Content follows process.
One of the things I'm noticing in this discussion is a kind of groupthink
around design education, that we are proposing design-level solutions to a
systemic issue of university education in general and design education in
particular. I'm not convinced that entire departments and faculties need be
realigned toward project or sector domains as a way to strengthen breadth. I
think, in a way, that could become even more vocational than a craft-based
culture.
For a discussion like this it's helpful to expand the boundaries of the
problem system instead of just blaming the institution. In many ways,
university administration and economics pits faculty and programs against
each other. Until admin and funding processes change, any reshuffling of
programs into new buckets is likely to have a similar effect.
In an earlier post I noted we had both types of programs at OCAD. Rather
than realigning departments or faculties, we have created unique degree
programs created around interdisciplinary education and studio and project
pedagogy, including the teaching of courses in research and systems by
studio. But learners are also selected for their interest in become
transdisciplinary. These programs are not for everybody, and not every
faculty will teach and build courses in these graduate degree programs.
We aren't changing the institution at OCAD, and that's not the intent. But I
think our approach might have prevented the power struggles showing at RISD
over their attempts at top-down institutional innovation. This is a
structural and cultural issue that's not resolvable through tweaking
programs.
Peter
Peter H. Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Strategic Innovation Lab
Faculty, Strategic Foresight and Innovation
OCAD University
|