[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s

[Ellis Godard]

The difference in "approval mechanisms" is somewhat interesting. The
difference in evaluation criteria interests me more. Science seeks to (as
described by Donald Black) simple, general, testable, valid, and original.
What are the criteria by which non-science should be evaluated?

Regards,
Ellis Godard, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Sociology Department
Cal State Northridge 
www.csun.edu/~egodard


Danny Butt wrote, on 1/17:
> ...one of the most powerful boundary-crossing aspects of artistic  
> practice (particularly when compared to design) is the heterogeneous  
> nature of the authentication/approval mechanisms for work. If you  
> work in a scientific field there is more or less a clearly 
> understood  
> hierarchy of journals where one seeks publication, and although some  
> of these (e.g. Nature) obviously have a higher "public profile" and  
> orientation there is still an ideology of scientist-driven peer  
> review being the authentication mechanism for the quality of the  
> work. (Grants are a different story). In the visual arts, what  
> constitutes success and reputation can be quite diverse and  
> incommensurate across fields: one seeks the approval of i) an  
> audience, ii) of curators who provide opportunities and 
> context; iii)  
> writers/critics/historians whose approval may result in the interest  
> of the first two groups; and iv) one's peers. (And oneself for those  
> who like to make that distinction). The different 
> expectations within  
> and between these groups makes a single mode of evaluation 
> (and of an  
> assessment of "whether or not practice-based Ph.D's are a good  
> thing") troublesome.