Observing the etiquette of the conference, I want to comment on two
points raised by Richard in this interesting and innovative discussion,
but will first introduce myself and my particular perspective on the
discussion topic. I am a Principal Lecturer in Design Management at
Staffordshire University and a Senior Research Fellow at London
Institute. My research area is design learning formerly in higher
educational and latterly in design organisations. From both research and
practice, I have gained respect for the concept of an interdisciplinary
approach to teaching and structuring design programmes.

I want to pick up the issue which I think is embedded in the following
two extracts - if everyone thinks this is such a good idea, why aren't
there more programmes like this.

"The key factor that folks latch onto is the idea of a
cross-disciplinary, rigorous approach to design. Individuals who have
worked in more than one domain (whether it be medium or industry) or
especially those who work in complex design areas (e.g. ubiquitous
computing or vehicle design) recognize immediately the value in
approaching design --- its pedagogy and its practice -- in an
interdisciplinary manner.  Multiple perspectives are essential to
addressing difficult problems."


"The interdisciplinary approach to design
and its study, couched in a traditional, broad-based undergraduate
university curriculum, is the core idea.  This is not a "new idea", but
it is difficult to find an institution elsewhere, especially in the
U.S., that actually fulfills that vision deeply and broadly."

One of the real advantages this kind of 'blank paper' thinking is that
it can be vision driven. To hold the programme together and retain this
distinctiveness, it needs to retain the vision and let this drive future
decision-making. However, I think most design programmes have found over
time that the need for pragmatism has crept in and as markets change
(both student and workplace) and as national educational structures have
made different demands on institutions, the vision often becomes no more
than a piece of copy for the college brochure!

As some one has already said, interdisciplinary programmes are not a new
idea and I think there have been other attempts at it which have to some
extent failed. Two possible reasons I want to explore are the
expectations of the market (again both students and workplace) and
despite buying into the rhetoric that interdisciplinarity is important,
the actual behaviour of staff as they attempt to interpret and implement
it. Actually, these two are linked!

Managing the expectations of incoming students will be crucial. In the
UK we take far more students into design programmes than could ever hope
to find relevant employment. The job market is therefore highly
competitive and as a result, students tend to come with a keen eye on
job prospects coupled with a fairly weak and out of date view of what
the design industry and the work of a designer actually looks like. This
is not say students are entirely wrong in their focus - most of the jobs
they see offered require at least highly relevant education (or maybe
training would be a better word here, they want people who can use
specific software or know about particular processes) or relevant work
experience. As a result, students are highly resistant to classes which
do not mention or fit into their idea of what a
graphic/web/ceramic/textile designer does.

People who have worked in more than one 'domain' may be, as Richard
says, the more interesting designers, but the industry currently finds
it hard to place them, in first jobs at least. Maybe, again as someone
else has said, you will attract the brightest and the best, but you will
have to instil and nurture in them the same vision you have otherwise,
believe me, they will not be silent about their own perceived needs.
Even so, it will be an act of faith on the student's behalf as there
will be real differences between what they do and what other design
students (sisters, friends) do. The brightest and the best will always
have better job prospects - how are you going to assess the value you
have added? How will you know your vision works?

The role of craft skills in design education has been debated at length
over as long as I can remember. I guess all design disciplines have
craft skills of some kind as their roots. Many of these skills take a
long time (a life time) to develop and the potential number of specific
processes and techniques involved will fill far more than a normal
undergraduate programme. But of course this force feeding of ALL
techniques might be the expectation of the student (see above) and
indeed the measure by which teachers are judged, particularly if
evaluation includes the successful employment of past students. Richard
may just say that they are cutting the cake in a different way -
horizontally, rather than in silos - but the core and common threads
have to 'hang' on something and inevitably students and staff will lean
towards particular discipline preferences, 'langauges' and identities.

Once people divide into groups (which is an inevitable part of human
work/life needs) so empire building and a need to distance one group
from another begins. If budgets or 'heads' that represent money are also
involved this helps to drive factions apart particularly when groups
require that students can only 'join' the group if they put in the time
and commitment to master the craft language. There is often a tendency
for staff to feel that students who 'pick and mix' are betraying the
particular discipline and they communicate this very effectively to
students. At undergraduate level, it takes a strong kind of student to
break the rules. Groups in most design schools are discipline based and
this tends to provide the differences they need to form their own
identities. I guess these points make a compelling argument for just the
kind of interdisciplinary programme proposed, but it may be that the
groupings Richard suggests will be equally divisive.

This may suggest why interdisciplinary programmes look good on paper but
so far have failed to take hold. It may be that its time has now come
and that the commitment of the individuals involved will ensure it
succeeds. We will be watching with interest!


Philippa Ashton

The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for
the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and
any attachment from your computer.