Dear Andy,
The issues that you raise are very important. Current academic curricula are very often outdated. And many professions are outdated or sustain their outdated professional structure.
The issue is very complex. I would say that it was raised for the first time in the 1960s, with the advent of systems thinking. There is a discussion ever since. This discussion is fueled mostly by academics, although many practitioner initiate or participate in the discourse. It is interesting that there is no much progress.
The issue of interdisciplinary organization of science and curriculum precedes problem-oriented organization of science and curriculum with no more than a decade, but it proved to be more viable and feasible within the academic circles. You are right when you say that it is easier for disciplinarians to think about an interdisciplinary approach rather than a problem-oriented approach.
The problem is further contaminated by the definitions and self-definitions of the professions that very often are narrowly contained. The professional practices, structures and associations are major factors in keeping the status quo, not the academics. Most of the academic programs have to be accredited by professional associations. I know several such associations that unfortunately are half a century behind our times. It sounds like a paradox.
The academics cannot jump over the bar for a number of reasons. This is what they have been taught and what they can teach. Definitely a problem of age. However, let's not forget that academy is most conducive to experimentation and in many cases the academics are on the forefront of developing new visions about the professions.
Problem-solving is a core of the profession. However, even when the professions are problem oriented, it is important how they define the problems. Unfortunately, in many cases, very narrowly. The reason is in traditions, accreditation bodies, professional standards, and so on.
The advent of the systems approach lead to redefining the process and nature of problem definition, expanding the boundaries of the problem area, and expanding the area of searching for solutions. (That is what you mean in your example with the refugees). JCJ (Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future) and the Design Methods Group are talking about this for half a century. Systems theorists published a pile of literature.
I am working for 30 years to promote approaches for expanding the boundaries of problem definition and solution search. The sociocultural approach to design is based on the assumption that all design is social design and that the best environmental solutions can be reached only in the framework of a holistic sociotechnical solution. However, at present, architects only talk about their social concerns and considerations and in reality think only about their construction drawings and details. In architecture, if you haven't built, you are not an architect. The proof is in the construction site. And the solutions are there. And the education is about the construction site. (Here I use "construction site" as a metaphor for a very strong emphasis on structures and technical systems.)
There are a number of problems that prevent the development of problem-based curriculum. One is the hurdle of the accrediting professional association. Another is the difficulty to find faculty with wide background. (I deliberately do not use "interdisciplinary.") Then come departmental, college-level, and university-level politics. The university administration often cannot imagine what such a program will look like. They are concerned that the program may not be accredited. They are concerned about faculty resources, finding the right faculty, salaries, and so forth.
I strongly believe that the world is organized by professions. The push for problem-based curriculum has to come from the professions, in particular from the practitioners and their associations. If they do not redefine themselves and if they do not develop corresponding accreditation criteria, I don't see how the academia will convert from disciplinary organization of science to problem-solving organization.
The only solution can come from the clients. The demand side will shape the supply side. However, the problem is with the clients. The clients have very narrow-minded perceptions and expectations about the professions. The clients are frozen in the 19th century. When they search for an architect, they look for someone who can pound nails and paint their fence. They cannot differentiate between a contractor and an architect. They need a contractor to have their job done. They pay for a contractor. They don't pay for social design and do not understand how much they lose by skipping the architectural design and moreover, the social design. The strategic decisions are made in social design. The rest is spec writing. However, everybody pays for spec writing and construction. That is the problem. This suffocates social design (I would call it facility programming or planning).
Since the 1960s we have at least one generation that has retired, and may be two (25 years per generation). I don't see a difference. In the 1990 we even had a reversal. I the 2000's I don't see a step forward besides more animated talk about interdisciplinarity and problem-centered approaches. Actually, many of the 30-something architects are infatuated with parametric design, formal generative practices, and sustainability (read technical issues again). It's all about 3D parametrics and green design. Back again to the 1950s.
At this time I don't want to mess with tentative solutions, and they are all in the making and may or may not work. I will cut short here my rant and wait for other ideas.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Polaine
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 5:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: innovative curriculum design: getting rid of the old vocational silos
There's an inherent problem or paradox with many of ways institutions talk about cross- and inter-disciplinary work and breaking down the silos. In the way its usually framed, you can't have interdisciplinary (I'll use this term for now) curricula or projects without having disciplines. The very definition of those disciplines involves building walls and boundaries, i.e. "we're this, we're not that, you're not us".
The way out of this, as Nabeel Hamdi has argued, is that you build curricula around overarching themes. So instead of thinking of design for shelters for refugees, which only engages the built environment folk, you have a project based on the needs of refugees, so then you can incorporate everyone from aid and development workers, health workers, designers of all flavours, sociologists, etc., etc. Essentially those projects are transdisciplinary, but I find the terminology muddled here.
Where the rubber meets the road in almost all institutions is that they are governed in top-down, command and control fashions, which tends to divide up the faculty and students into manageable chunks and the academy tends to see the best way to do that as dividing by discipline, because that's what has always been done from school through higher ed to research. This means separate budgets, internal competition for resources, in-fighting, timetabling issues, etc., etc. - all of which confound most attempts and these kinds of new curricula, despite the best will in the world from those trying to get them off the ground. The successful projects tend to come out of good personal relationships more than anything at an institutional or structural level. It's only these that really overcome all those other barriers.
Academia is excruciatingly slow at engaging in change and change happens at a generational pace, not at the pace of the world around it. I don't really see much of that changing anytime soon until the management of those institutions has a generational shift from those that have successfully risen through the ranks and climbed the highly-structured institutional ladder and understandably see that as the best way to run things (because it got them to where they are) to a generation who have experience professional and personal lives that are much more about flatter, networked structures. Until they expire or retire, not much changes.
(I don't mean to be too rude or devalue those people in those positions or be particularly ageist - there are a few very forward thinking people in higher ed management of all ages, but they are the minority frozen in a broken system. It's a system that worked up until about 25 years ago too. Now it doesn't).
Cheers,
Andy
-
Hochschule Luzern
Design & Kunst
Sentimatt 1 | Dammstrasse, CH-6003 Luzern
T +41 41 228 54 64, F +41 41 228 56 99
M +49 151 1964 2581
Skype: apolaine
Twitter: apolaine
http://www.hslu.ch/design-kunst/
Dr. Andy Polaine
Forschungsdozent Service Design
Research Fellow / Lecturer Service Design
T direkt: +41 41 249 92 25
[log in to unmask]
Co-author: http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/service-design/
|