Dear Don and Colleagues
Your post seems to be construed around three words, respectively conveying
three concepts: Design, practitioners, craft. I wish, prior to the
comparison you are suggesting, you had taken a few minutes to clarify the
concepts you are referring to. Or, maybe you just assumed that we all share
the same understanding that Design is simply practice of a craft. But which
craft precisely? And hence, who is the design craft practitioner whose
appropriate education is needed?
On the concept of the craft of our concern, we all share the understanding
that it is about the expertise of bringing about artifacts, both material
and immaterial (service design, software design, programs of action or
organization design, etc.). It is not clear however whether in your post
you are referring to the conceiving phase of those artifacts, or else to
their 2D/3D rendering phase.
It is rather unfortunate that a massive confusion arose when, a few decades
ago as Ken reported, without any clear rationale (perhaps clearly put on
paper but not in practice), the practice of bringing about artifacts was
integrated within University education.
(Here in Quebec, officially, there is training in Design both at University
level since the late 60s - upon completion of 13 years of formal schooling
- and at CEGEP level - professional training upon completion of 11 years of
formal schooling. CEGEP diploma is not a required prerequisite to enter the
University level. But, both within the University and at the market place,
graduates in Design at University level are expected to perform on the same
footing as Professional College graduates, i.e. first, as experts in
rendering!).
The resulting effect is that when referring to Design education, rarely a
clarification is made whether one is referring to conceiving properties of
artifacts, or to just rendering those properties once they are set; or even
clearly to both, eventually. Whether within the profession as a whole or
even within each individual Designer, it is not clear enough as yet what is
being required of a Designer and what precisely this latter does or is
supposed to do: concept building? graphic or sculptural rendering? And if
both, in which proportion of each? So the confusion builds up and continues.
In my own understanding, only the phase of conceiving (determining and
setting) of properties of artifacts needs University level education;
leaving up to respective technical schools to train in rendering those
properties in 2D, 3D, or any other means appropriate to corresponding
target clientèle.
Then, at University level, Design education should indeed be of both
profiles: first, learning how to research on artifacts properties, and
second, learning, not how to render those properties as a technician would
do, but rather, the "craft" being here how to most efficiently convey those
properties to technicians and to whoever else may be concerned (i.e. policy
makers, standards setters, financiers, users, educators, etc.) Clearly, the
practice or "craft" of a University graduate should not be confused with
the practice or "craft" of a technical school graduate. It follows that
training in Design at University level, could and should be, instead, like
training in any other high level conceptual training, such as Law,
Medicine, Administration, (applied) Politics, (applied) Sociology, and the
like.
Lastly, referring to the comparison you brought up, University design
graduates trained in this perspective above, would then perform both as
lawyers/attorneys and judges do: on one hand studying (research and
theory), reporting and advising on artifacts properties (practice), as
lawyers/attorneys do on laws; and on the other hand, hearing claims and
rendering judgment on how artifacts properties are and should be rendered
and enjoyed (research, theory and practice), just the same way judges hear
and render judgement on how laws should be made, applied and obeyed.
François
Montréal
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Design may be concerned about how it educates, deliberating between
> the two poles of theory (aka research) and practice, but consider law.
> Here is a wonderful article about the failures of modern law
> education in the USA, where professors know lots of theory but nothing
> of how law is actually practiced.
>
> From the 20 Nov. 2011, Sunday New York Times:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/after-law-school-associates-learn-to-be-lawyers.html
>
> I could write the same article about Business Schools. Actually, many
> have complained that this situation applies to Engineering Schools as
> well.
>
> Design is still very practical. The challenge to those of us who want
> more theory and breadth is to avoid falling into the legal trap that
> is described in the article.
>
> (That previous paragraph is especially important to people like me.Yes
> we need to broaden design education for the 21st century, but the
> primary goal is to produce practitioners. As universities more and
> more require that design professors have PhDs and publish erudite
> articles in refereed journals that are read only by other erudite
> professors, we must not lose track of our craft. Yes, I am talking
> about me, among others.)
>
>
> Don Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group
> KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea), IDEO Fellow
> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> Latest book: "Living with Complexity"
>
|