Title: Theoretical Perspectives in the PhD thesis: How many?

Author: Dr. Terence Love, Edith Cowan University University, Perth, WA.

Citation: Love, T. (2000). Theoretical perspectives in the PhD thesis. How many? In D. Durling & K.
Friedman (Eds.), Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future (pp. 261-270). Stoke-on-Trent,
UK: Staffordshire University Press.

Abstract

This paper describes why a single theoretical perspective is unlikely to be sufficient for
PhD level research in the field of Design. A description of the theoretical perspective
from which the research is undertaken, and justification as to why it has been chosen are
essential aspects of a PhD thesis. Research in some disciplines, however, involves more
than one theoretical perspective. Design Research is one of these disciplines. This paper
describes why it is necessary to use several different theoretical perspectives in a single
PhD research project in Design. It proposes a way that the descriptions and analyses
relating to these different theoretical perspectives might be best integrated into a simple
structure for a PhD thesis in the area of Design Research.

Introduction

The PhD thesis is used as the main means of assessing the academic competence of a
PhD candidate for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in most disciplines ((Nyquist, 2000;
Phillips & Pugh, 1992). The PhD thesis contains a record of the analyses and research
processes undertaken by the candidate (Phillips & Pugh, 1992). It is a description of the
candidate's work that provides all that is necessary and sufficient for suitably competent
researcher to replicate the research, and corroborate the candidate's data, analyses, and
conclusions (Phillips & Pugh, 1992; West & Rubinstein, 1986). A substantial aspect of a PhD
thesis is a discussion of the background issues that relate to the research problem, and
support the conclusions drawn out in the thesis. These background issues have two
threads: the material created by others that the candidate has identified as being relevant,
and the theoretical standpoint which the PhD candidate uses to undertake the research
(Phillips & Pugh, 1992). It is this latter thread that is the focus of this paper.

The researcher's choices of analyses, background material, theories and research

techniques is determined by the theoretical position that they adopt (Sharrock & Anderson,
1986; Shipman, 1981). This position consists of all the abstract and theoretical factors that
shape the sundry decisions that the researcher makes (Lindsay, 1995). This paper argues
that, unlike most research in the natural sciences, it is important for PhD candidates
undertaking design research to be aware that in most cases it involves, and depends on,
the candidate using multiple theoretical perspectives. For the PhD candidate, this implies
that their thesis is unlikely to adequately explain their research and conclusions unless
they identify these multiple theoretical perspectives and explain why they were chosen.

The paper consists of three sections:

 Background theory relating to theoretical frameworks and theoretical perspectives.

The role of theoretical perspectives in design research and theses.

Suggestions about how these issues can best be included in PhD theses in the area of
Design Research.

The final section utilises the five chapter thesis model devised by Perry (Perry, 1994; Perry,
1998) with the modifications of Love (1998; Love, )

Theoretical Perspective
Research projects and their theoretical conclusions are founded on researchers'
'worldviews', human values, theories, and data gathering methods (Flood, 1990; Franz, 1994;
Popper, 1976; Reich, 1994). Each research project and its conclusions are defined by a
particular combination of these factors that are the theoretical perspectives that define the
research (Reich, 1994). The additional practical factors that relate to data gathering
combine with the theoretical perspective as the complete theoretical framework for the
research (Love, 1998).

Theoretical perspectives are what, consciously or unconsciously, guide each PhD

candidate in the development of their research and thesis. When a thesis is written, it is
the candidate's exposition of their theoretical perspective(s) that enable readers and
examiners to follow their arguments, and reach the same conclusions (Phillips & Pugh,
1992). On a larger scale, the explication of the theoretical perspective that has been used is
what enables peer researchers to replicate a candidate's research so as to strengthen
confidence in the conclusions that have been drawn (Stegmüller, 1976). Together, these
reasons make theoretical perspectives an essential aspect of a PhD candidate's research
planning, research, and thesis.

Theoretical perspectives of research contain many factors. These factors can be grouped
together in ways that, on one hand, represent the contribution that they make to research,
and, on the other hand, to reflect their roles in the structure and dynamics of theory-
building. Popper (1976) suggested that these factors have contributions that are best
separated into three incommensurate, subjective, theoretical and objective "worlds":

Subjective - the internal world of human subjective experiences, including thoughts

and feelings.

Theoretical - the world of theories and concepts (independent of their representation

in words and formulae because these are a part of the objective world.

Objective - the external world of objects.

Popper claimed that these three worlds are essentially autonomous, and argued that
observations and analyses of one world cannot be used to validate those of other worlds.
This latter conclusion is relatively obvious in relation to the subjective and objective
worlds, for example, that subjective opinion cannot substitute for objective observation. It
is less obvious for the theoretical and objective worlds, where Popper asserts that theory
cannot be validated as theory by objective observation. A position that is, however,
widely accepted in Philosophy of Knowledge (see, for example, Dewey, 1933; Guba,
1990; Phillips, 1987).

Human activities such as research involve all of Popper's three worlds. Research
activities depend on subjective human cognito-affective processes, and the assumptions
that underpin researchers' use of theories and data gathering methods and techniques.
Together, these issues suggest a seven part model of research that progresses from the
subjective world to the objective world via the theoretical world. The theoretical
perspective that underpins research consists of the first four elements in the model:

The ontological perspective(s) - consisting of the assumptions, beliefs and collection

of human values that together form the candidate's view of what existence and reality
are. In Reich's (1994) terms, this is the candidate's 'world view'.

The epistemological perspective(s) - define how the candidate's ontological

perpective(s) on existence/reality relates to theory for each analysis or theoretical
proposal.

Theories - the theories that lay behind, and are utilised in the candidate's analyses,
research practices and conclusions.

The methodological perspective(s) - provide the assumptions that guide the

candidate's choices for research methodologies and the connections to the theoretical
background of the research. Methodological perspectives are the interface between
the underlying theory, and the research methodology, methods and the techniques that
the candidate uses in the objective world.

Research methodology - guides the candidate's choices for research methods and
techniques.

Research methods - are coherent processes of data gathering and analysis techniques.

Data-gathering and analysis techniques - are the basic practical elements of research.

The elements of the model, and their relationship to theoretical perspective and Popper's
three worlds, are represented below:

Research foundations Perspective Popper's Worlds

Ontological Perspective Theoretical perspective Subjective world
Epistemological Perspective Theoretical perspective Subjective/theoretical worlds
Theories Theoretical perspective Theoretical world
Methodological Perspective Theoretical perspective Theoretical world
Research Methodology Objective world
Research Method Objective world
Research Technique Objective world

The traditional singular theoretical perspective and framework is appropriate to PhD

candidates whose research lies wholly within a paradigm for research of the natural
sciences (Lindsay, 1995). That is, candidates whose research subjects and analysis objects
all lie in a contiguous mathematically-mappable continuum, and do not involve any
human or subjective considerations that are excluded from the natural science research
paradigm (Crane, 1989). The argument that the natural sciences perspective as logical
positivism is the only approach for all research that involves human considerations is
now widely discredited (Crane, 1989; Phillips, 1990; Popper, 1976). A heritage of this prior
logical positivist era is the relatively widespread assumption that a singular theoretical
perspective is sufficient in PhD research. This outlook is evident in guides to PhD
research that focus on a single "epistemology", or "research methodology", and has two
main weaknesses. First, the theoretical foundations of post-positivist research that
involves human values contain more issues than are found in "epistemology" or "research
methodology". Second, most PhD-level research involves more than one theoretical
perspective, especially for candidates who utilise two or more approaches to data
collection to "triangulate" their research.

In design research, PhD candidates are almost always required to address human
subjective considerations alongside analyses relating to the properties of designed
objects. Each of these research foci require their own theoretical theoretical perspectives.
For example, exploring the development of (say) a new communications device may
involve issues of; collaboration, individual cognition, socio-cultural forces, technical and
economic issues. Each of these may be viewed from several theoretical perspectives, and
this requires the candidate to choose the theoretical perspectives that are most appropriate
in the context of the research problem that they are tackling. In addition, the PhD
candidate may decide to gather data via different methodologies. For example,
collaborative designing might be explored by combining quantitative behavioural and
informatic data about collaborative activities with qualitative data drawn from semi-
structured interviews with participants. This involves three theoretical perspectives: one
for each of the data gathering activities, and one for analysis of the combination of the
two data streams.

In addition, at all times it is necessary for the PhD candidate to have an over-arching
theoretical perspective that shapes and guides their overall approach to addressing the
research problem. This overarching perspective sits within an hierarchical relationship
with the other theoretical perspectives necessary to address different aspects of the
research problem and data gathering:

Single background theoretical perspective - aimed at research problem

 Multiple theoretical perspectives - needed to address particular aspects of the research
problem and the research questions.

Multiple theoretical perspectives - related to the individual research methods and

techniques used to gather data to help answer the research questions.

Regardless of how these multiple theoretical perspectives are arranged, their description
and justification form an essential aspect of candidate's analyses, data gathering, and
derivation of research conclusions. Without this, a PhD candidate's "thesis" remains
without adequate foundations. PhD theses that attempt to "shoe horn" design research
into a singular theoretical perspective are unlikely to be satisfactory, and unlikely to make
a useful contribution to knowledge, because the inherent compromises increase
conceptual and analytical confusion in the field.

Multiple Theoretical Perspectives and Design Research PhD Theses

The description of, and justification for, the multiple theoretical perspectives used in a
PhD candidate's research can be included in their thesis in several ways. The following
suggestions are based on a modified version of Perry's (1994) five chapter model of
thesis, but would equally apply to other more complex thesis structures. The modified
version of Perry's thesis model has been chosen to aid brevity but, more importantly,
because it offers PhD candidates in design research a fast, straightforward, and well-
developed process for creating a successful thesis.

The five chapters of Perry's thesis model are:

Chapter 1: Introduction. This is an executive summary of the PhD candidate's

research describing the research problem, and how particular research questions have
been addressed by the candidate to resolve it. Chapter 1 also includes the justification
for the research, the definitions of terms and key concepts, and the delimitations of
the research.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature. This chapter is the candidate's review of the

existing knowledge and literature that relate to resolving the research problem. It is
during this review that the candidate identifies the research questions that form the
basis for his or her PhD research project.

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework. The third chapter contains the ontological,

epistemological, theoretical, and methodological analyses that identify and describe
the most appropriate theoretical perspectives for undertaking the research, and
addressing the research questions identified in Chapter 2. This chapter also is used to
justify and describe the choices of practical research processes that are used by the
PhD candidate to gather the new data that enables the research questions to be
answered.
 Chapter 4: Results. Chapter 4 lays out the data gathered via the theoretical
perspectives and practical research processes defined in chapter 3 in a form easily
accessible to the reader. Any analyses presented in Chapter 4 relate only to
relationships between data and data gathering processes.

Chapter 5: Conclusions. In Chapter 5, the research processes is concluded. The

research problem is addressed in full through the answers to the research questions of
Chapter 2 derived from the data laid out in chapter 4. It is in this chapter that the
contributions to knowledge, in the realm of theory, are fully developed and described.
This chapter also contains a discussion of the limitations of the candidate's analyses,
and suggestions for future research.

The analyses that lead to justifiable decisions about choices of appropriate theoretical
perspectives for different aspects of a PhD candidate's research are described in Chapter
3. For clarity, some PhD candidates may choose to graphically map out the structure of
relationships between the chosen theoretical perspectives, and different aspects of the
research and thesis. This graphical representation of the different aspects of the
foundations on which the research project is based is useful because it provides a ready-
made structure for writing Chapter 3. It is an approach that aligns well with Perry's
recommendation for PhD candidates to include visual representations of the relationships
between different aspects of the background knowledge in their literature review of
Chapter 2. Many PhD candidates are likely to find that one or more of their research
questions relate to theoretical perspectives, and the answers to these research questions
naturally emerge (to be reported in Chapter 4) as a result of the analyses undertaken and
reported in Chapter 3.

Throughout the thesis runs a single background theoretical framework with its single
theoretical perspective that is the position taken by the PhD candidate in addressing the
research problem and writing the thesis document. In most cases, the main characteristic
of this background theoretical perspective is that of critical analysis, but it may also
include a variety of other ontological and epistemological characteristics depending on
the research problem being addressed and the candidate's approach.. It is important for
the candidate to maintain this background theoretical framework throughout their
research and thesis writing, whilst also utilising those other theoretical perspectives
necessary for undertaking, or writing about, various data gathering processes and
analyses.

In theoretical terms, the above process sounds complex and difficult. In practical terms,
however, holding and operating through multiple theoretical perspectives is not difficult -
people in all walks of life do it many times a day. The difference for the PhD candidate,
is to be conscious of these processes and perspectives, choosing between them
appropriately, and using them in the thesis correctly. This is not an unusual expectation.
The requirements are an essential and basic skill for anyone working in the realm of
philosophy, or involved at a professional level in analysis and theory-making.

Words 2486
References

Crane, J. A. (1989). The problem of valuation in risk-cost-benefit assessment of public

policies. In E. F. Byrne & J. C. Pitt (Eds.), Technological Transformation:
contextual and conceptual implications (pp. 67-79). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research in architecture.
Design Studies, 15(4), 443-447.
Lindsay, D. (1995). A guide to scientific writing. (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.
Love, T. (1998). Social, environmental and ethical factors in engineering design theory:
a post positivist approach. Unpublished unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Western Australia, Perth.
Love, T. (2000). Writing a better thesis (Working paper ). Perth: Love Design and
Research.
Nyquist, J. (2000). Promising Practices in Doctoral Education, [online]. University of
Washington. Available: http://depts.washington.edu/envision/.
Perry, C. (1994, February 1994). Notes for Candidates and their Supervisors (with
additions 1996). Paper presented at the ANZ Doctoral Consortium, University of
Sydney.
Perry, C. (1998). A structured approach to presenting theses: notes for students and their
supervisors. Australasian Marketing Journal, 6(1), 63-86.
Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (1992). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and
their supervisors. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Popper, K. (1976). Unended Quest. Illinois: Open Court.
Reich, Y. (1994). Layered models of research methodologies. Artificial Intelligence in
Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 8, 263-274.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1986). The Ethnomethodologists. Chichester: Ellis
Horwood Limited Publishers.
Shipman, M. D. (1981). Limitations of Social Research. (2nd ed.). UK: Longman Group.
Stegmüller, W. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
West, P., & Rubinstein, S. L. (1986). The Commonsense Guide to Writing the Research
Paper. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Crane, J. A. (1989). The problem of valuation in risk-cost-benefit assessment of public
policies. In E. F. Byrne & J. C. Pitt (Eds.), Technological Transformation:
contextual and conceptual implications (pp. 67-79). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company.
Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research in architecture.
Design Studies, 15(4), 443-447.
Guba, E. C. (Ed.). (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. California: Sage Publications Inc.
Lindsay, D. (1995). A guide to scientific writing. (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.
Love, T. (1998). Social, environmental and ethical factors in engineering design theory:
a post positivist approach. Unpublished unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Western Australia, Perth.
Love, T. (2000). Writing a better thesis (Working paper ). Perth: Love Design and
Research.
Nyquist, J. (2000). Promising Practices in Doctoral Education, [online]. University of
Washington. Available: http://depts.washington.edu/envision/.
Perry, C. (1994, February 1994). Notes for Candidates and their Supervisors (with
additions 1996). Paper presented at the ANZ Doctoral Consortium, University of
Sydney.
Perry, C. (1998). A structured approach to presenting theses: notes for students and their
supervisors. Australasian Marketing Journal, 6(1), 63-86.
Phillips, D. C. (1987). Philosophy Science and Social Inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Phillips, D. C. (1990). PostPositivist Science: Myths and Realities. In E. Guba (Ed.), The
Paradigm Dialog . California: Sage Publications Inc.
Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (1992). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and
their supervisors. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Popper, K. (1976). Unended Quest. Illinois: Open Court.
Reich, Y. (1994). Layered models of research methodologies. Artificial Intelligence in
Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 8, 263-274.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1986). The Ethnomethodologists. Chichester: Ellis
Horwood Limited Publishers.
Shipman, M. D. (1981). Limitations of Social Research. (2nd ed.). UK: Longman Group.
Stegmüller, W. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
West, P., & Rubinstein, S. L. (1986). The Commonsense Guide to Writing the Research
Paper. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.