Dear Terry
It seems I have a different view on intuition than you. I think intuition is needed even more in the future. I believe that intuition is a result of deep knowledge. Information is not the same as internalized knowledge and intuition is a skill of the expert who has deep knowledge and insight.
This is in line with the Dreyfus and Dreyfus five stage skill acquisition model.
Found here:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551&Location=%20U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Facing the complexity of the challenges we are facing I think intuition and also creativity will be needed more in the future and not less. Though the discussion on creativity is a different one, for now I would only like to point to the fact that research conducted by prominent creativity researchers like Csikzentmihaly report on repeating patterns from the most brilliant performers and researchers from all kinds of professions and research fields where incubation is needed to derive creative solutions from information. The old creativity model of Jaques Hadamard seems to be relevant in truly creative peoples work. The model indicates four stages:
Preparation
Incubation
Illumination
Verification
This points to the fact that truly remarkable creative people almost with no exception are engaged in deeply concentrated personal processes, described as Flow by Cikszentmihailyi and that deep and personal creative processes are absolutely needed to arrive at creative outputs from the complex information at hand. A fact to my mind overlooked by many people today where co-design, idea cards and brain storming seem to be the dominant ways of creative work in design and in a society that generally is disruptive and fragmented and where one constantly has to fight for the time for deep thought. These quick and collaborative approaches are good but do not replace the deep individual long creative processes found in almost all brilliant peoples work. Creativity has also a social dimension but it is in the combination of the individual and the context it emerges.
Creativity is dependent on deep insight (information transformed to knowledge) in the subject but also curiosity and love and delight for the subject, that is, emotional engagement. (e.g. read chapter three in Cikszentmihailyi: Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.)
Best
Birger
-----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 Terence Love
Sent: 12. oktober 2011 08:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are PhDs a threat to design education?
Martin,
Thank you for your reply. I find it a little strange.
Your implicit ad-hominem attack I'm happy to overlook: it may be an accepted
attribute of professorship in your area of design. The research is more
important.
Of more concern for me, is how you engaged with the analysis I presented.
The analysis was presented in good faith and is backed by reasonable
empirical evidence. Yes, it is a challenging idea, yet it seems to offer, on
the basis of readily available evidence a better justified explanation of
the current states of design practice, education and PhD research than that
assumed by many design practitioners, educators and researchers who focus
on creativity. More importantly, in research terms, it exposes weaknesses in
current perspectives, knowledge and theories; its implications suggest
strategies for improving design practices, education and research; and it
offers accurate predictive power useful to future developments across many
design fields.
Typical responses I would expect of professional researchers would be
along the lines of 'Wow, that is interesting! It challenges existing
theory. Great! Is it valid? What are its implications? How can I test it?
How does it fit into the broader scheme of knowledge? How can I use it to
improve my own work? What are its limits? Ah, it suggests things have been
overlooked. Have they? How does the world look if we include the things
we've overlooked? How does that change theory? .... and the like' .
For me, I now need to also create a professional response - to you. I've
received a reply from yourself - a professor (awarded for integrity,
professional competence, sound reasoning, research skill etc) - that
suggests that you think that the analysis I presented is deeply and
completely in error and that I am both mistaken and behaving improperly to
propose it.
What do you suggest is the most appropriate professional response from my
side to your reply to my initial proposal? I look forward to your thoughts.
Standing back as a research professional, the most obvious way forward is to
test the analysis I proposed in the area that you are most knowledgeable,
Childrens' Book Illustration, so that you can most easily identify
weaknesses in it. Childrens' Book Illustration is a useful design area to
test the idea because it is one that many in the design field would regard
as more essentially needing human creativity rather than information.
Others might even regard it as using the skills of Art more than being a
design practice. So, if the analysis proves accurate and valid in
Childrens' Book Illustration, it is a good starting point for proving it
more widely across other design fields that assume they necessarily depend
on human creativity and intuition.
To recap the main points of what I suggested: 1) That the context of design
has significantly changed and that information relevant to design is now
widely available whereas previously it was not; 2) that the primary need to
use human creativity and intuition was due to the shortage of relevant
information; 3) using relevant information replaces much of the need for
designers to use 'creativity' and 'intuition' approaches; 4) that this
defines a new paradigm of design research practices, education and research;
and 5) refocusing design on information use and understanding potentially
improves on and usefully replaces earlier approaches grounded primarily on
the assumption that human creativity and intuition are the main skills and
competencies in design.
A practical way forward is to review the information and knowledge that is
used in design activity in the area of Childrens' Book Illustration; how it
currently shapes and defines design outcomes; whether there exists
information currently not being used that would improve design outcomes;
what the current design approaches are and how much they depend directly on
'creativity' and 'intuition' rather than information; and, whether
improvement in design practices, education and research would be possible in
the area of Childrens' Book Illustration with a shift towards better use of
research-derived information and away from dependence on human 'creativity'
and 'intuition'.
Professionally, would you be interested in establishing a joint program of
research to investigate the above issues? I welcome hearing your reasoning
either way.
Regards,
Terry
===
Dr Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
[log in to unmask] Mob: +61 434 975 848
Dept of Design,
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Dept of Psychology and Social Sciences
Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Dept of Design
Curtin University, Western Australia
Honorary Researcher, IEED
Management School, Lancaster University, UK
===
-----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
Salisbury, Martin
Sent: 11 October 2011 12:48
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Are PhDs a threat to design education?
Dear Terry
This is wonderful news! Thank you for sharing it and Praise the Lord! There
is no longer any need for unpredictable, intuitive human input into the
design of a children's book illustration, a dress, a tea pot, a chair or a
car. All we need to design now is a reliable suicide rate monitor (can we
put you in charge of that bit?).
Best regards
Martin
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
|
