Hello all - this post started as a short note (part one) supporting 
Johann's definition of 'talent'. It has grown into something more than 
this (part two). As I pondered over the issues of what 'talents' are 
developed during a PhD in Design, of 'gatekeepers' and of the notion 
that there is a "social expectation that particular skills be 
developed" when undertaking a PhD I began to wonder if we in design 
have such an expectation - if so, what is it? who decided what it is? 
and is this a good or bad thing?

The ramblings follow.

----------------------
Part One
---------------------- 
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:01:08 +0200 Johann van der Merwe 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:


 > What exactly is "talent"? To me at the moment (which is what I try 
to instill in my students) this description means to get them to unlock 
their own potential - any potential - for this illusive/elusive thing 
called design. Design as  talent is design as remembering - we can only 
know the future of design if we can remember a past of design, and that 
includes an own past of experiences to do with (whatever counts as) 
design.

'Talent' is indeed a tricky thing to pin down. I believe that 
Sonnenfeld (1988) sums up quite neatly what Johann is saying. 

His definition of skills refers to 'abilities' (which I think are 
similar to the idea of 'talent').

He suggests that ÒAbilities are what we are born with, or they 
represent a potential that becomes manifest with development - Skills, 
by contrast, build on abilities, but involve something more.  They 
require the refinement of motor and sensory coordination, the addition 
of experiential knowledge, and also the existence of a certain 
discipline, including persistence.Ó (Sonnenfeld 1988:200).

In other words abilities (talents) are natural but CAN be released 
through development (learning) at which point the 'ability/talent' 
becomes a 'skill'. 

SonnenfeldÕs differentiation between ability and skill suggests that 
our ability to talk is natural but to hold a conversation is a skill.  
Similarly, thinking is an ability but structured or rational argument 
is a skill.  By extension the capacity to design (defined as 
adaptation) could be considered an ability, something we are all born 
with, but there are skills which contribute to more effective design 
such as problem solving/problem finding/problem matching which can be 
learnt given the right conditions and support structures.

----------------------
Part Two
----------------------
Importantly, in the context of Design PhDs (and Design education in 
general) Sonnenfeld also notes that skills can be developed in spite of 
Òdeficiencies in native abilityÉwhen there is a social expectation that 
particular skills be developed to at least some minimal level as a sign 
of maturity,Ó (Sonnenfeld 1988:200).  

Such levels of maturity are defined culturally, by the cultural 
gatekeepers of design, design educators or professional bodies and by 
other dominant institutional powers.

I think the question that we are all seeking the answer to is - 'In 
terms of a Design PhD what are the 'social expectations' and what are 
these "particular skills" which are to be developed?' 

My feeling is that because the 'gatekeepers' are struggling to define 
these things Doctoral candidates are in a state of confusion - simply 
there are no road signs pointing the way. 

I do not mean that Doctoral candidates should be led by the hand along 
the road rather a 'road map' is needed so that the Doctoral candidate 
can choose their route, take the Motorway or the country lanes, or even 
abandon the 'roads' and go 'cross country' if they like. It is however 
important that we know what we are abandoning if we take the latter 
option. 

I would hope that in the process of defining what is desirable in a 
Design PhD it would not become rigid and restrictive - this is however 
difficult given the institutional context we all operate in - the 
balance (as with all balancing acts) between freedom to explore and 
structured development can be very difficult to achieve. 

If, what Dick has previously described as a journey of discovery 
becomes too predefined by the 'gatekeepers' then design will be in 
danger of becoming a tourist trip where we 'discover' only what we are 
shown. If, however, everything is left too 'free' we may never 
'discover' anything. It is a difficult situation to resolve - I do not 
want to be told what to do . . . 

ÒThe function of the child is to live his own life - not the life that 
his anxious parents think he should live, nor a life according to the 
purpose of the educator who thinks he knows what is best.  All this 
interference and guidance on the part of adults only produces a 
generation of robots.Ó (Neill 1976 (1962):27).

 . . .  but I do wish that when I started my PhD 
someone could have pointed out precisely what a PhD in design was like.







References
Neill A.S. 1976(1962), Summerhill, Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Sonnenfeld J, 1988, Abilities, Skills, Competence: A search for 
alternatives to diffusion. in Hugill P.J. & Dickson D.B, 1988, The 
Transfer and Transformation of Ideas and Material Culture. Texas:A&M 
University Press.  


-----------------------------------
P.M. Gutherson Advanced Research Institute (ARi)
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
Stoke
Stoke on Trent
ST4 2XN

Tel: 01782 294669
---------------------------------
[log in to unmask]
---------------------------------



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%