Mike!
Just caught up this trail...
Several universities use a less silo-based process or structure for their educations, or a variation of silo-thinking:
www.kisd.de
http://io.home.tudelft.nl/en/
http://w3.id.tue.nl/en/
http://www.hdk.gu.se/en/programmes-courses
http://www.ida.liu.se/divisions/hcs/ixs/designmaster/ (in Swedish only)
http://dschool.stanford.edu/
http://www.newschool.edu/parsons/
Some thoughts:
1) Sometimes one may look at the development as cyclic. You may recognize this by looking at schools that have gone from a silo-based structure to a trans-disciplinary, and then they start to introduce new "silo"-looking structures. This might also be an effect of cooperation with other disciplines, funding issues, or a plain marketing need, of course.
2) Whether or not something is a silo, can of course be discussed. "Silos" can be cut in different directions through the "design material". What makes it a silo, I assume, is the decision making and the structures supporting the institutionalization of keeping the "silo"/focus.
3) Of course, it is impossible (at least right now) not to relate to silos, as they are part of the tradition and expectations. And, of course, individuals need to develop specific skills; e.g. what would the world of design be if there were no one who were expert in graphic design?
4) The need for T-based people, design generalists, or double degree students, is not necessarily solved by getting rid of a vocation based structure. It might even be the best means to support precisely these needs.
When we started our master in design we documented parts of our development in the paper:
Holmlid, S., & Arvola, M. (2007). Developing a thematic design curriculum as a Bologna master. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (EPDE 2007), 13-14 September 2007, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
http://www.ida.liu.se/~matar/holmlidarvola-epde07.pdf
Best regards
/Stefan Holmlid
--------------
Stefan Holmlid, associate prof Interaction & Service Design
E: [log in to unmask] | P: +46 13 285633
W: http://www.ida.liu.se/~ixs/ | T: @shlmld
A: IDA, Linköping University, 581 83 LINKÖPING
-----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 Mike McAuley
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: THANK YOU: Re: innovative curriculum design:
I would like to thank the following for their responses to my query
about curriculums responding to a perceived need to update our old
vocational silos.
Thanks to, in no particular order:
Chris Bisbin, Tom Morgan, Terence Love. Gunnar Swanson, Amanda Bill,
Susana La Cruz, Riley Triggs, Peter Jones, Veronika Kelly, Andy
Polaine, Mike Zender, Andrew Jackson and Alun Price.
I am working through the replies and also the various urls that
many of you sent. Thank you all so much.
Regards
Mike
Dr. MIKE MCAULEY
SENIOR LECTURER, SUBJECT DIRECTOR,
ILLUSTRATION
Institute of Communication Design
College of Creative Arts
Massey University
Museum Building
Buckle Street
Wellington
http://creative.massey.ac.nz
________________________________
(04) 801 5799 ext 62461
(04 027 357 8799
On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Andy Polaine wrote:
> Gunnar wrote:
>
>> None of this is meant to claim that current university structures
>> are sustainable. We agree on that. But when redesigning
>> universities, it would make sense to remember that affiliations
>> based on similar expertise do have real value. That doesn't mean
>> they need to be the center of any organizational scheme but it
>> does mean that dismissing them as merely a remnant of feudal
>> allegiances is a mistake.
>
> I think this is a good point and, in many respects, we're arguing
> the same point from different sides. I think affiliations based on
> similar *interests* are probably more useful than those based on
> shared *expertise*, although there is obviously a large overlap. I
> make the distinction because I've seen several marriages of
> convenience in the name of garnering inter-disciplinary research
> funding and without the real shared interest, they struggle. Taking
> into account human level is really important and I think this is
> what we're both saying and what, in my experience, most of those
> administrative structures and managers miss. Things can look
> organised on the org chart in a committee meeting, but on the
> ground it doesn't work because, for example, two key people don't
> get on, have offices on opposite sides of the building, etc., etc.
>
> The biggest problem is faculty (I include myself in this). The
> issue in higher education is that everyone is an expert
> (supposedly). So it's very hard to do much in the way of gaining
> either consensus or having the benevolent dictator model (sounds
> like RISD model). Neither works, so stasis reigns.
>
> Doesn't anyone want to do a design-thinking/design management/
> service design PhD on this and help us out? :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
|