Before Session 1 ends, I would like to dip my oar. However, let me first begin by introducing myself.

My name is Jacques Giard and I am director of the School of Design in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at Arizona State University. The college offers both professional breadth (graphic design, industrial design, interior design, architecture, landscape architecture and planning) and academic depth (BSD, MSD and PhD) in all of its programs.

My own background is in furniture design from l'Institut des arts appliqués (Montreal), graduate education in industrial design (engineering) from the City of Birmingham Polytechnic (UK) and a PhD in cultural studies from Concordia University (Montreal). I practiced industrial design in Canada for ten years or so (furniture, medical equipment, sailboats) before becoming an educator. I have taught in the typical department of art and design (University of Alberta), in an engineering milieu (Carleton University) and now in a college of architecture and environmental design. I have been director of several design programs for a total of nearly twenty years. Enough said.

Up to now the online discussion has been thoroughly informative and stimulating. I am certain that it will continue in this vein and am looking forward to the contributions to come. 

Clearly, Professor Taylor and his colleagues need to be congratulated for taking on the challenge that they did. I am certain that it is at once daunting yet invigorating. In a sort of twisted way, I envy their position although I am not sure whether I would want to trade places with them given the well-earned attention that they are drawing. I also wish to thank all of the other members of the list who have generously shared their views.

What I wish to offer are a few reflections on some of the contributions and comments already made.

*       On design as a science: Given the ubiquitous nature of design, it is not at all surprising that its definition and location is debatable and open to interpretation. I would not expect less than this from my colleagues. That said, it is the journey that matters not the destination. I cannot foresee a day when we will all agree that design is a science or an art or whatever. What is more important is the exploration and the perspectives that result, i.e., more questions than answers. It may be a Western thing to situate and categorize all phenomena. If so, perhaps we can learn something from the Balinese craftsmen who state that, "We don't have art; we only do things as well as possible."

*       On sketching: Rob's comments about sketching hit the mark. Sketching is vital to design, much like thinking is vital to talking or writing. That said, sketching becomes irrelevant when we loose sight of the fact that it is a means to an end and not the end in itself. In my experience, this latter attitude is often located in design programs within art schools where drawings, at least for artists, is not a means to an end but the end itself. I do not want to tell you how many beautiful sketches I have seen of terrible concepts. As sketches, they were exquisite; as design concepts, they were horrendous. Much the same can be said about the differences between model-making and modeling.

*       On form in design: Clearly, form in design is important. As Klaus states, it is a part of meaning creation in the communication that the object explicitly and implicitly provides. Where designers sometimes fail, however, is understanding that a message sent is not necessarily a message received and successfully understood by the user.

*       On a common two-year curriculum (UCI proposal): This approach to design education has been a standard format for so long that its validity never seems to be questioned anymore. However, I will do so on two fundamental points.

        First, a common two years assumes a commonality in the design disciplines being considered in the UCI program. My contention is that many design disciplines share a common design ethos but not common design operations. Architecture and product design are good examples. Architecture is normally about the design and production of one artifact, a building in most cases. Product design is exactly the opposite; it is about multiple copies of one concept. In these two very different activities, architects and product designers may share the same ethos about aesthetics or the visual language, for example, but they will part ways in how the designing will actually be done because of the sheer numbers in question. And this is only one of several dissimilar operational factors. I could add size, scale and mobility/immobility. From my point of view, a common two-year program that focuses on a shared design ethos is apropos; one that also includes shared design operations is not because the operations are closely linked to the process. A chair is not small-scale architecture.

        Second, there is the question of disciplinary identity. In my experience, most students enroll in a design program because they wish to become an architect, product designer or a graphic designer. They already identify with that discipline and envisage a career in the field, seeking anything that will enhance their chances to gain entry into that profession. Again, in my experience, few students enter a program like the one at ASU without a well-focused idea of which design discipline they wish to study. In fact, we have had very few students who, once admitted to one design discipline, actually transfer to another. This action by students is somewhat contrary to the theory underpinning a common two-year program, which assumes that students need not immediately focus on a career path. My years at Carleton University also demonstrated that this same underpinning theory supporting a common two-year program did not necessarily translate into satisfactory practice. In its early years, our industrial design students spent their first two years in the common core of either engineering or architecture. We soon realized that once they became our students in their third year we spent most of our time re-educating them because we did not want either architects or engineers, no matter how much we shared with our sister professions.

        I believe that the common two-year program continues to be a valid direction because it has become a kind of sacred cow. I would love to hear about the experiences of others - good or bad - about this particular pedagogical direction.

*       On design pedagogy: I do not envy UCI's mission of bringing forty faculty members together to teach design in a university system that is, as Professor Taylor states, very much driven by management-by-consensus. (Talk about herding cats!) I only say this because the UCI School of Design will have to break the pedagogical mold if it wishes to be both innovative and effective. This challenge, as overwhelming as may first seem, is even more so because most design educators are not as adventurous, flexible and out-of-the-box as they seem to believe. Twenty or so years as a director of one design program or another has provided me ample evidence. Yet, it will be innovation in pedagogy that will make or break the UCI program. Consequently, the selection of these new faculty members will be of critical and utmost importance.