Jenny...I cannot speak for the situation in Finland but I can, to some degree, speak for the situation in Canada as I co-authored 'Shaping Canada's Future by Design,' a report commissioned by the Canadian government and produced by Price Waterhouse.
In a nutshell, we found that Canadian designers had failed to clearly identify and measure their contribution to the national economy in any meaningful way. When asked, for example, 'What does value mean?' designers often spoke of design awards, design selected for a museum collection, or making the cover of a magazine. For their part, the business community spoke of increased market share, new export opportunity or reduction in cost. Same word, two totally different interpretations.
Jacques R. Giard, PhD
Professor and Director
School of Design
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2105
p (480) 965-1373
f (480) 965-9717
www.asu.edu/caed/SOD
> ----------
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design on behalf of Jenny Ure
> Reply To: Jenny Ure
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Session II
>
> Would also be instructive to know what the factors are that made some countries (e.g. Finland) able to both see and act effectively on those issues earlier than others.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lorraine Justice
> Sent: 20 November 2003 14:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Session II
>
>
> Hello, Everyone.
>
> Before I begin Session II, I would like to thank David Durling, Keith Russell, Ken Friedman and others who have kept the collective doctoral discussion flame alive through indirect and direct support of the list. I think we will look back on this period in time and the discussions, ten or fifteen years from now, and see the progress made, and how our wandering discussions in this transitional time did synthesize important themes for future directions in design and interdisciplinary work.
>
> That said, let me begin:
> I was drawn to the UCI proposal for several reasons. For those creative types short on time, or short on attention, I will put my key reasons into a list, and then expound on these reasons:
>
> * The proposed new school of design at UCI is supported by someone at the chancellor level;
> * The diversity of the disciplines represented on the committee was apparent and designers were included in the process;
> * I was curious. It was such a big, complex opportunity/problem to design a school of design from the beginning, within a major research university;
> * I have been working on the very same issues for all of my academic life: fitting design curriculum into research institutions, getting faculty tenured in a research structure, supporting multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary work, funding for the fields of design;
> * The chance to help a school establish a robust design education that focused on traditional and new junctures of design work.
> * I work as a design consultant (product interface design) in addition to my role as a professor and department head and cannot rule out the importance of working outside the university system but this is becoming increasingly difficult for professors in research institutions.
>
> I will expound on each of these points because the future of design education, I believe, is woven into these reasons.
>
> * The proposed new school of design at UCI is supported by someone at the chancellor level.
>
> > I was grateful that Mike Clark had the presence and intelligence to recognize what design can do for his school, state and national economy and he acted on his vision by putting together a core group of professors who were also interested in this vision. There was no pontificating from him about where the school should go or what it should do, and in true design style the ideas in the proposal from the school were synthesize> d from many experiences, insights and documents. Although great progress has been made in the United States to lure product manufacturers to the benefits of design, it is still a draining experience to continually justify the need. This is repeated in academia also...justifying the worth of the design disciplines when the older, stronger disciplines continue to look the other way.
>
> * The diversity of the disciplines represented on the committee was apparent.
>
> The people on the committee were genuinely interested in creating a school. This was not an appointed committee, but seemed to be a committee of volunteers. Their dedication and wish to understand other areas of design became very important to me and the sincereness of the undertaking was motivating. Our discussion on accreditation issues and positioning the school of design within the state of California was illuminating to me. They had a thoughtfulness and sensitivity to the design issues that I had not experienced in an academic committee meeting in a long, long time. In addition, many of the people included in the discussions were practicing and teaching designers.
>
> * I was curious. It was such a big, complex opportunity/problem to design a school of design from the beginning, within a major research university.
>
> Although the School of Design is to grow distinct from the College of Art, Architecture or Engineering, which is where most of the design programs are in research institutions in the US, the design and planning of the School was not exempt from boundaries, personalities, egos and politics. It was designed to be out from "under" Art, Architecture and Engineering and was not considered an "add on" program. The areas of contention in US research universities for design are that they often have less budget, resources and curriculum freedom than Art, Architecture and Engineering.
>
>
>
> * I have been working on the very same issues for all of my academic life...fitting design curriculum into research institutions, getting faculty tenured in a research structure, supporting multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary work, funding for the fields of design.
>
>
> A School of Design that has Bachelor, Master and Doctoral degrees in design, and achieves a good amount of stature, will have a better chance (hopefully) of setting up multi- and inter-disciplinary work, will have an easier time getting faculty tenured, and will attract the type of funding needed to enhance all levels of design. It will have a better chance for growing, attracting the right people and respect throughout the university. Of course, this will only happen if the School can achieve certain levels of excellence. I say it will stand a better chance than the design programs in research universities that do not have control over their own curriculum or budget.
>
> * The chance to help a school establish a robust design education that focused on traditional and new junctures of design work.
>
> The committee was interested in supporting traditional modes of design education (visualization, form giving, aesthetics, functionality, etc.) but chose to look at current needs for applied research in design. The areas chosen for focus are not traditional in the sense that they have been in design education for forty years or so, but they reflect the type of education that students will need to be successful in the work force. Innovative work often comes from the blurred boundaries of disciplines and this School would support innovation by its structure.
>
> * I work as a design consultant (product interface design) in addition to my role as a professor and department head and cannot rule out the importance of working outside the university system but this is becoming increasingly difficult for professors in research institutions. >
>
> I believe it is important for most (not all) design instructors to work in industry. Many instructors are terrified of this work, or have let it go, or don't know how to get back into the mainstream design. It is a problem for professors of all applied work. But, humbling as it may be, it is important to find that opening or niche that will keep you working in the "other" world. Design, and design professors, cannot afford to lose sight of what is occurring in business. The value they receive from this employment exercise is that they can still remain somewhat detached from a corporate culture and, in many cases analytical about design processes and procedures. Bringing these insights back into the classroom is so valuable. This is difficult for the research university professor to do, to maintain research, and consult but the structure should be there in the university system to help them. The solutions do not have to always come from the department budget, but it needs to be in the department "conversation". Research projects don't always take them into the corporation and it is a lot of work in addition to the regular job, to stay current. Art schools in the US, of course, find this structure easier to do than research institutions. Before the art schools start to puff their chests, let us remember that we are often doing different work in a research institution than might occur in an art school.
>
> Two years have gone by since I consulted on the UCI proposal. When others learned I was helping UCI to design a new school of design they asked me if I had a conflict of interest? If UCI were successful, wouldn't it detract from my own school and program? I responded that by keeping all design schools strong we all win. Maybe students from my school will pursue a Masters or Ph.D. at UCI in design. Maybe our graduate students will eventually serve as faculty at that school. I don't believe every student trained in design should be groomed to be the next design rock star. Many of these students go on to have fortuitous and lucrative careers doing something other than board design. (One of our alums is extremely successful at selling high-end kitchen systems from Europe because he can speak effectively about a product). Maybe UCI's success would open up conversations at other research universities and strengthen their design programs, etc. The design field is tenuous at times. The other disciplines in a research university seem to tower over, or overshadow, the design programs at times, especially during of budget cuts.
>
> > When a design professor in the US heard about the size of the proposed School of Design at UCI, they shook their head in disbelief. Where will they get the design faculty? I think he imagined a huge suction sound coming from California that would pull all of the design professors from their current positions around the country. I had to laugh because there are good design faculty members all over the world. There are designers in industry who would love the opportunity to teach, and would be good studio instructors. Let us not forget UCI is not that far from Hollywood... build it and they will come! Since the time I worked on the proposal, I had the opportunity to sponsor the first China-US Industrial Design Conference in Beijing in 2002 with the Chinese Industrial Design Society and the Beijing School of Aeronautics and Astronautics. We had approximately 30 US design faculty meet with approximately 55 Chinese design faculty from various provinces. This is where we learned that the Chinese government would grow 400 design programs in China. They realized that design is what would make them competitive in the World Trade Organization and then, they also have their own large market to consider. When I came back from China, I posted this information about the design schools on DRS, spoke with others in Europe, Canada and the US, and also told BusinessWeek about this situation. They did an Asian version and a US/Global version. I tell you this because the concerns over the size of the U> CI program are not an issue for me. In fact, I think it is warranted. I believe we need more designers doing more work in many areas. And it is not just the USA...all countries need to keep their "design strength"up and their economies strong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lorraine Justice, Ph.D., FIDSA
> Director, Industrial Design
> 404.385.0462
>
>
|
