In response to Ken's email (see below) I would like to spend a moment with some
thoughts on curriculum design. First, let me say that without question this is
a design problem. Curricula are intended to accomplish certain things. They
reflect the agenda(s) of their designers and other interested parties, and they
affect the wider society. How the design problem of designing the design
curriculum is defined will to a large extent determine the goals it seeks to
accomplish. If I may be so bold to suggest that humans by their nature and the
nature of the societies within which they manoeuvre have agendas, implicit and
explicit. Sometimes those humans are conflicted and their agendas reflect this.
Often the societies are conflicted and societies' agendas reflect that as well.
So how the goal or problem is defined is critical. And I think it wise to spend
a reasonable amount of time hashing out what we need to be doing, before we
worry too much about where and how. (And yes, not everyone needs to be doing
the same thing but there are some inescapable realities of modern life which we
might be able to discuss, even if heatedly. There are also issues related to
rights and responsibilities which can be another focus. In fact I suspect there
is a rather long list which could be developed. Just the word sustainable will
be a quagmire to wade through.)

Ken suggests a need to avoid overlap and clarification of the location of
different bits of what I will call the "socialization of design education". (We
can quibble about that if we want to, so make me an offer I can't refuse for a
better term) I would suggest that before we can move on to parcelling out the
bits, we need to clarify what we are trying to accomplish and what we really
want to avoid. 

There is also the issue of what already exists, because of course it is
unlikely that this "socialization' will take place in a vacuum. It is far more
likely that it will evolve within existing structures, although I can't think
of anything more appealing that stepping outside of those structures and
building a new paradigm from scratch. But that I think is Pollyanna thinking.

So what exists in design education is structured differently in different
places. Some times it is in Art schools, sometimes it is located within
universities in their Schools of Art, Architecture or Engineering (maybe other
places as well, and I am speaking about industrial design specifically).
Universities such as University of Wisconsin, UCLA, Syracuse, University of
Illinois, etc., require students to take general education classes as well as
majoring in their field. The theory being that  they will be exposed to a broad
range of subject matter including English, Mathematics, sciences, humanities,
history, psychology, etc. and come out the other end well rounded and well
educated, which may or may not be true. 

In other places the industrial design programs may be quite isolated and in
control of most of the education of the their students. These issues place
greater and lesser burdens on the industrial design curriculum to address
various significant and timely matters within the structure of the courses they
offer. Some programs have high practical content, some don't. So the bottom
line is what is already in existence is already varied.

And then there is learning. I really want to be clear about this particular
point. Learning is really a very tricky business. It is a strange process of
taking in new information, ideas, and skills, connecting that with the old
stuff (in all categories and more) then rearranging the relationships and
understanding already in one's possession, testing everything - practicing all
that in some way (the information, ideas, and skills), reflecting on what is
happening (to gain deep knowledge and wisdom one hopes) and choosing to
internalise a "new" personal model. Or to simplify, going from unconscious
incompetence, to conscious incompetence, to conscious competence, and finally
to unconscious competence. 

That is not so hard when we are learning to ice skate, or to "go where man HAS
gone before". It is quite a different matter when we are exploring new terrain.
Learning in a deep way involves some kind of reflective practice. Also there
are many questions but not necessarily as many answers. This will challenge the
university environment I think. There are many points where the teachers may
have to front up to not knowing what the answers are. The whole world seems to
be advancing on a new adventure the outcomes of which are as yet unknown. A
timely moment for movies like the Lord of the Rings, because I suspect we will
need all the courage we can muster, just like Frodo. 

What does this have to do with curriculum planning? Ken brings up the issue of
avoiding overlapping, and redundancy in course material. Well, perhaps a
different question is how we can imbed the core issues and ideas in the
courses, across the diverse divide of subjects. How can we reflect our concerns
in the everyday business of the subjects' delivery. Do not mistake what I am
saying because I am not suggesting a new kind of socially responsible brain
washing. But we would have to be the biggest of fools not to know that our
students have twigged to the fact they are living in unstable times with
uncertain futures. How can we invite discussion and create challenging
environments which are more collaborative and support the emergence of clashing
views and ideas? I think this means bringing under scrutiny not only what we
are teaching, but how, and the methods we use to determine degree of success on
the part of both staff and students. We need some reflection on the
relationships between staff and students. We need I think to discover how to
breed a love of rigour and excellence and yet free up the space for educational
innovation, and support a spirit of experimentation? 

I am testing out some ideas right now, particularly in my methodology classes.
I am reflecting on what is working and what is not. I am asking my students to
do that as well. It is exciting ground and I will see where it takes us. I hope
many of you are also engaging this great opportunity of our complex
multicultural threatened world. Just one more little comment. We are dealing
here with people. Covering the subject matter is one thing. But I think it
quite important to understand that beyond subject matter there is thinking,
feeling, understanding, knowing, meaning and significance.

Cheers from Down Under
Jan

"Justice is not limited, it is a universal quality. Its operation must be
carried out in all classes, from the highest to the lowest. Justice must be
sacred, and the rights of all the people must be considered. Desire for others
only that which you desire for yourselves. Then shall we rejoice in the Sun of
Justice." 
Abdu'l-Bahá

Jan Coker
Lecturer in Industrial Design
Louis Laybourne Smith School of Architecture and Design
City West Campus, North Terrace
Adelaide, South Australia 5000
Telephone: +61 8 8302 0421
Facsimile: +61 8 8302 0211
email: [log in to unmask]

    
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Friedman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 21:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Good post ...


Dear Jan,

Been following the thread on social design with much
interest.

It isn't possible to participate in every thread, and many
of the points I would normally raise are coming up.

Just want to thank you for good post on this topic.

Want to raise one thought that was not clear in your
post. You point out that social responsibility is an issue
for all areas of the design curriculum and for all
fields in the university. If this is so, one of the delicate
issues is deciding what aspects of socially responsible
design and social design belong in industrial design
because they are within the subject, and which issues
ought to be treated separately because they cover all
fields.

One of the challenges of curriculum planning is ensuring
that topics are covered while also ensuring that students
do not get the same topic repeated in the same way. If
every university student studies this topic, and every
design student has a course within general design, and
each ID student takes a course specific to ID, it is
important to ensure that these students are not getting
the same material three times, but instead, to ensure that
they are receiving material that enriches the subject while
overlapping enough to provide continuity.

Best regards,

Ken