1982), Social Science (1982), Earth Sciences (1996), Informatics (1997), Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Management Sciences (2001) and Energy (2003). The Institute of Science and Technology was established by the Rectorate in 1982 for the establishment of master’s and doctoral programmes under the new higher education law. As the major institute providing graduate studies at the university, with 70 master’s programmes and 45 doctoral programmes, it awards around 700 master’s degrees and 100 doctorates yearly, and has so far awarded more than 6,000 master’s degrees and doctorates. The doctoral programmes in the field of architecture provided by the Institute of Science and Technology are: Architectural Design, Building Sciences, and History of Architecture and Restoration. A recent addition to these has been a doctoral programme under the Department of Informatics in Architectural Design Computing.

Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU

183

Structure of Doctoral Education at ITU According to the graduate education regulations of ITU, a doctoral programme consists of the following parts: x At least 8 courses contributing 24 credits (counting as 60 ECTS credits) for students with an MSc degree (or 15 courses contributing 45 credits (112.5 ECTS credits) for students accepted with only a BSc degree) x Proficiency exam x Dissertation proposal x Dissertation Admissions to the programmes are executed by pre-announced criteria, making the procedure transparent. Certain components (grades of the previous study programme, English level, oral exam, architectural portfolio and reference letters) comprise the admission criteria. The maximum education period of a doctoral student with an MSc degree is 12 semesters, and for a doctoral student with only a BSc degree, 14 semesters. A doctoral programme may be completed in a minimum of 5 semesters (yet this is generally not realised), with at least 2 semesters of dissertation work. At the dissertation stage, every 6 months the thesis monitoring committee evaluates the developments for each doctoral student based on a written report and oral exam. In terms of courses, the requirements identified at ITU are below. The total of credits a student is required to take during Doctoral /Arts comprehensive education should consist of: x Doctoral /Arts comprehensive courses contributing to at least 50%, x Courses in English contributing to at least 30%. Besides, the total of credits a Doctoral /Arts comprehensive student with only a BSc degree is required to take should consist of: x Mandatory courses of the MSc programme contributing to at least 25%, x Doctoral /Arts comprehensive courses contributing to at least 25%. Doctoral students in ITU can get certain funding opportunities, from research grants, to conference participation grants. ITU places importance on the participation of doctoral students in international meetings with their research findings. These are important strengths of education at ITU.

184

Chapter Eleven

Fig 11.1. Total # Doctoral graduates from all departments of ITU Institute of Science and Technology

Number of students and doctoral awards at ITU Currently, the number of students in doctoral programmes at architecture at ITU is 225, of these 80 are in the architectural design programme, 78 in construction science, 30 in history of architecture, 37 in restoration. The total number of supervisors is 80, so the ratio of students to supervisors is 2.8:1, which is good in terms of sourcing. The number of awards given by ITU Institute of Science and Technology for doctoral studies from its beginning in 1949 until 2010 is illustrated in the figure below (Fig 11.1). The total number in these 62 years is 2,605. The calculation by using these numbers gives the general yearly average graduates as 42, but when we look at the graph we can see that the rise has not been steady, but mainly higher in the last 20 years. If we take the establishment in 1982 of Council of Higher Education of Turkey (YÖK) as an important milestone for higher education in Turkey and examine the number of doctoral awards, we can extract the following figures: 1949-1982 (34 years): 559 awards (annually 16) 1983-2010 (28 years): 2046 awards (annually 73) As can be seen, the annual average of awards rose almost 4.5 times after 1982. Master’s and doctoral study programmes of ITU are very much in demand in Turkey and acceptance standards are high. The high numbers of students and graduates of these programmes shows that ITU accepts high quality students for doctoral studies in its programmes.

Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU

185

Doctoral Studies in Architecture at ITU The first worldwide doctoral studies in architecture were studies based mainly on technology or history. Similarly, the first doctoral studies in architecture in ITU were mostly descriptive studies on architectural heritage. These studies, rather than searching for the unknown, are based on the identification and evaluation of a particular present. In 1960, ITU started to award doctoral degrees in architecture that corresponded to the modern understanding of the doctoral degree as a pursuit of scientific knowledge. Initially, the master and doctoral programmes of ITU Faculty of Architecture were incorporated in the Institute of Social Sciences, but during the 1984-1985 academic year, all of the master and doctoral programmes with regard to architecture and urban planning were transferred to the Institute of Science and Technology.

Fig 11. 2. Doctorates awarded in architecture between 1960 and 2010

The first two doctoral awards in architecture at ITU (in fields other than history or structural engineering) were in the 1960s (the first thesis was by Altan Öke and entitled: Searching for possibilities of using operation research to create solutions to building economics; the second was by Gündüz AtalÕk, entitled: Searching for a new method for architectural criticism). Since then, a total of 434 Doctoral studies in architecture have been awarded, an impressive total. The distribution of awards since 1960 is illustrated in figure 11.2.

186

Chapter Eleven

Fig 11.3. Distribution of doctoral awards in architecture by leading institutes in Turkey

Doctoral awards in architecture make up a large share of the total number of doctoral awards in all fields by ITU. The total number of doctoral studies in all fields awarded by ITU since 1949 is 2,605 (2010 figures are not complete). The total number of studies awarded in architecture since 1960 is 434. 21.6% of the total studies awarded by ITU have been in architecture. This is quite a remarkable outcome. An examination of yearly graduate figures illustrates other facts, such as: x An apparent rise in the annual number of completed doctoral studies in the last 10 years (annual minimum 9 and maximum 28), x A continual rise of annual graduates during three consecutive periods of 12-20 years. During the first period between 1960 and 1982 the average annual graduate number was 4.9, between 1983 and 1995 it was 7.4 and finally between 1996-2010 it rose to 14.9. x In the 50-year history of doctoral study in architecture at ITU, 42 % of all the doctoral studies were awarded in the decade between 2000 and 2010. An examination of the number of doctoral awards in architecture by institutes of other universities in Turkey reveals that ITU has the highest numbers. Between 1977 and 2009 ITU awarded 365 doctoral studies, which is significantly more than the other institutions. (Figure 11.3)

Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU

187

A Closer Look In order to provide an overview of the recent doctoral programme of architecture at ITU, research has been conducted on the 89 doctoral awards in architecture completed between 1997 and 2009. Aspects such as completion time, distribution among fields, drop out rates and gender distributions have been explored. The average completion time for all the doctoral awards examined was found to be 5.98 years. By comparison, according to the statistics for US awards between 1995 and 1999 in all fields, the average completion time was 7.3 years. In diverse fields a minimum of 6 years (chemistry) and maximum of 8.6 years (humanities) is recorded. In this respect, the outcome of the case at ITU is not surprising, but these are quite long periods for completion and there is a general attempt to shorten the period to 4 years, especially in Europe. Figure 11.4 illustrates the distribution of completion times of the students. The reason for this long duration at ITU could be explained by the employment profile of Ph.D. students. Most of the Ph.D. students are teaching and research assistants either at ITU or other institutions, working towards their academic promotion. As they have heavy teaching loads besides their doctoral studies, they are compelled to distribute their working time and the result is a long duration for the Ph.D. The main reason for this long duration can be attributed in most cases to the doctoral students not being full-time researchers. Another factor in the longer time taken to determine the subject area in architecture may be the lack of ongoing projects from public and private institutions, which create an environment for defining clear research questions. In terms of gender distribution, of the 89 Ph.D. graduates, 59 are female (66%) and 30 are male (34%). This tendency to female domination is also valid in undergraduate studies, and this in turn affects the gender of staff in favour of women.

188

Chapter Eleven

Fig 11.4. Completion time (1997-2009) average: 5.98 years

Fig 11.5. Distribution among fields

Regarding the distribution among fields, four main doctoral programmes under the umbrella of architecture have been established: architectural design, building construction, architectural history and restoration. Currently there are some additional programmes, but these four remain the major ones. As the share of academics in the field of architectural design at ITU, and in Turkey in general, is the highest in the whole field of architecture, the outcome of architectural design being the field with the highest numbers in doctoral study is again not surprising.

Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU

189

The second largest field of study is building and construction, followed by smaller numbers for architectural history and restoration (Figure 11.5). Besides the high number of doctoral awards, a high number of dropouts can also be observed, with figures for some years being particularly high. These high dropout rates can be reasoned with common factors found elsewhere, but at the same time with some factors particular to Turkey. One of those is the “amnesty law”. Such laws for higher education students started in 1983 in Turkey and allow students who have been rejected from higher education to return to the university with unlimited exam rights. This kind of regulation has been issued several times since 1983: in 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2011. It is possible that there is a relationship between drop out periods and the periods of the amnesty laws. The highest drop-out years of 2000-2001, 2002-2003 and 2006-2007 (Fig 11.6) might have been related to those laws but it is difficult to make a clear connection. It is possible to conjecture that students might choose to drop out when a new amnesty law is about to be passed.

Fig 11.6. Number of awarded and dropped out doctorates in architecture between 2000-2010

Strengths and Weaknesses If we evaluate the ITU case, we can list the strengths and weaknesses of doctoral programmes as follows:

Chapter Eleven

190

Strengths x The large number of master’s/pre-doctoral students giving the opportunity to accept the best ones, meaning a high quality of incoming students x The size and the quality of the academic staff makes it possible to offer a wide range of quality doctoral programmes x The flexibility of the system x Funding opportunities x Transparency in the admission process x Understanding of the importance of presenting research results at international conferences and meetings

Weaknesses x x x x x

Long time to complete degree High drop out rates Lack of mobility Lack of variety in doctoral courses Lack of awareness of the importance of publishing research results in ISI indexed journals (the number of publications is not comparable to the number of doctoral degrees awarded), x Limited number of courses that build generic skills.

Conclusion ITU has an affinity for change. Therefore, throughout the years, it has always managed to adjust its educational programmes and research activities to the changing conditions based on its high calibre human resources and capability to realise reforms. There are two types of changes/reforms that occur in the university environment. The first type consists of small improvements that keep pace with new developments continuously. The second type is the more comprehensive reforms such as those carried out in 1949, 1969, 1982 and 2002. As a matter of fact, we are expecting a new wave, which will once again restructure our graduate programmes towards better quality. In the globalised world, the increase of mobility of staff and students enables the sharing of problems or successes faced by doctoral programmes of different universities in different countries. For this reason, enhancing mobility and strengthening communication among institutions

Doctoral Education in Architecture at ITU

191

that run doctoral programmes is essential for more effective and more productive doctoral education in the future.

References The data used in this article is drawn from ITU Institute of Science & Technology and Council of Higher Education of Turkey (YÖK) sources.

Brief biography of authors Fatma Erkök is Associate Professor in ITU Faculty of Architecture, Architectural Design Unit. She received her PhD from ITU in 2002. She has been a visiting scholar at IUAV Venice in 1997 and Tudelft in 2007/8. She has been involved in many international workshops. Her research areas focus on doctoral education in architecture, urban issues, water & city relations, body & space relations. She takes place in the executive board of ITU Institute of Science & Technology, Architectural Design M.Sci and PhD Programme since 2012. She teaches at both graduate and undergraduate levels in ITU Faculty of Architecture. [email protected] Prof. Dr. Gülsün Sa÷lamer, Former Rector of Istanbul Technical University (ITU) (1996-2004) is a professor of architecture. She received her PhD from ITU, carried out her post-doc studies in Cambridge University (1975-1976). She was a Board Member of European University Association(2005-2009). She is a member of the Advisory Group of Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (2006-) and the Chair of the Advisory group of MSCA since 2013 and is a member of European Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters (2011-). She was awarded Honoris Causa by Carleton University, Canada (2001), Universitatea de Nord Din Baia Mare University, Romania (2002) and Ovidius University of Constantza, Romania (2009). American Institute of Architects (AIA) awarded her “Honorary Fellowship (Hon FAIA) in 2006 and SEFI (Société Européenne Pour la Formation Ingénieurs-European Society) awarded her “Leonardo da Vinci Medal” for Engineering Education in 2005-2006. [email protected]

CHAPTER TWELVE QUESTIONING DOCTORAL STUDIES ON HOUSING IN ITU PELIN DURSUN ÇEBI AND GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER

Introduction As a result of the rapidly evolving social, economic and demographic changes in Turkey’s urban environment, housing has been and will continue to be an important issue that must be carefully evaluated and addressed. Throughout its history, housing has remained on the country’s social, political and economic agenda with regards to the following themes: housing blocks built after the foundation of the Turkish Republic; changing typologies due to westernisation; squatter housing in the metropolis emerging during the rapid urbanisation that has occurred since the 1950s; mass production since the 1980s; gated housing communities since 2000. Educational institutions have attempted to carry out research projects to understand different aspects of these themes and created platforms to introduce and share new ideas and knowledge in Turkey. Since 1949, the ITU Faculty of Architecture has maintained a tradition of excellence and leadership in architectural education and research, especially regarding housing in Turkey. The aim of this study is to provide a database on housing research at PhD level at ITU Faculty of Architecture and to map and visualise the research repertoire of the institution. It is believed that the final figures will be valuable in evaluating the potential of the institution and in revealing inadequate fields in which research must be carried out by offering alternative perspectives for future studies on housing in Turkey.

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

193

Housing Needs in the Globalised World In 1937, the great urban theorist and historian Lewis Mumford described the city as a geographical plexus, an economic organisation, an institutional process, a theatre of social action and an aesthetic symbol of creative unity.1 As an architect, Daniel Libeskind sees cities as the greatest creations of humanity that are designed to meet our needs and aspirations.2 In a similar way, Dursun and Sa÷lamer describe cities as engines of economic growth and incubators of civilisation; a melting pot of ideas and cultures, and centres of social and economic capital, innovation and creativity.3 As an urbanist, Williams characterises cities as the spaces in which the quality and standard of living are improved and people benefit from social engagement, mixed populations and public interaction, a free society, critical thinking, freedom of expression and enquiry, the right of assembly as well as individual autonomy, collective action, increased wealth and new opportunities, improved and extended mobility, and a cosmopolitan and metropolitan mind set.1 One of the most controversial names of this era, Rem Koolhaas describes the metropolises as worlds of extremeness that give the possibility of all kinds of experience. He also talks about a stage of uncertainty that new urbanism will no longer be concerned with the arrangement of more or less permanent objects but with the irrigation of territories with potential.4 All these descriptions point out the intrinsic nature of cities. Here, it must be remembered that cities are living organisms that evolve and expand constantly. The concepts of impermanence, transience, diversity, multiplicity, uncertainty, discrepancy, polarity and mobility are integral to the growth of cities’ physical and social structures and each era builds a new structure based on emerging opportunities and threats. People migrate to cities for job opportunities, education, health and other service supplies, close proximity to the cultural wealth of society and to benefit from lowcost energy sources, technological developments, urban political and financial power, urban-centred transport systems and a wider network of social relationships.5, 6 These make urban environments grow rapidly. Today, the globalised economy stimulates urbanisation and makes cities our primary habitat. Between the years of 1900 and 2000, the global urban population expanded thirteen-fold, from 225 million to 2.9 billion. While 15 % of the world population of 1.5 billion people resided in cities in 1900, by 2000, 47% of the world population of 6.2 billion resided in cities. In 2007, urban dwellers outnumbered rural dwellers for the first time.5 Reports of United Nations’ State of the World’s Cities 2010/11 supports these statistics. According to this report, more people are living in

194

Chapter Twelve

cities than ever before, and that number is set to increase substantially over the coming decades: the world is inexorably becoming urban. By 2050 the proportion of people on the planet living in urban areas is expected to have risen to 68.7%.6 As cities grow, the huge influx of population also creates social, economical, physical and environmental problems such as pollution, resource degradation, waste generation and housing demand are major issues. Because the cities are not prepared to absorb the influx, millions of people have to live in unpleasant conditions and especially in developing countries slums or squatter settlements emerge as a solution to the housing problems of newcomers.2 If architecture is defined as the art of living and as the process by which we can dwell on and define how man relates to his environment7, we are required to increase the quality of life by creating habitable structures in cities. Housing needs should be addressed on a global scale by emphasising the challenges of the new century, such as mobility, safety, affordability, sustainability and plurality in terms of race, class and ethnicity.8

Background Information on Housing Research in Turkey In this section we aim to summarise the urbanisation processes, emerging housing demands and housing production alternatives on which housing research has been based at Istanbul Technical University, which is the oldest technical university of Turkey, established in 1773. Turkey is one of the countries where radical and dramatic changes in cities have been experienced because of the huge influx of population from rural to urban environments. The population of Turkey in 1927 was 14 million. By the year 2000, this number had increased dramatically to 68 million, indicating the significant effect that economic, social, political, and cultural change have had on both urban and rural populations. In 1924, 24.22 % of Turkey’s total population resided in urban settlements. Starting from the 1950s, this percentage increased dramatically: at 25% in 1950, 43.91% in 1980 and 64.90% in 2000.9 The difference in proportion of urban and rural population growth is a direct result of industrialisation and its impact on urbanisation. According to recent census reports, the population of Turkey reached 73.72 million in 2010. As a result of technological developments, new production and consumption patterns and globalisation, over 76.3% of Turkey’s total population now resides in urban settlements.10 In terms of providing well-equipped and affordable housing environments for newcomers, state and local authorities as well as private companies

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

195

have become insufficient to solve the need for housing. Since the 1950s until the present day the big cities have experienced very intensive migration from rural areas and three main typologies have emerged as solutions for housing problem: 1.Squatter settlements, 2.Governmentinitiated housing developments (public housing, housing cooperatives, mass housing developments), 3.Apartment blocks within the existing city structure.11 Squatter houses are illegal houses, which were initially built to meet the basic housing needs of the newcomers as single-storey houses in gardens. In the 1980s, when the government gave certain rights to inhabitants of these settlements they started to transform their single-storey buildings into multi-storey apartments.12, 13 Government-initiated housing developments include public housing, mass production and housing cooperatives. While in the 1980s, mass housing developments were mainly constructed by a bank (Emlak Bank) partnership, in recent years TOKI (the Mass Housing Administration of Turkey) started to build multi-storey apartment complexes on state-owned land. Today TOKI, which aims to construct low-cost housing units with long-term loan system, has become the biggest real estate actor in Turkey. Between 2003 and 2010, TOKI has cooperated with regional and local authorities and Emlak Bank to build a total of 505,694 homes in 81 cities and 800 municipalities.14 As a third typology, apartment blocks are multi-storey buildings in the city centres that are constructed by tearing down earlier dwellings or reconstructing older buildings. The main intention is either to bring the properties up to par with new earthquake-resistant construction regulations or to increase the number of floors in the building in accordance with new zoning laws, thereby increasing the building’s value. The experience of more than 50 years showed that government-funded projects were not able to meet the housing demand in Turkey. These efforts were regarded as profit-making schemes, primarily addressing the needs of the upper and middle class. The implemented projects were not suitable for the lifestyle of the newcomers in terms of space organisation and fittings. Expectation of a high quality of life is a driving force in the reevaluation of housing needs. Starting from the 1980s, the educated and elite city dwellers have been inclined to move away from their existing houses. The demand has been to reside in secure, luxurious housing environments with neighbours with similar profiles to their own, accounting for the recent shift from open, heterogeneous towns towards more closed, homogenous housing environments: gated housing communities. After these groups have vacated parts of an old housing area,

196

Chapter Twelve T

newcomers often settle in i these neigh hbourhoods annd during this process the area deteeriorates and turns t into a slu um area. While thhe living spacees of the low--income city-ddwellers betw ween 1950 and 1980 haad a significannt impact on the t city’s deveelopment in Turkey, T in the 2000s, the new livinng spaces of the upper inncome level started s to propel impoortant changess in the fabric of the city. With their in ncreasing numbers, thhese living sppaces illustrate an importannt physical and a social metamorphoosis. The passt decade hass seen a maj ajor shift in how city residents viiew housing,, with the former f notionn of a hou use being considered aas a space thaat fulfils the need n for accoommodation shifting to the home noow being connsidered to be a reflection oof income and d societal status.15 Taking iinto account various v dynam mics of Turkeyy, housing hass come to be on and will remain on o the countrry’s social, ppolitical and economic e agenda. Oveer the years, edducational insttitutions have attempted to reconsider r different asppects of the quuestion and creeate platformss to introduce and share new ideas aand knowledgee in Turkey. Since its estabblishment in 1949, the Istanbul Tecchnical Univeersity Faculty y of Architeccture has main ntained a tradition of excellence and a leadership p in architectuural education n and, in particular, rresearch into housing in Turkey. T The aaim of this sttudy is to provide a daatabase on houusing research h at the PhD llevel in ITU Faculty F of Architecturee and to mapp and visuallise the reseaarch repertoirre of the institution iin the area of housing. Th he volume annd quality off doctoral research on housing at IT TU is broad an nd deep enouggh to represen nt housing research at national leveel. A cumulattive analysis of completed d doctoral studies on hhousing has shhown that ressearch carriedd out at ITU represents r the vast majority of housiing research in n Turkey.

Hou using Studiies at ITU Faculty F of A Architecturre ITU Facculty of Archiitecture has a rich repertoirre on housing g research studies withh books and papers p written n by its acadeemic staff, master m and PhD thesis done by its research stud dents.16 Valuaable knowled dge about housing hass been gained as a result off a series of im mportant activ vities that have been caarried out in thhe faculty.

1. Housing g Panels Nationall housing pannels that weree held in the 1960s were important i milestones in the historyy of housing g research at ITU, provid ding early platforms foor discussion on housing and creating opportunitiess to bring

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

197

together different experts and actors from related disciplines. The panels were very timely as the 1960s are the years through which Istanbul and other cities began to experience intensive migration from rural areas. The first panel was organised in 1963 by the Building Research Centre to answer the question of to what extent a house can be standardised if it is organised according to the basic activities of its inhabitants.17

Fig 12.1. Housing Panels at ITU Faculty of Architecture

In 1965, a second panel focused on the factors influencing the planning of community housing in Turkey. Financial, social, organisational and design issues and space needs in community housing were given consideration.18 A third panel in 1966 focused on mass housing, including topics related to housing cooperatives, organisational, financial, and design issues.19 The final panel of the series took place in 1967, and focused on environmental factors affecting housing design, including the relationship between housing and environment, psycho-physiologic comfort issues and the durability of structure and building components in housing projects,20, 21 , (Figure 12.1).

2. Master Degree Programme on Housing in the 1970s In 1969, ITU implemented extensive reforms and converted its continental 5-year Dip. Arch. and Dip. Eng. Programmes into 4+2 Bachelors and Master degree two-cycle system. During the 1974-75 academic year, the curriculum for engineering, and architectural departments and postgraduate students were organised under 4 main branches: architectural design, building technology, urban planning and restoration. The housing programme was placed in the field of architectural design together with the programme of design theory and methods in architecture, industrial

198

Chapter Twelve

building design and architectural programming.22 Topics addressed in this program included: Research Methods in Architecture, Housing Sociology, Behavioural Science, Psychology, Design Methods, Industrial Building Design Methods, Building System Analysis, Performance Evaluation of the Built Environment, the Evolution of the Housing Problem, Research on Housing Standards, Urbanisation and Migration, Settlements and Housing Politics, Material Selection in Building Systems, Urban Design Theories and Urban Image23, (Figure 12.2).

Fig 12.2. Themes of Housing Master Programme in ITU, 1973-1974

3. Research Links and a New Research Centre: ITU Housing Research and Education Centre The Training and Research Project of Med Campus Housing Network “Housing for Low Income Groups” which was launched in 1995, was an EU-funded project coordinated by Istanbul Technical University. Participating partner universities included the University of NewcastleUpon-Tyne CARDO, Queen’s University of Belfast, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, and University College Dublin. Results of this research project were presented in 1996 in Habitat II workshops with the title “Housing for Low Income Groups”. This project created a platform to discuss the concept of squatter housing by comparison with existing housing policies and financial systems and to develop financial strategies with special reference to Istanbul24, creating an opportunity for ITU academic staff to collaborate with international researchers on the housing problems of Turkey. The ITU Housing Research Unit was established in 1998 in cooperation with TUBITAK within the Faculty of Architecture based on the experience and knowledge gained during the Med-Campus Housing project (Figure 12.3). After completing the TUBITAK project in 2002, the ITU Housing Research Unit was converted into ITU Housing Research

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

199

and Education Centre in 2003. The ITU Housing Research and Education Centre launched a new master degree programme on “Housing and Earthquakes” during the 2001-2002 academic year. Bearing in mind the earthquake risks around the metropolis of Istanbul, the programme aimed to provide fundamental knowledge on the topic and to educate qualified professionals in this field.

Fig 12.3. Activities on Housing at ITU Faculty of Architecture

200

Chapter Twelve

Methodology of the Study In this study, PhD theses on housing between 1961 and 2010 are investigated according to different aspects of the subject area: year, programme, field of interest, scope and scale. PhD theses are grouped under three main topics: 1.Typology, 2.Research method / scope of the study, 3.Scale. Typology refers to the themes of housing in general, traditional and vernacular housing, housing for low income / squatter houses and mass housing. The classification “housing in general” refers to research that does not focus on a specific housing typology, and broadly defines housing issues. The general scope of the research has three elements: Space, technology and policy (Figure 12.4).

Fig 12.4. Methodology of the Study

The concept of space is analyzed according to the following themes: 1.Function and organisation, 2.Culture and home environment, 3.Man and

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

201

space relationships, 4.Ergonomics, 5.Design. The main contents of each theme can be summarised as follows: Function and organisation based studies focus on building typology or specialised spaces, activities in space and space syntax and morphology. Research that deals with the reflection of cultural characteristics on space are explored within culture and home environment based studies. Here, it is suggested that this relation can be discussed both in terms of physical characteristics and of social characteristics. As a continuation of part of this theme, the third group of studies focuses on person and space relationships, in other words environment and behaviour studies, phenomenology, environmental sociology and sociology. Perception, cognition, identity, meaning, society are the themes of this heading. The fourth group of studies deals with ergonomics and explores the space and spatial components in terms of size, proportion and density. The last group relates to the concept of design. Design activity, the design process, evaluation in design, quality of design, post-occupancy evaluations, user participation in the design process and user satisfaction are the main themes of this group. Technology is examined with regards to the following themes: 1.Ecology and lightening, 2.Construction and production, 3.Structure, 4.Infrastructure. The first theme includes heating, ventilation, bioclimatology, energy matters and level of light; the second theme focuses on industrialisation and production in terms of system and process; the third entails material and building component; and the fourth focuses on infrastructure related issues including fire, security, transport. Rules, procedures, regulations, laws and policy together with financial and management issues are grouped under the “policy”. Scales for the problems in each study are codified by building and settlement scales separately for each study.

Findings of the Study 1. PhD Thesis / Programmes / Years Based on the available numerical data related to PhD studies at ITU Faculty of Architecture between 1961 and 2010, of the total number of 476 PhD theses completed, approximately 106 focus on housing as the central research theme. 16, 25, 26 Distribution of PhD theses on housing associated with programmes and years can be summarised as follows: among the 106 PhD theses, 60 were completed in Architectural Design, 19 in Urban Planning, 14 in Building Science, 7 in the History of Architecture and 6 in Restoration (Figure 12.5). In the Architectural Design Programme that has

202

Chapter Twelve

the highest proportion of student and academicians in the faculty, the number of projects is relatively higher in comparison to the History of Architecture and Restoration Programme. Figure 1 shows that the most productive years have been between 1991 and 2000 and 2001-2010.

Fig 12.5. Distribution of PhD Theses on Housing According to Programmes and Years (1961-2010)

Fig 12.6. Distribution of PhD Theses According to Housing Typologies

2. Housing Typology / Scope of the Study PhD studies focusing on housing types have shown the following trend through the years: between 1961 and 1970, studies on “housing in general” are followed by studies on mass housing. Between 1971-1980 and 19811990 a similar trend continued with an increase of studies on traditional and vernacular housing. The periods 1981 to 1990 and 1991 to 2000 are critical in terms of verification of studied housing types. As a result of rapid urbanisation in Turkey, squatter housing has been selected as the research topic of a number of theses. In total, housing in general is explored in 50 cases. The investigated housing type in PhD theses is traditional and vernacular housing in 28 cases, mass housing in 21 cases, and squatter housing in 7 cases (Figure 12.6). Analyses indicate that the

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

203

studies have been mostly explored along the theme of space (59 cases). Space is followed by technology (16 cases) and policy (10 cases). Analyses of the relationship between housing typology and scope of the work showed the following correlation: the housing typology of traditional and vernacular housing is mostly explored in terms of space (27 cases), squatter housing in terms of policy (5 cases), mass housing in terms of space (14 cases) (Table 12.1). Studies on housing general are mostly focused on person - space relationships while studies on traditional and vernacular housing and squatter housing concentrate on function and culture. Design issues are critical for mass housing studies (Table 12.2). In terms of technology, studies on housing in general are mostly analyzed by concentrating on construction, ecology and structure. The studies on traditional and vernacular houses address structural issues and the studies on mass housing deal with construction and structural matters (Table 12.3). Studies on housing in general that relate to policy are mostly focused on rules and finance, while in the case of squatter housing they focus on rules (Table 12.4).

Table 12.1. Relationship between Housing Typology and Scope of the Work

Table 12.2. Relationship between Housing Typology and Concept of Space

204

Chapter Twelve

Table 12.3. Relationship between Housing Typology and Concept of Technology

Table 12.4. Relationship between Housing Typology and Concept of Policy

3. Housing Typology / Research Areas The most common housing typology in PhD studies carried out between 1961 and 2010 appears to be housing in general (50 cases). Some research areas which are grouped under this main housing typology include: existing housing stock, single story buildings, housing zones in urban areas and works on housing from a specific city or a specific time period. Gated houses from 2000s are listed under this category.

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

205

Fig 12.7. Space as a Research Area

The typology of traditional and vernacular housing is studied in 28 PhD theses. Urban space in Anatolia in the 19th century, historic housing typology in eastern and south-eastern Anatolia and studies of traditional housing from a specific time period or a specific city such as Mardin, Mugla, Trabzon, Istanbul, etc. are selected research areas categorised under traditional and vernacular housing typology. The typology of mass housing is studied in 21 cases. Some research areas that are grouped under this housing typology include: workers’ housing, prefabricated multistorey housing, urban housing clusters, disaster housing, housing cooperatives, mass housing units, high rise apartment buildings. The number of PhD theses on squatter housing and housing for low income is 7. In most of the theses, the ‘space’ theme is defined in terms of function and organisation, use, typology and activity (35 cases). Space is also investigated in terms of culture and home environment focusing on physical and social characteristics in 33 and 29 cases respectively (Figure 12.7). Investigated topics vary under the research area of ‘space’ (Figure 12.8). In most of the PhD theses, the ‘technology’ theme is researched in terms of structure and building components (12 cases) (Figure 12.9). Technology is also investigated in terms of construction system in 9 cases.

206

Chapter Twelve

Fig 12.8. Some Main Topics Investigated under the Research Area of “Space”

Fig 12.9. Technology as a Research Area

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

207

Fig 12.10. Some Main Topics Investigated under the Research Area of ‘Technology’

Investigated topics vary under the research area of ‘technology’ (Figure 12.10).

Fig 12.11. Housing Policy as a Research Area

In most of the PhD theses the ‘policy’ theme is investigated in terms of rules, procedures and policy (16 cases). In 6 cases the study focuses on financial issues (Figure 12.11). Investigated topics vary within the research area of “policy” (Figure 12.12).

208

Chapter Twelve

Fig 12.12. Some Main Topics Investigated under the Research Area of “Policy”

4. Housing Typology / Scale Statistical data shows that most of the studies explore building scale (in 85 cases). 39 studies are based on settlement scale and 19 studies discuss a combination of building and settlement scale. Research on the relationship between housing typology and scale of the problem shows the following structure. 31 studies from the category of “housing in general”, 15 studies from the traditional housing and 17 studies from the mass housing are mainly explored in building scale (Table 12.5).

Table 12.5. Relationship between Housing Typology and the Scale of the Problem

Conclusion Detailed analyses on housing research activities and PhD studies at ITU Faculty of Architecture have been carried out within the scope of this project. PhD studies have created an extensive and comprehensive knowledgebase on housing issues. This knowledge and expertise have created a rich research environment to train researchers in the field, making

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

209

a remarkable contribution to practice and to the construction sector. Through the years, academics and PhD students have published articles and given presentations on international platforms, and consequently the ITU Faculty of Architecture has been more visible in this area of research. Experienced academics in this field have acted as consultants to decision-makers at the local and national levels. On the other hand, some of the research activities carried out in these areas focus on theoretical issues that do not have a direct link to the implementation phase of housing production. Many valuable research studies unfortunately are sitting on the shelves of the main library waiting to be used. ITU organised structured PhD and Master degree programmes on housing research in the 1970s, but sadly, when the higher education system was restructured in the 1980s, these programmes disappeared and as a consequence, the current academic environment does not encourage academics to design new programmes and lecture series on housing research at doctoral level. Completed PhD theses mainly concentrate on the ‘space’ theme by researching questions related to the function of space and culture and manspace relationships. In the overall research framework, design matters are considerably limited. This theme is needed to be addressed focusing on current discourses such as sustainable design, environmental design, design for specific needs (disaster, low income, high density, and accessibility), new forms of living, design for the future, creativity (originality, etc). A similar tendency occurs regarding research on the theme of ‘technology’. In this research area, green practices can be enhanced by focusing on such issues as energy-efficient building, artificial ecosystems and construction issues. Structure can be developed through the use of new technologies and recycled materials, especially in the case of building structure for earthquake durability, etc. Studies on policy also show a restricted scope. Areas such as finance, management and regulation issues should be focused on in future studies. In conclusion, we believe that in order to contribute further to the field, ITU should have a new structured ‘housing’ programme at Master and PhD levels and should have a definite strategy, with goals to be reached within a certain period of time. Today, globalisation, urbanisation, technology, economy, climate change and energy issues create new perspectives in every field, including those of design and architecture. These all put pressure on the built environment and therefore the priorities of owners, users, clients and designers have changed considerably. As a result, research institutes and universities must keep pace with this continuous transformation process.

210

Chapter Twelve

Given the need to improve living standards, these institutions should restructure their research programmes and besides the curiosity-based research fields that enhance designers’ creativity, they should also establish new and planned research areas that will shape our future and create solutions for urban issues. As well as monitoring the research process, universities should take responsibility for implementing the findings of research in practice, otherwise valuable research will continue to remain on our library shelves.

References 1. William, A., 2011, “The Civilised City”, in The Lure of the City, from Slums to Suburbs, edited by Austin Williams and Alastair Donald, Pluto Press, 2011 2. Donald, A., 2011, “The Emerging City: Africa’s Metropolitan Mindset”, in The Lure of the City, from Slums to Suburbs, edited by Austin Williams and Alastair Donald, Pluto Press, 2011 3. Dursun, P., Sa÷lamer, G., 2012, “Doctoral Studies on Housing”, Proceedings of the XXXVIII IAHS World Housing Congress, Visions for the Future of Housing Mega Cities, April 16-19, 2012, Istanbul Technical University. 4. Williams, A., Sharro, K., 2011, “The Visionary City: Things will Endure less than Us”, in The Lure of the City, from Slums to Suburbs, edited by Austin Williams and Alastair Donald, Pluto Press, 2011 5. Girardet, H., 2004, Cities People Plane: Liveable Cities for a Sustainable World, Wiley-Academy Press, England 6. Hayes, P., 2011, “The Crowded City: People on the Move”, in The Lure of the City, from Slums to Suburbs, edited by Austin Williams and Alastair Donald, Pluto Press, 2011 7. Guallart, V., 2004, Sociopolis, Project for a City of the Future, Actar, Barcelona 8. Sennet, R., 2009, “The Open City”, in The Endless City, The Urban Age Project by the London School of Economics and Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen Society, Edited by Ricky Burdett and Deyan Sudjic, Phaidon Press 9. Turkey’s Statistical Institute, Demographic Statistics, 2011, www.tuik.gov.tr 10. News Bulletin of Turkey’s Statistical Institute, 2011, vol.19, www.tuik.gov.tr 11. Sa÷lamer, G., 2012, “Transformations of Istanbul, A voyage from Past to Future”, Proceedings of the XXXVIII IAHS World Housing Congress, Visions for the Future of Housing Mega Cities, April 16-19, 2012, Istanbul Technical University. 12. Dursun, P. and Sa÷lamer, G., 1996, “Informal Housing Areas: From SingleStory Shelters to Multi-Story Apartment Blocks”, Proceedings of XXIV IAHS World Housing Congress, ODTU, Ankara, 27-31 May 1996 13. Sa÷lamer, G., Dursun, P., 1998, “Applying Morphological Analysis to a SemiSquatter Settlement in Istanbul”, Ekistics, vol.391-392-393, pp.272-281 14. Activity Report of Housing Development Administration of Turkey in the Period of 2002 and 2011, 2011

Questioning Doctoral Studies on Housing in ITU

211

15. Ekmekçi, O., Dursun, P., 2010, “Exploring New Forms of Living in the City of Istanbul”, Proceedings of XXXVII IAHS World Congress on Housing, Design, Technology, Refurbishment and Management of Buildings, Santander, Spain, 26-29 October 2010, code: 507 16. Sa÷lamer, G., Özsoy, A., 2006, Konut KaynakçasÕ (Housing Bibliography), 1949-2005, ITU Housing Research and Education Centre, Istanbul 17. Proceedings of First Housing Panel, “Determination of Urban Housing Standards” (Papers and Discussions) (1964), ITU Faculty of Architecture, Building Research Centre 18. Proceedings of Second Housing Panel, “The Factors Influencing the Planning of Community Housing in Turkey” (Papers and Discussions) (1966), ITU Faculty of Architecture, Building Research Centre 19. Proceedings of Third Housing Panel, “Direction of Housing Demand towards Mass Housing Programmes in Turkey” (Papers and Discussions) (1966), ITU Faculty of Architecture, Building Research Centre 20. Proceedings of Fourth Housing Panel, “Analysis of Environmental Factors in Housing Design” (Papers and Discussions) (1967), ITU Faculty of Architecture, Building Research Centre 21. Bulletin of ITU Faculty of Architecture Building Research Centre, 1976, March, vol.2 22. ITU 1977-78, 78-79 Guides, 1978 23. Instruction Plan for ITU Engineering, Architectural, Graduate Departments, 1975 24. “Habitat II Istanbul Workshops”, 1996, in TasarÕm (Journal of Design), vol.63, pp.62-66 25. ITU Library Catalogue, 2011, www.library.itu.edu.tr 26. ITU Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology Catalogue, 2011, www.fbe.itu.edu.tr

Brief biography of authors Pelin Dursun Çebi is Associate Professor in ITU Faculty of Architecture. She has been a visiting scholar at University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1995 and the Bartlett School of Graduate Studies in 2000 and in 2004/2005 academic years. Her research interests focus on architectural design education, body space relationships, spatial choreography and architectural morphology. She has been involved in a number of design projects including student social centres, conference rooms and research-educational spaces in different faculties of ITU. She also takes place in the design team of ITU Molecular Biology and Genetic Research Centre and ITU Kindergarten. Dr. Dursun Çebi is still teaching in Architectural Design Group of ITU Faculty of Architecture both at undergraduate and graduate level. [email protected]

212

Chapter Twelve

Prof. Dr. Gülsün SaŒlamer, Former Rector of Istanbul Technical University (ITU) (1996-2004) is a professor of architecture. She received her PhD from ITU, carried out her post-doc studies in Cambridge University (1975-1976). She was a Board Member of European University Association(2005-2009). She is a member of the Advisory Group of Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (2006-) and the Chair of the Advisory group of MSCA since 2013 and is a member of European Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters(2011-). She was awarded Honoris Causa by Carleton University, Canada (2001), Universitatea de Nord Din Baia Mare University, Romania (2002) and Ovidius University of Constantza, Romania (2009). American Institute of Architects (AIA) awarded her “Honorary Fellowship (Hon FAIA) in 2006 and SEFI (Société Européenne Pour la Formation Ingénieurs-European Society) awarded her “Leonardo da Vinci Medal” for Engineering Education in 2005-2006. [email protected]

CHAPTER THIRTEEN TOWARD A DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AT ETH ZURICH PHILIP URSPRUNG

There is no such thing as research. There are only researchers. The majority of these researchers, and certainly the most motivated and active ones among them, are doctoral students. Doctoral students are at the heart of research activities at any university—the driving force, so to speak. Their curiosity, creativity, and vitality are essential to the intellectual climate of a university. They are a challenge to tenured professors, inspiring them to constantly update their knowledge and remain curious and creative. They are role models for younger students who are aspiring to an academic career. And they are a kind of intellectual glue among the usually hierarchically structured elements of universities: chairs, institutes, and departments. Doctoral students, most of whom come to a university from somewhere else and travel frequently, are visible and ever-present in the life of a school. They embody the future of academia. It is crucial that a university be able to offer its doctoral students good working conditions—a salary, a space in which to work, equipment, a travel budget, support in dealing with the administration. These not only enable a university to attract excellent students from an international context, but they are also indispensable to the quality of the work and its results. This is, more or less, what I tell my colleagues in the Department of Architecture of ETH Zurich, when the discussion during a faculty meeting returns to the question of whether research is really necessary for an architecture school, and how we should handle it. As in many architecture and art schools, in the Department of Architecture of ETH Zurich, research is stigmatized as being something of a burden. This is especially the case with design professors, who view research as something that is imposed from above, a top-down, abstract, and bureaucratic demand deriving from “Bologna” or “the administration” and symptomatic of the general economization of higher education. Research is the precondition for

214

Chapter Thirteen

additional funds, additional staff members, and positive reviews, yet many colleagues still regard it as a secondary practice beyond the core of the discipline: design. This skeptical attitude toward research goes hand in hand with a skeptical attitude toward teaching in general, since architecture, as many (probably rightly) believe, remains a vocation and depends largely on individual talent that can be encouraged by teachers but not substituted. On the other hand, many of my design professor colleagues consider the process of design to be synonymous with research, and therefore see no need for additional research. But rather than relying on the recent accomplishments of “research by design” or “artistic research,” rather than opting for a “Design PhD,” the majority of design professors seem to confuse research with the publication of texts and books. They hire shortterm research staff to prepare representative publications, not in order to find out something new. This leads to the situation we have at our school, in which considerable energy and resources are expended on publications, which, although beautifully designed and carefully edited, are not based on primary or basic research in the traditional sense, but, rather, are accumulations of individual essays, either specially commissioned or previously published, which are grouped under a common theme. Obviously, this is the kind of output prized by administrators, because it can be easily planned and quantified as proof of scientific activity. But personally, I would label such a publication “search” rather than “research,” in other words, mainly a compilation of already existing knowledge, rather than the production of new knowledge: representative rather than experimental. Research, the production of new knowledge, an experimental approach to what we don’t yet know, is of course exactly what a dissertation is about. And the interest in this kind of practice is rapidly growing in the realm of architecture. At ETH Zurich, the number of doctoral students in architecture has increased exponentially over the last decade. According to the university’s records, there were twenty-one dissertations in the four decades between 1921 and 1960, nineteen dissertations during the 1960s, forty-one in the 1970s, nineteen in the 1980s, thirty during the 1990s, and seventy-nine during the 2000s. Since 2010, more than fifty dissertations have been successfully completed and defended.1 Today, there are about one hundred doctoral students enrolled in the Department of Architecture. The majority are working with an advisor, either employed by the chair of a department as an assistant or self-financing their education, pursuing their doctoral studies alongside work at an architectural practice.

Towards a Doctoral School of Architecture at ETH Zurich

215

One reason for the rising interest in pursuing doctoral studies is the Bologna reform of higher education, specifically, the academization of the practice of architecture. The other reason, I would argue, is the global economic crisis that has adversely affected architecture in southern Europe since 2008. The creative energy of many architects, which used to be directed toward the production of the built environment, is now going into the production of discourse. As in earlier phases of economic crisis, such as the depression of the late 1920s and 1930s and the recession of the 1970s, the non-built might become as important as the built, and the discussion about representation as vibrant as the debate concerning pragmatic realization. My prediction is that this trend will continue, and that the number of doctoral students in architecture will increase even more so in the near future. Universities should therefore be prepared to profit from this trend, providing favorable conditions for doctoral students and doing their utmost to attract the best of them. In 2012, seeking to improve the conditions of doctoral students at ETH, the Department of Architecture launched two new doctoral programs: one in the History and Theory of Architecture and the other in Architecture and Technology. These programs have been granted guaranteed funding provided by ETH and the Department of Architecture, allowing us to offer full-time positions to two doctoral students in each program every year. While doctoral positions are normally tied to specific research projects within a thematic framework, these new doctoral programs are thematically open-ended. For the professors in the department, this brings the enormous advantage of not having to produce grant applications. For the doctoral students, it has the advantage of enabling them to freely choose their research topic. Each student is funded for a period of three years, as per the disbursement authorized by the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the candidates are salaried, so that they can concentrate fully on research and are not required to teach or carry out administrative duties. (However, there are teaching opportunities for those interested). In accordance with ETH rules, each doctoral student is obliged to chose an advisor, who is then joined by other professors in a group comprising that student’s dissertation committee. Throughout the dissertation process the student is encouraged to consult the members of the committee for feedback and guidance. In this manner, the students participating in the two doctoral programs are less dependent on one professor than is usually the case. Acceptance into these programs is based on two criteria: an applicant’s curriculum vitae and the quality of the research proposal. Students in the program explore a wide variety of

216

Chapter Thirteen

topics, ranging from the French war in Algeria and its architectural and urban implications, to the role of models in the art and architecture market of the late twentieth century, to the early utopian projects of Ivan Leonidov. In our view, the most precious resource during doctoral studies is time. As such, we try to leave as much space as possible for the process of individual research. The ETH program eclectically combines elements from comparable U.S. doctoral programs—among them the very successful one in History, Theory, and Criticism at MIT (such as the important role of the dissertation committee)—and the German Graduiertenkolleg. Unlike the doctoral programs in the United States, however, there is little emphasis on propaedeutic issues, partly because the ETH programs are shorter in duration than their American counterparts. Unlike the Graduiertenkolleg, no additional tasks are prescribed, such as the publication of separate papers, the organization of conferences, and participation in the dense rhythm of weekly seminars and regular workshops. Most importantly, there is no common thematic rubric to which the participants are supposed to adhere. The one course-related requirement is limited to the attendance of an introductory seminar, as well as a seminar alternately offered by each professor. The doctoral students also have access to funds enabling them to invite visiting speakers every year. In addition, at the end of every semester guest critics participate in public forums, offering evaluations of ongoing research. ETH’s two doctoral programs have already improved the situation of other doctoral students in the Department of Architecture.. The Department of Architecture’s doctoral students who are not part of the department’s program or who might otherwise feel isolated with their research are welcome to participate in the activities of the two doctoral programs. Interaction among doctoral students is certainly the key to a successful program, and our intention is to promote this interaction and encourage the doctoral students to organize events that make the program visible throughout the school. In the near future, it will be important to add one or two further doctoral programs, in order to create a doctoral school. Finding a way to integrate the design faculty and build a doctoral program in design will be a particular challenge. Other fields in which we would like to engage on the doctoral level are historic preservation and urban studies. While the situation of doctoral students has significantly improved over the last decade, at least in German-speaking countries, such is not the case for postdocs. We have not yet found a structure to improve the conditions of postdocs in the realm of architecture or attract excellent postdocs on an international level. It is at this level where short-term

Towards a Doctoral School of Architecture at ETH Zurich

217

fellowships are particularly fruitful, and where the combination of teaching and research is especially promising. If the academization of architecture is to be consolidated, the issue of postdocs will have to be raised and resolved.

Note 1

http://www.arch.ethz.ch/doktorat/abgeschlossene-dissertationen/2013-2014.html (accessed October 2014).

Brief biography of the author Philip Ursprung is Professor for the History of Art and Architecture at ETH Zurich. He was trained as an art historian at the University of Geneva, the University of Vienna, and the Freie Universität Berlin, and has taught at the Hochschule der Künste Berlin; Columbia University, New York; Zurich University; and the Barcelona Institute of Architecture. From 2006 to 2014 he was director of ProDoc Art and Science, a joint doctoral program in art history involving five Swiss universities, and since 2012 he has been co-director of the doctoral committee of History and Theory of Architecture at ETH Zurich. He is editor of Herzog & de Meuron: Natural History (Montreal: CCA; Baden: Lars Müller, 2002). His most recent book is Allan Kaprow, Robert Smithson, and the Limits to Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). [email protected]

PART III: CONCLUSION

THE FUTURE GÜLSÜN SAöLAMER AND FATMA ERKÖK

The project that laid the grounds to this edition has actually started as a smaller-scale inquiry for doctoral education directed towards the state of the home institution of the editors. This inquiry was a partly curiositydriven initiative and was directed towards the acquisition of some statistical facts, later accompanied by some qualitative issues about the state of PhD education in Architecture at ITU. This initial inquiry has been executed fully personally by the authors of this book, without any funds or additional researcher supports, as previously stated, arising partly from curiosity matters, rather than a big research project planned as a whole from the beginning. In parallel to examining some statistical and situational facts, inquiring other institutions via a prepared questionnaire was found appropriate for this research. Receiving remarkable amount of answers to our questionnaire has actually encouraged us to go further. Besides quantitative issues like student numbers, quotas, etc., other issues like relating research to real life, the position of architecture in current global conditions, re-adjusting doctoral education to the changing conditions and industry-business-scienceresearch-practice relations were seen as subjects of discussion. The expected shift in doctoral education in Europe due to the Bologna process could be mentioned as a forceful change, but the real life conditions should not be overlooked, as they are the triggering factors ultimately also influencing doctoral education in architecture, may be more than in other fields. The idea of organizing a workshop rose during this inquiry, for the reason that evaluating our home institution needed a confrontation and comparison to ‘others’, i.e. a comparative look. As known, ‘the other’ is the essential complementary component for self-evaluation. With these issues in mind, almost in an improvisational way, organising a small-scale meeting with colleagues from architecture schools has been our second aim. The workshop has added numerous acquisitions to us. Firstly, it has created a shared motivation to gather the contributions of participants as a published product. As the procedure could be considered as a semi-

Doctoral Education in Architecture: European Perspective

221

structured one, some aims have been fulfilled entirely, while some have been partly reached. The primary aim of the research and workshop was establishing/creating a benchmarking with other institutions. The survey mainly contributed to this aim, as the good response rate enabled such a look. Considering the contributions of the workshop itself, even though the institutions responding to the survey were represented at a limited rate, the fact that there was a direct dialogue/contact opportunity has helped a more efficient exchange of facts and experiences. Another aim of the workshop was to share the successful experiences of different institutions. As this workshop has been the first chance for face-to-face communication, the focus of discussions has been predominantly the introduction of issues like title differences, particularities of architecture etc. Consequently, the exchange of successful experiences has not been at the very core in reality. The issue of the representation of countries was another important aspect of the workshop. We had a well-distributed representation of Europe, coming from Northern, Middle and Southern regions. Out of Europe, we had one representative from Australia. The distribution of the location of our preparatory survey participants was a wider region including North America. One of the outcomes of the workshop was to extend the inquiry with a further study (by a possible joint project contribution) in this topic to gradually widening contexts. As a matter of fact, the next possible meeting is considered to be at a bigger scale with an expanded distribution of representation.

CONTRIBUTORS

Hans BEUNDERMAN Pelin DURSUN Fatma ERKÖK Murray FRASER Kemal GÜRÜZ Vilma HASTAOGLOU-MARTINIDIS Katalin MARÓTZY Olivier MASSON Gary MOORE Georgios PAPAKOSTAS Gülsün SAöLAMER Stefan SIMION Constantin SPYRIDONIDIS Jean STILLEMANS Philip URSPRUNG

EDITORS

Prof. Dr. Gülsün Sa÷lamer østanbul Technical University ITU TaúkÕúla Campus, Istanbul /TURKEY Phone: 90 212 245 38 57, Mobile: 90 533 290 20 90 e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Gülsün Sa÷lamer, Former Rector of Istanbul Technical University (1996-2004) is a professor of architecture. She received her PhD from Istanbul Technical University in 1973. She carried out her post-doc studies in Cambridge University at The Martin Centre, Department of Architecture in 1975-1976. She has been in the Scientific Committee of TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey), INTAG (1990-1996). Prof. Sa÷lamer has been invited to Queen's University of Belfast as Visiting Professor (1993 -1996) and as an external examiner (1999-2003). She is a member of the Editorial Boards of Open House International, International Journal for Housing Science and its Applications. She has been a Board Member of EUA (European University Association) (2005-2009), a member of the Steering Committee of EUA’s Institutional Evaluation Programme (2009-2013) and a member of the Research Policy Working Group of EUA since 2005. She is an Executive Committee Member (2003-) of the International Association of University Presidents (IAUP) and the President of CMU (Community of Mediterranean Universities) (2012- ). She is the Chair of the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action Advisory Group (2013-) of EC’s Horizon 2020 Program. She has been on numerous juries such as the prestigious Daimler-ChryslerUNESCO Mondialogo Engineering Prize 2005 and Fulbright Prize Selection Committee 2014. Alongside her academic interest areas in research, she has also focused on higher education and research. She gave over 70 invited lectures on different aspects of higher education (such as research policy, doctoral education, innovation, quality assurance, quality enhancement, funding, women in STEM) at international meetings. She has established a center in Istanbul Technical University titled “Women Studies in Science Engineering

224

Editors

and Technology” in 2010. She is the chair of the “European Women Rector Platform” since 2010. She has received several architectural prizes and was awarded Honoris Causa by Carleton University, Canada (2001), Universitatea de Nord Din Baia Mare University, Romania (2002) and Ovidius University of Constantza in Romania (2009). American Institute of Architects (AIA) awarded her “Honorary Fellowship (Hon FAIA) in 2006 and SEFI (Société Européenne Pour la Formation Ingénieurs-European Society) awarded her “Leonardo da Vinci Medal” for Engineering Education in 2005-2006. She is a member of European Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters since 2011.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatma Erkök østanbul Technical University ITU TaúkÕúla Campus, Istanbul /TURKEY Phone: 90 212 293 13 00, Mobile: 90 532 227 18 57 e-mail: [email protected] Fatma Erkök is Associate Professor in ITU Faculty of Architecture, Architectural Design Unit. She received her PhD from ITU in 2002 with a thesis entitled “Objective and Subjective Evaluation of Istanbul in the Context of its Coastal City Identity and Urban Components”. She has been a visiting scholar at IUAV Venice in 1997 (Scholarship for 6 months from Italian Government) and carried out her post-doc studies in 2007/8 at TUDelft, Faculty of Architecture, Urban Planning Department (Scholarship for 12 months from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey). She has started her academic career in ITU Faculty of Architecture as teaching/research assistant in 1992 and has been teaching since then. She has taken part in many international events throughout this period and has organized and tutored many international student workshops. She has taken part in research projects both at national and international levels. “A Model to Transform the Squatter Settlements into Upgraded and Liveable Urban Areas Resistant to Earthquake in Istanbul” (2003-4) (funded by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, ITU Urban and Environmental Planning and Research Center) and “Creativity in Higher Education” (2006) (EUA Socrates funded Creativity in Higher Education Programme) are among these. She has been author or co-editor for a number of books. Among these are: “Residential Entrances and Doors of Istanbul” (1996, among authors),

Doctoral Education in Architecture: European Perspective

225

“Istanbul ECOC 2010: Experimental Architectural Projects, Riverside Dreams, Undergraduate fifth and sixth semester architectural design studio” (2007, co-editor); “Re-discovering the Golden Horn for ECOC Istanbul 2010 [ITU-QUB] Cultural Connections” (2007, co-editor) and “Danube Delta Advanced Research Center Murighiol, Romania, ITU Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture 2011-12 Fall Term, Jury A Graduation Projects” (2012, co-editor). Her research areas focus on doctoral education in architecture, urban issues, water & city relations, body & space relations. She takes place in the executive board of ITU Institute of Science & Technology, Architectural Design M.Sci and PhD Programme since 2012. She teaches at both graduate and undergraduate levels in ITU Faculty of Architecture.