Dear Ken, Jacques and list members,
Have been on holidays, so I am coming into the discussion at the tail end...
I would echo the concerns mentioned and I can add the following:
As an active professional-teacher-researcher I feel we need to figure out
ways to get practice and education together. I am an active member of the
Interior Designers' of Canada, IDEC and also FIDER ( Foundation for Interior
Design Education and Research, the accrediting body in North America). I am
a
'Site Visitor' for FIDER - our role is to accredit ( or not) professional
baccalaureate and masters' interior design programs and make sure that they
respond to our industry needs while maintaining academic rigour. IDEC is one
credible research voice ( with its publication JIDER)
in North America as Ken mentions, but there are others such as IDEA (Journal
of the IDEA)in Australia that are responsive to the current shifts in design
education and practice as an evolving complex contemporary phenomenon .
And these organizations have their critics as well - I have been known to
criticize the lack of development of a design philosophy ( knowledge)
specific to interior design. Some educators and practitioners do talk, but
most practitioners criticize design education and I believe rightly so...I
myself present in my doctoral thesis the split between education and
profession, and the wider split between research and the profession.
However, I ask why we insist on 'educating' rote behaviours and 'vocational'
training(and we do this with philosophies other than our own!), rather than
helping students become designers who question and problem-seek to change
things for the better?!!! I question what we are trying to do in design
'education' ; hence my continued 'foot in the profession' even though I am a
full-time professor and researcher.....
we can provide both practical and theoretical knowledge if we reconsider how
we teach design in the first place...
I think that we need to see design as rooted in 'what we do and how we do
it' as a philosophical knowledge - construction rooted in our particular
specificity but also responsive to changing global and societal needs -and
that this is a 'moving target' -
meaning that design is responsive ( with change and the increased pace of
progress) and so by definition design education must be as well. I teach in
a three year bachelor program where the design studio curriculum shifts
every year, depending on what the newest global and technological issues
are - the curriculum has a built-in flexibility to respond to the shifts in
the world and show students how to question the world around them as a
complex and contemporary phenomenon - this, in part, I believe, prepares the
designers of the future. The curriculum mixes research and practical
knowledge with theoretical design foundation principles, theories and
philosophies, and knowledge from other disciplines, among other things.
Students 'explore' design rather than 'learn' it.
We need to shift the perspective in design education to respond to society's
needs, and maybe then we will see education and practice talking to each
other more often.....!
Regards,
Tiiu Poldma, Ph.D.
Assistant professor
School of Industrial Design
Faculty of Environmental Planning
University of Montreal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:19 AM
Subject: Design education [was: Re: Phd Design Subscribers] -- response from
Jacques Giard
> I empathize with Deana's concern and have a similar story to Glenn's
> to add to the discussion. Admittedly anecdotal, the pronouncement to
> ASU students by a well-known American designer that he does not, as a
> rule, hire many designers in his firm was nothing less than shocking.
> When asked why, his answer was simple: unlike scientists and social
> scientists, designers are not-as a rule-educated to be skeptical.
> Admittedly, this is one person's opinion but when added to other
> changes now occurring in design the situation of a rift between
> design education and practice could be disconcerting. From my
> perspective and in this context, the design picture in the USA looks
> something like this:
>
> --- Interaction between educators and professionals: My colleagues in
> graphic design tell me that the AIGA has had little interest in
> graphic design education. It is only of late, for example, that the
> AIGA has supported design education conferences but only at a
> regional level. I find this situation unacceptable given that there
> are more than 800 degree programs in graphic design in the USA.
> Clearly, educators and practitioners are not talking.
>
> The IDSA has a somewhat better track record than the AIGA. It does
> support an annual design educators conference but it is not part of
> the annual IDSA conference, although it is usually in the same city
> and within days of each other. Again, educators and practitioners are
> not interacting face to face.
>
> The interior designers seem the fare somewhat better than either the
> graphic or the industrial designers, at least from the point of view
> of scholarship. By way of IDEC, interior designers have established a
> strong track record of research and publication. But again, educators
> and practitioners are not really talking to each other.
>
> --- Accreditation of design schools: Clearly, the accreditation of
> design schools would be an effective first step of connecting
> education to practice. More importantly, accreditation could allow
> the profession to established desired standards. However, and again
> from my experience, only the interior designers by way of FIDER have
> an accreditation process with teeth. IDSA and AIGA worked closely
> with NASAD to develop accreditation criteria, but the criteria are
> too broad and do not address specific requirements of design
> practice. Moreover, the criteria only encourage an artifact/skill
> focus on design, not a process/knowledge approach.
>
> --- The relationship between education and profession at the level of
> design practice is not without criticism. Consider the following
> picture in the USA. Unlike law, medicine or architecture, the concept
> of formalized internship after graduation does not exist in the
> design professions. It is my belief that no matter how good a design
> education may be it is not practice. Consequently, there needs to be
> realistic expectations on both sides. Educators must do their best to
> prepare students for the so-called 'real world'; for its part, the
> profession must be equally prepared to transition the student from
> theory to practice. It is not realistic to expect that a student will
> be a fully productive designer upon graduation.
>
> --- Design education is not blameless. Alec's reference to a
> vocational attitude in design education, i.e., the artifact/skill
> model, still rings true in many colleges and universities. Just look
> at the recent issue of Innovation and its spotlight on design
> schools. The fact that in design an artifact is usually a means to an
> end is lost. This is why effective design education must reach beyond
> its boundaries and meaningfully engage business, engineering, the
> social sciences, and any other area that has become part of the
> interdisciplinary field we call design.
>
> Design education, at least as it now exists, also has challenges that
> are systemic to the their milieu. For example, most design programs
> are four years in length; when a group of students enrolls in Year 1,
> it accepts an explicit contract that a prescribed curriculum will be
> delivered with the understanding that the institution cannot make any
> significant changes to that curriculum for that group of students.
> The reality, of course, is that a great deal can happen in the
> practice of design over that same span of four years.
>
> And then there is the professional obligation of research/publication
> imposed at most first-tier universities. In one respect, this demand
> may place faculty members in a less-than-favorable position in the
> eyes of practitioners, a sentiment already shared by Rob.
>
>
> What are some solutions? I have a few examples that I believe provide
> a sense of direction:
>
> --- IDEO and Kelly have developed a strong connection between the
> office and Stanford. This close alliance between practitioners and
> schools of design needs to be fostered and encouraged;
>
> --- Universities need to consider clinical faculty, that is, a new
> full-time appointment for professions where there there is a
> recognizable professional practice and no need for research and/pr
> publication. Medicine does it; why not design;
>
> --- Design education has to do a better job at identifying the
> ever-changing values in design practice and imaginatively incorporate
> these in the curriculum. At ASU, industrial design is now focused on
> 'integrated innovation' and works hand-in-hand with business and
> engineering. BusinessWeek and other magazines are paying more and
> more attention to design and how it can be the interdisciplinary glue
> that binds the process.
>
> --- The profession must strive to send a clearer message about what
> it values, at least to the educational community. It cannot, on the
> one hand, advocate for designers as strategic thinkers and innovative
> entrepreneurs and then, on the other hand, annually showcase the
> results as pretty pictures in BusinessWeek. Design students are not
> fooled by this message. For them, it is clear: cool things is all
> that counts!
>
> --- Designers and educators need to be locked in a room and not come
> out until they have learned that they are the two sides of the same
> coin.
>
> Jacques Giard, PhD
> Professor and Director
> Design Studies
> College of Design
>
> 480 965.1373
|