Dear List,

A big thank you to all the participants of this online discussion. We all
benefit from these opportunities to publicly exchange ideas. In particular,
my appreciation to Ken Friedman for his constant contribution to the design
disciplines. He has been consistently responsible for promoting reflection
in an otherwise highly pragmatic field.

Despite some great contributions to the original theme of the conference
"Design in the University", my main comment would be that the discussion is
once again focusing on our differences. Design tribalism is something that
one first notices not long after entering University. One inadvertently
becomes part of the highly polarised world of design thinking. The infamous
'with us or against us' that dominates global politics today seem to apply
to some degree to our discussions -both in our hallways and on a planetary
scale.

This is a rather paradoxical feature of a field composed by people who
regard themselves as creative. Admittedly, we do not know much about
'creative traits' but amongst all the inconclusive and contradictory
characterisations, flexible thinking seems to be consistently correlated.
It is said that a balance between divergent and convergent processes is
necessary; attention in details and general overview; expertise and
naivety; engagement and detachment; abstraction and complexity; social
abilities and isolation; etc. This flexibility may be the key to perceive
situations and adjust behaviour accordingly ahead of the rest. We still
don't know for sure but steady progress is being made in several
disciplines. One day we may find an explanation to the
once-seen-as-mystical-now-seen-as-complex phenomenon of creativity. Until
then, let us assume that creative people are indeed particularly flexible.
The point is that design tribalism *does not* seem to be the result of
flexible thinking.

A major challenge for proponents of design programs may be to find a way to
transform academic segregation into a constructive climate of multiple
interpretations. Design disciplines are multi-paradigmatic. Design students
need exposure to inclusive, conciliatory points of view. The proposal seems
to address this issue with the definition of several specialisations and
degrees. One can see graduates from UC Irvine with abilities and interests
developed in art, engineering, management, science, and other aspects of
design. Each of these need not render the others as invalid or less
important. And none can claim precedence or exclusivity.

Of course, other disciplines have specilisations too. Perhaps what is
particular to design specialisations is that their advocates claim
definitional centrality as in <<design is art>>, <<design is science>>,
etc. In any case, I would propose that it is essential for students (and
for anyone aiming to engage in discussion) to be explicitly aware of other
valid paradigms. Students can be exposed to alternative views of design
during their undergrad years. As for lecturers, researchers, and
practitioners the solution is less clear. Mental push-ups to straighten and
bend our assumptions are recommended.

Regards,

-- Ricardo Sosa
SID: 200036769
PhD candidate, 4th year
Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition
Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney
http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~rsos7705