Don, all,

Of course some will be stuck in mid 20th century. And some will claim they aim for mid 21st century. And everything in between. The important thing, I believe, is that you do it deliberately. And that you know why you choose to do it, as well as its consequences. Like Don; who at times deliberately chooses to claim a technology rationalistic perspective in his little columns. At times he deliberately herald other perspectives:

"Designers are called in afterward to make it all look good-the very attitude we have been fighting. Yes, the design community complains, but I place the blame squarely on the limited reach of design education. It is our own fault"
Of course, forces of institutionalization and the enormous expansion of higher education in design, has led to a focus on quantity, replication and massification. This is one of the reasons that has limited individuals (in schools and universities) to put meaningful quality as a first objective, and achieve innovation. So, it might be that in some places there is need to find other ways of organizing design education, so that one can build on the good things of the volume, of other institutionalized structures, and on other departments than one's own. 
It should also be noted that in some places, such as engineering schools where there are design programmes, the technology courses are not there by choice of the programmes, but has been imposed by requirements on a higher level in order to obtain a certain diploma/degree. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not.

"But today design is more than appearance, design is about interaction, about strategy and about services. Designers change social behavior. So shouldn't designers understand the fundamental principles of human and social interaction, of how to assess the validity of a claim?"
(Source:http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_education_brilliance_without_substance_20364.asp)
I particularly like the fact that a consequence of this is that designers should not only be taught to think through drawing, but thinking with things, thinking by doing, thinking in experiencing, thinking through playing, thinking by talking, thinking by writing, thinking as listener, thinking through seeing, and of course thinking with/through others. And I guess this is in another sense what Jonas' students are doing when they "sketch" in all those different modes.

On top of all, I have my own little theory; that we need the kind of designers Don is talking about (e.g. the human+technology interaction designer), that we need the artist-designer (e.g. the interactive exhibition concept maker), and that we need the design-production designer (the skilled pixel wrangler), and probably. Can these be the same person? Can these develop in the same curricula? Should they? Yes, and no.


Most of all it is amusing that Don the provoker uses a manner of critique that in itself seems to come from the early 20th century. Colleagues; let's indulge ourselves into being provoked by this clever man, once or twice a year!


All the best from
Stefan Holmlid
On my way between Industrial Design at NTNU in Trondheim and Aalto university Design Factory (which are examples of the re-negotiation of what industrial design curricula can be)


--------------
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 Don Norman
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design Education: Brilliance without Substance

For your amusement (or perhaps annoyance).  My latest essay on design
education on the core77.com website:

Design Education: Brilliance without Substance
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_education_brilliance_without_substance_20364.asp

We are now in the 21st century, but design curricula seem stuck in the mid
20th century, except for the addition of computer tools. The 20th century
developed craftspeople capable of magnificent products. But these were
relatively simple products, with simple mechanical or electrical components.
In the 21st century, design has broadened to include interaction and
experience, services and strategies. The technologies are more
sophisticated, involving advanced materials, computation, communication,
sensors, and actuators. The products and services have complex interactions
that have to be self-explanatory, sometimes involving other people separated
by time or distance. Traditional design activities have to be supplemented
with an understanding of technology, business, and human psychology.

With all these changes, one would expect major changes in design education.
Nope. Design education is led by craftspeople who are proud of their skills
and they see no reason to change. Design education is mired in the past.

Opening paragraphs of my article on the Industrial Design magazine,
Core77.com, website.
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_education_brilliance_without_substance_20364.asp

Don Norman