Hi Ken,
I agree there is slippage in the terms used.
I too describe what you call a qualitative dimension, but suggest however, that how we evaluate the
'performance' of 'great' scholars might be a matter of scale. That is, there are many design scholars
who influence how people think and do on a daily basis through their varied practices, but whose
influence escapes acknowledgement through quantitative audit systems that measure research
output alone, or some other quantitative measure of graduate outcomes – people who teach in first
year subjects for example, and casual or visiting academics who are not required to publish written
articles.
Drawing on my own experience, I have had many teachers, some of whom are students, who have,
sometimes unwittingly, introduced me to new thinking and new ways of doing through classroom
dialogue. I am suggesting that these intimate exchanges, while much more difficult to account for,
might be AS valuable as, rather than MORE valuable than, articles published in scholarly journals.
The idea of dialogue extends to informal corridor chat at scholarly conferences and elsewhere, and
while obviously there are many instances where classrooms and conferences generate very little
that is new or interesting, again, I argue that it is a matter of scale.
Doctoral education is very much a part of disciplinary development. In my experience, undertaking
a doctorate involves critical engagement in a dialogical process over time, conducted through lively
and intimate exchanges on a small scale, such as supervision discussions, conversations with
strangers who dare to ask how the PhD is going, as well as the exchanges on this list that despite
being broadcast to many, occur between a small few. I find this kind of dialogue immensely helpful
for progressing my thinking as a scholar, while also honing my writing skills. The impact of my
dialogical engagement carries through to my performance in the design classroom. Apart from the
generic student evaluation surveys that measure students' responses to certain indices deemed
important by the universities in which I work, the qualitative dimension is evident in my
observations of how students progressively learn to engage dialogical learning about design through
robust classroom discussion and critical self-reflection written in learning journals. Again, this is a
matter of scale. I am not sure my performance measures up to the standards of 'excellence' of
which you speak, but I am sure that there are students who benefit from our dialogical exchanges.
cheers, teena
|