Thanks for a good post, Rob. It may be that we're saying some of the same
things in different ways.

Working experience in industry is an important part of professional
education. This sometimes involves explicit training based on and linked to
work. Companies themselves sponsor excellent educational programs in some
industries. In others, the professional learning cycle builds on and
completes the learning that begins in school. Where professional learning
begins in school, work experience in the professional life does indeed fill
out aspects of education which aren't covered in undergraduate programs.

This situation isn't exclusive to design. It's the case in many fields.

Students nearly never learn enough in school to give them the knowledge
needed in the workplace. Developing that knowledge is never possible in the
limited time available for an undergraduate program.

Undergraduate education generally requires mastering explicit, articulate
knowledge. Professional experience involves both explicit and tacit
knowledge, integrated into the context and rhythm of working life. Even
when undergraduate education includes training and intern experience, the
time constraints of undergraduate education mean that these experiences
contribute to a richer and more reflective body of explicit knowledge.

Internship and training during undergraduate education is usually desirable
and important, but training is simulated experience while internship is
inevitably restricted and partial. Time as a factor in learning means these
experiences can't operate in the same way as professional learning
integrated into the rhythm of actual work life.

What excellent undergraduate education can do is to give students a
foundation of analytical skills and learning tools. Along with these, it
can impart specific professional skills and a range of profession-specific
knowledge.

Even here, time and the need to choose among different experiences imposes
a significant constraint on the undergraduate program. Developing a robust
foundation of analytical skills and learning tools takes time. Placing
professional skill and knowledge in larger context takes time. Mastering
the basis kinds of knowledge that all professionals need in the knowledge
economy takes time.

The constraints of an undergraduate program are greater still given the
time needed for developing these curriculum areas. Given these time
constraints, a good undergraduate education can't offer all the skills and
knowledge a design professional needs. In fact, the better an undergraduate
program is, these more visibly severe the time constraints become.

The best programs will inevitably make trade-offs that give students
introductions to central professional skills while explaining that these
skills can and must be consciously and reflectively deepened on the job as
students take over responsibility for their own professional development
together with colleagues and superiors.

Moreover, the specific professional skills and knowledge students do get in
undergraduate programs are important, but unlike analytical skills and
learning tools, these important kinds of knowledge become rapidly obsolete.
In field after field, the professional knowledge that students develop in
school becomes obsolete within five to ten years. Analytical skills and
learning tools remain important.

The main role of professional knowledge is introducing students to the
skills and knowledge they need for professional life while getting them to
a level that allows them to begin professional work.

Within a few years, what professional school graduates learn at work and on
the job becomes the most important part of their professional knowledge.
The essence of a good undergraduate education is the richness of the
analytical and learning tool kit.

In today's knowledge economy, industrial design has become a field where
tools are in constant development.

The skills needed to manage professional life change nearly as dramatically
and rapidly as Moore's Law puts a new chip on the market. Every time a new
chip or a new program ramps up the power of computers, the profession
changes. Innovations include process-oriented equipment such as rapid
prototyping systems. Innovations include working methods, such as
concurrent design and team organization. These innovations may also include
significant organizational and structural changes, including the
cross-organization teams built up into what Hedberg (1997) calls "imaginary
organizations." The physical equipment changes in the design studio,
manufacturing equipment changes in the industrial setting, industry itself
changes in a series of complex adaptations. These adaptations provide
feedforward and feedback in the form of increasingly complex professional
demands.

The steady stream of industrial developments to which professional
knowledge is applied moves far too rapidly for any but the most well funded
schools to keep up with the comprehensive spectrum of developments related
to industrial design. It's impossible to imagine offering an undergraduate
education at the leading edge of progress, at least not an undergraduate
program that doesn't run an astronomical tuition bill.

In this world, therefore, professional experience becomes the most
important form of professional education. An intelligent designer with a
job in a knowledge creating company will surpass his or her former
professors in design knowledge in two or three years at work.

Where the skilled professor retains an important role is in the areas of
analysis and reflection. That's why professional schools get top quality
professionals and senior executive for advanced education programs - and
that's why they leave our programs with new levels of understanding.

And excellent undergraduate education does provide an essential foundation
in areas essential to professional life in the knowledge economy that
extend beyond the scope of professional learning and practice.

A good education and immersion in a rich professional learning environment
are complementary.

Where it comes to Ph.D. programs, there is a slightly different range of
issues. It's clear that some Ph.D. programs have practice or profession as
their focus. I tried to say about some -- but not all -- Ph.D. programs
don't. The distinction I attempted to draw was that there are programs in
which improved professional practice is not the primary goal.

The primary purpose of some Ph.D. programs is enhancing professional
practice. Nevertheless, enhancing professional practice through Ph.D.
research involves creating knowledge that one generalizes and abstracts for
the profession. It doesn't generally involve improved personal skills for
professional practice by the doctoral candidate. This is the purpose of the
professional doctorate. The purpose of some versions of the professional
doctorate in clinical or applied research is to contribute directly to
improved practice.

I didn't say that there are no doctorates in which practice is the primary
purpose. I tried to say that SOME doctorates have practice as a secondary
purpose. For SOME, practice has no purpose at all. Those other doctorates
also have a purpose.

While the Ph.D. is an advanced educational degree, the purpose is not
always education, either. It may be research or it may even involve some
other goal.

The example of science that you use is perfect. Doctoral programs the
sciences may deal with clinical research applied research or basic
research. Graduated doctors may be headed toward industry, consulting to
industry, or training others for industry. Some graduates are headed toward
education, or training others for education. Some graduates are headed
toward research of several kinds.

However, even here, it's important to distinguish between science doctors
going into industry and professional doctors. When the work of a chemist or
physicist in industry is a form of research, then one may well go to
industry with a Ph.D. The knowledge and skills one puts to work at the
start are nearly the same. As one integrates into company life, one
develops the added professional skills. This includes management skills for
those who become laboratory chiefs, department heads, or boundary spanning
executives helping the company to put research to work.

The situation of professional doctors is different. A chemist may go into a
lab, but a chemical engineer who applies chemistry to engineering needs
might well do better with a D.Eng. Terry Love's post addressed this issue.

Practice is the primary purpose of some good doctoral programs. It's not
the primary purpose of all good doctoral programs. That's what I didn't say
as well as I might have.

Ken


(References)

Hedberg, Bo and Goran Dahlgren, Jorgen Hansson, Nils-Goran Olve. 1997.
Virtual Organizations and Beyond. Discover Imaginary Systems. (Wiley Series
in Practical Strategy). New York and London: John Wiley and Sons.








Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management

+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax

Home office:

+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax

email: [log in to unmask]




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