Terry,
I have a little problem with #4 and architecture. You might wish to
review your position there.
Also, it might be more productive to think in terms of design fields,
areas, or domains instead of disciplines. The concept of discipline
emerge in respect to sciences. Practices are always
multi/inter/disciplinary in terms of involved sciences. If you look
at interdisciplinary research from this vantage point, you probably
will write a new mail by tomorrow. (Gee, do we have 16 hours time
difference? It might be party time for you. In such case, do not
hurry to reply.) One of the reasons that we are accustomed to see
design as a discipline is because it is taught in academia, the home
of disciplines and disciplinary academicians probably refer to it as
a discipline for administrative purposes.
The design areas can branch into sub-areas or domains, but they will
still need interdisciplinary approach in terms of researching
problems, issues, needs, etc.
My main concern is architecture. Please do not try to partition it in
sub-areas because this will create a havoc. Even separating interior
design from architecture leads to poor quality design and the need to
coordinate interior designers and architects. On the top of all, we
educate interior designers in schools of home economics, and
architects in schools of architecture or construction. Why the hell?
After that we force them to work in teams and wonder why they talk
different languages. I have been trained as generalist architect and
I collaborate with other architects without interdisciplinary
problems. By the way, there were a several of attempts to make
Master's programs in healthcare architecture. One program existed
only seven years and two are continuing to vegetate, supported mainly
with research money. Too much specialization at early stages of
professional development might not be an advantage on the job market.
In such cases, searching for a job might be a lottery. You either get
your dream job or have to wait for 20 years to get an opening.
Kind regards,
Lubomir
At 09:17 PM 8/10/2007, Terence wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Trying to invent/design a successful way of 'doing interdisciplinarity' in
>terms of the 'creation of a discipline of design' looks like making a
>mountain out of a mole hill. We already have a huge amount of information
>and experience on this activity.
>
>A couple of years ago, I reviewed the design fields and sub-fields and did
>a quantitative review of the design literatures over the last hundred years.
>
>
>I found you can easily divide design sub-fields into four groups:
>
>1. New sub-disciplines that are emerging
>2. New sub-disciplines that are in existence and stabilised
>3. Established sub-disciplines
>4. Aged meta sub-disciplines that are mainly reference structures and on
>the pathway to becoming irrelevant
>
>For any sub-discipline there is a steady transition from 1 to 4.
>
>In category (1) the primary focus is hands-on on new practices, knowledge
>and discourse that doesn't fit into an existing sub-discipline. At the
>category (4) end of things the primary focus is on institutional issues.
>This four part structure appears to apply in any field.
>
>To understand the interdisciplinary aspects of new sub-disciplines of
>design, take a sub-discipline in any of the four categories and review its
>historic pathway. For example, a decade ago, multi-media design was in (1)
>and now is on the border of (2) and (3). Aged sub-disciplines such as
>Architecture, Engineering, Fashion and Graphic Design are in category (4).
>
>
>As sub-disciplines move from (1) towards (4) they become increasingly
>divided up into more and more sub-disciplines such that there is no longer a
>role for someone with the generic skills of that specific sub-discipline.
>
>The primary role of category (4) sub-disciplines seems to be as convenient
>labels and categories for organisations to harvest the specific economic
>benefits of economy of scale. For example, it is more possible to
>successfully create and manage a professional accreditation body if the
>economic scale is larger than a single sub-field. Also competition between
>disciplines is shaped by scale. The institutions of engineering,
>architecture, graphic design, and computing illustrate both points. These
>dynamics are most likely shaped by Coasian transaction costs. The use of
>virtual organisations impacts heavily on transaction cost - on one hand
>tending towards giving advantage to even larger organisations through moving
>the point of 'dis-economy of scale' ever higher, and on the other, through
>reducing the cost of competition. (for example see the fast rise of ACM
>compared to say IMechE).
>
>The implication for supporting the increased establishment of a 'discipline
>of Design' is to create a category (4) institution.
>
>This proposal for Design as a category (4) institution contrasts with
>current discourse that focuses on seeing design from the practitioner's
>point of view, which is essentially typical of a categories (1) and (2).
>
>Thoughts
>
>Best wishes,
>Terry
>____________________
>Dr. Terence Love
>Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
>Faculty of BEAD
>Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
>Institute
>Research Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
>Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
>Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
>Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
>UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
>Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
>Development
>Management School, Lancaster University,Lancaster, UK,
>[log in to unmask]
>____________________
>
Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Interior Design Program
School of Family and Consumer Sciences
309 Johnston Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059
phone: (419) 372-7935
fax: (419) 372-7854
[log in to unmask]
|