All,

Don¹s post on design education and why it must change echoes much of my own
opinion about the topic. From a personal perspective industrial design
education in many design schools, at least in the USA, appears to be out of
step with the context of change that is occurring as design moves beyond a
downstream function of form giving to a role more closely associated with
upstream functions. This personal perspective is derived from my many
accreditation visits to various design schools in the USA and Canada as well
as several decades as a design educator in both of these countries.
 
Don cites several areas in design education that seem to be lacking, such as
the need to integrate areas of studies in scientific methods, human and
social behavior, and experimental design. He also makes reference to where
design programs at the university are often located such as in schools of
art or of architecture. In my experience, the latter situation is the reason
for the former lacunae, and much more, which explains part of the situation
but not all.
 
Industrial design¹s 19th century origins made it the almost ideal foster
child for either art or architecture. Much like art, industrial design was a
visual exploration and much like architecture it was about material objects,
albeit of a different scale. Quite logically, the evolution of industrial
design followed almost in lockstep with both art and architecture. To no
one¹s surprise, therefore, the remnants of this early evolution are not only
still with us but now often out of step to contemporary design issues. For
example, a great deal of industrial design¹s lexicon is a page out of the
past with words such as shop, model making, critique and gallery. If
converted into today¹s lexicon these same words should read: laboratory,
modeling, review and marketplace. Sadly, they often don¹t.
 
But the issue is much more than vocabulary; it is more an issue of
substance. Don puts his finger on a few of these but there are several more.
For example, the aforementioned location of industrial design within either
an art or architecture environment often sets the tone for not only the
overall curriculum of the program but also its fundamental ethos. As a case
in point and in my own experience, it becomes challenging for an industrial
design program to make a case for a business component as an integral part
of its course of studies. Don¹t get me wrong. Eventually business does get
included. My point is that it doesn¹t happen automatically because neither
art nor architecture normally perceives business as a credible partner. Much
the same can be said for courses in human behavior and engineering.
 
If the issue were merely courses then the challenge would not be
insurmountable. Most credible industrial design programs now have courses in
human behavior, business and engineering. However, the present situation in
industrial design practice has significantly changed especially as markets
have become global. As Daniel Pink stated in his book, A Whole New Mind, and
I paraphrase, ³If it can be done faster, computers will do it; if it can be
done cheaper, it will be sent offshore.² In this light, I have visited
design schools that from all appearance are educating students for jobs that
may not exist in five years.
 
The partnership, if one can call it that, with art and architecture can also
have more detrimental affects, especially in the operational approach to
industrial design. Drawing is an integral part of art programs much like it
is part of most industrial design programs. However, there are occasions
when little difference is made between the ethos that underpins drawing in
art and drawing in industrial design. The goal appears to be the same: the
production of pictures to be hung for others to admire. Visual thinking,
which is another and perhaps more appropriate form of drawing, is not often
on the agenda. 
 
A difference in operational approach is also apparent with architecture in
those instances where prescription is perceived as the underpinning design
ethos. What appears to have been forgotten in these cases is that architects
most often work directly with a user such as a builder whereas industrial
designers rarely do. The ultimate user is more often than not anonymous.
Drawing as art in combination with a prescriptive approach leaves us with a
situation where we are designing for museums, not for markets.
 
Don also made comments about design competitions. I have yet to read his
post on Core 77 but design competitions are indicative of a model that is
out of context for contemporary industrial design. As best as I can surmise,
student competitions for industrial design most likely came about because a
similar model existed in architecture and, to some extent, in the arts. That
is, commissions for prestigious buildings were often the result of a design
competition. Architects were invited to participate knowing full well that
there was the potential for both reward and prestige if they won.
Consequently, it is fair to assume that a design competition is a reasonable
design experience for students of architecture because it replicates a facet
of professional practice in architecture. However, industrial design
practice does not operate on that basis. Apple, for example, did not have an
open and public design competition for the iPad? Why, therefore, do design
schools continue to encourage and support design competitions?
 
That being said, there are many excellent industrial design programs in the
USA. But for those that seem to be designing for a different era, are
changes possible? Perhaps, but there are hurdles. Three come to mind. There
is the inevitable comfort zone that exists in many of these design programs.
Why, it is asked, should anything be changed when the situation is rather
comfortable? I had one Provost tell me that the resistance to change did not
originate with the administration of the university nor did it exist with
the Board of Regents. Rather, it most often resided with the members of the
faculty. Second, there is a lack of leadership from the professional
association, which does not place education high on its agenda, and the
accreditation agency, which works in concert with the professional
association. Lastly, there is no market pressure, so to speak. Most schools
of industrial design are over enrolled. Classrooms are full. Consequently,
why change when the existing model appears to be working.


Jacques Giard PhD
Professor of Design
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

480.965.1373
http://web.me.com/jrgiard/Site/Welcome.html
P Go Green!  Please do not print this e-mail unless it is completely
necessary.



On 11/23/10 4:45 PM, "Don Norman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Warning: Very long post.
> Here is the
> text of my article, "Why Design Education Must Change".  It will some
> day be available on core77.com.  Meanwhile, Ken Friedman ha asked me
> to post it. So blame Ken.
> 
> Don Norman  (today in Taipei)
> Nielsen Norman Group
> KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea)
> [log in to unmask]  www.jnd.org
> http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> ===============
> 
> WHY DESIGN EDUCATION MUST CHANGE
> Don Norman
> (Column written for Core77.com)
> November, 2010
> 
> --------
> PREAMBLE:
> 
> Traditionally what designers lack in knowledge, they make up for in
> craft skills. Whether it be sketching, modeling, detailing or
> rendering, designers take an inordinate amount of pride in honing key
> techniques over many years. Unfortunately many of these very skills
> have limited use in the new design domains. (Core 77 columnist Kevin
> McCullagh 
> (www.core77.com/blog/columns/is_it_time_to_rethink_the_t-shaped_designer_17426
> .asp))
> --------