Dear Chris,

Thanks for your response.

Your comment on design learning outside the studio, I realized that I
should have accounted for this issue.

My comment referring to professional practice would have been better
stated without the word studio. I intended to focus on design
practice and education for design practice. This includes studio
activities but it also includes the other kinds of activities that
you note.

Let me change the statement o reflect my intentions and your
concerns, "Many activities in design education and in professional
design practice involve significant teaching and learning without
reaching beyond the local context to generate meta-learning..."

I have been thinking more on Chuck's teaching and learning model in
relation to clinical research. Some clinical research generates
meta-learning. Some does not.

Clinical research restricted to the clinic creates individual
learning and collective learning for participants, but it generally
goes no further. Clinical research extended to demonstrate how others
may use it and adapt it becomes applied research. When generalized,
the information and knowledge created in this form of teaching and
learning may become part of a progressive research program.

The distinctions involve the context and development of specific
projects. Knowledge that remains exclusively embedded in the specific
context of immediate use may constitute high level teaching and
learning without generating met-learning in the form of knowledge for
the field as a whole.

Let me tease out a few more distinctions here

There is one well-known situation in which Chuck's teaching and
learning model works perfectly in context even though it explicitly
denies meta-learning for the field as a whole. This happens when
teaching and learning create proprietary intellectual property within
working design firms or business organizations. This sometimes
includes non-profit sector organizations such as research centers or
even universities.

One benefit of a rich learning cycle within an organization is the
competitive advantage it creates. Whether the organization is a small
design studio with few partners or a massive manufacturing company,
what the organization knows, and how the organization learns, set it
apart from its competitors. Learning entails transaction costs to
become an internal investment that economically resembles the
investment in propriety research or organizational development. Few
organizations give away the return on their internal investments. An
exception occurs when organizations join in a network or virtual
organization. In this case, the boundaries between network members
become porous while new boundaries are established to separate the
network or virtual organization from a larger external environment.

When collective learning that takes place in a proprietary context,
it can become a form of meta-learning for those groups located within
organizational or network boundaries. Since no competitive
organization readily transfers its sources of competitive advantage,
this learning is generally denied to competitors. Since anyone
outside organizational or network boundaries is a potential
competitor, this learning is protected and treated as proprietary
information. This is why the collective learning and meta-learning
that arises within specific organizations or networks usually does
not contribute to the meta-learning of the field. Knowledge that
might OTHERWISE be generalizable across the field is explicitly
restricted even though it could be generalized.

In contrast, progressive research is always generalized
Generalization of some kind is a condition of wide development across
a field. It enables many people to work on common problems or to
select areas of inquiry within a range of problems. This leads to
development for the field as a whole.

Chuck's teaching and learning model may be used in a restricted
context or a general context. It may serve the field as a whole, or
it may be restricted to create competitive advantage for the members
of a specific group.

There are no absolutes in the social use of these models. Certain
kinds of progressive research program are generalizable in theory and
proprietary in practice. This is the often case in some fields of
pharmacy and medicine. It may also be the case in huge organizations
that generate research on a scale and quality that would constitute
basic research if it were not proprietary.

Some proprietary research does enter a larger field when the value of
secrecy diminishes over time. The research may be the same, but
context defines it as applied or clinical at one time and basic at
another. This is the case of some basic research for the Manhattan
Project during the Second World War. This is also true of some work
in areas such as mathematics, computation, or cryptography that was
once linked to the war effort.

This brings me to your comment on involving stakeholders of different
kinds in the design process. Individual and collective learning are
outcomes of processes that stretch boundaries with the purpose of
enhanced learning between and among groups.

It is my sense that meta-learning can also take place. The degree to
which this occurs depends on context and purpose. If information is
restricted or proprietary, it will serve the groups involved, built
it may not serve the larger fields. When information is open and
freely shared, meta-learning for the field may be extensive.

I was happy to see you mention Pelle Ehn's (1988) book. It is a
classic. I keep hoping that someone will reprint it.

In other posts, you have referred to issues that other subscribers
might address. I first became aware of Marton and Booth (1997)
through Sid Newton and Linda Drew. I do not yet understand Marton's
work well enough to bring it into the discussion, but I would welcome
hearing from Sid or Linda on how this contributes to design learning.

The other issue that may be of value involves learning styles. The
exchange between Aaron Gannon and Chuck Burnette on Bloom's taxonomy
reminded me of interesting work by Jenny Wilson and Geoff Caban
applying Kolb's concept of learning styles to the student population
at University of Technology Sydney and to museums. It occurs to me
that they, too, might have something to add to this thread.

Thanks again to you, Norm, Chuck, Terry, and the rest for launching
and maintaining a rich inquiry.

Best regards,

Ken



References

Ehn Pelle. 1988. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts.
Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum,

Marton, Ferencz, and Shirley Booth. 1997.  Learning and awareness.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


--

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

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University