Dear colleagues,

(I regret that my post is bit long. The text is not edited because of time constraints. There is also terminological deficit because of the nature of the field and the theme.)

Francois directs our attention to one phenomenon that we might have overlooked. Methodologically, this phenomenon is very important for understanding the current conundrum about the curriculum and staffing of design programs, as well as the outcomes of design education, the type of graduates, and the amount of knowledge and skills that they need to possess upon graduation. It also sheds light on our recent discussion about the need for research, doctoral degrees for design faculty, and the criteria for tenure and promotion.

The very foundation of our discussion should be located in the realm of artification. We are talking about artification and the social reproduction of professionals that engage in artification processes. Design education is an artification education.

At the basis of the problem with design education is the craft- engineering relationship. If we see design as a subset of engineering, we can substitute it for engineering in this relationship so that we can relate better to the main goals of our discussion list. Further in this text I will use both the terms design and engineering when I talk regarding educational institutions. There is not a problem in this because design is conceptualized as a subsystem of engineering. And engineering is conceptualized as the making or changing of things in a particular mode of production. From that point of view architecture is in the engineering category. We can also expand this thinking to include medicine and law.

The role of "practitioners" (and "academics") in academia is a product of the relationship between craft and engineering, and in particular the design component of engineering. Furthermore, the craft-design relationship depends on the conceptualization of these two components. Francois emphasizes the importance of how we conceptualize them. He further notes that there is an implicit assumption in the design communities that design is simply a practice of a craft. 

Craft and design a different social institutions. They are different stages in the development of artification capabilities by the humankind. 
Craft precedes design. However, it is more important that craft and design are seen as associated with very different modes of production. 

The understanding of engineering/design as a mode of artification activity and the relationship to craft  is the key and the starting point for exploring the problem of design academia. 

Craft has a much longer history then engineering has. I have talked in previous posts that the craft has had enough time to gradually emerge as a holistic system that balances all of its components and relationships. JCJ (John Christopher Jones) and Alexander Rappoport have analyzed in detail how this system works and how it manages to deliver holistic products. They also have mentioned that the system works only in the environment of a particular mode of production. The industrial revolution and the corresponding mode of production have blown the craft method a part. The void has been filled with engineering and its way of professional reproduction. (Here I should mention that the craft system also includes its mode of reproduction.) The engineering mode of professional reproduction is academic. 

The problem of design academia stems from the fragmentary status of design as a social institution. Two centuries after the industrial revolution, design still hasn't established and defined itself completely. At least in the areas that are most actively represented on this list. The exceptions already mentioned by Karen only prove the rule.

As a result of the problems with the design institution, the design academia is far behind reaching the point of its self-identification as an engineering phenomenon in terms of method, curriculum, and staffing. 

In design academia, we still use interchangeably "designing" and "crafting." And sometimes we use "crafting" as a superlative and a primer for good design. We are still split between craft and design. So, no wonder we argue for years about the staffing of academia. Of course, craftsmen-designers will experience split personality and depending on their economic interests will take one or the other position regarding academia. In design, we still don't have pure academia. The reason is that in a number of fields we haven't reached the state of mechanical engineering programs. Academic education for activities that produce artifacts is a result of the advent of engineering. This kind of education is a component of the engineering system, created by the engineering institution to fulfill its needs for social reproduction. 

In order to understand the engineering academia, its curricular components, and the relationships between them, we need to go to the concept of technical sciences/disciplines (Gorokhov; Ivanov & Cheshev; Mario Bunge; etc.). I don't intend to offer the technical discipline as a solution. However, the history of the emergence of the technical disciplines sheds light at the engineering/design academia as an organism, highlights the components, and the relationships between them. From that point of view, it is easy to see the teaching and staffing problems and deficiencies of contemporary design academia. 

In a well organized engineering academic system (if there is such) all areas and levels are comparatively well interfaced. In particular types of design academy organizations, the conflicts and trade-outs of staffing, promotion (we had recently a discussion about this), and professional development are minimized. This is possible mostly at large institutions with lower teaching loads and faculty who are hired to teach in a predefined area. Small institutions with a handful of faculty that have to teach anything and everything fall in the trap of the craft. Such institutional culture promulgates the versatility of the craftsman, however, in a non-craft, academic environment. This creates the problem and the tensions. The institutional culture emerges from the type of academic program, and then it continues shaping the program, its curriculum, the methods, and the staffing. Furthermore, the human instinct for leading and creating social hierarchies exacerbates the situation, spurs professional and personal conflicts, aggravates these conflicts, and blocks cooperation among various specialty faculty. The institution becomes nearly dysfunctional. It becomes an instrument for reproduction of craftsmen in the age of engineers. 

If we want to improve design education, we should go beyond the draft model and start with the engineering education model. Our chance is to look at the most developed, well established, honored, and financially remunerated fields and select one or more of them that will contribute best as examples. Take medicine for example. From the 1% riches people in America, 17% are in the healthcare field. I don't mean that all of them a medical doctors, but these percentages are indicative. Designers are probably 17% or the 99% percent that want to occupy Wall Street:) Let's take one good example and see what we can borrow to develop further design and engineering as a system, and in particular the educational component of that system. We cannot reconceptualize only the educational component. If we change only the educational component, the professional community and even society at large will reject it. Now, such project is a good example of social engineering. A good job for us as theorists of engineering. (again, I mean engineering as a umbrella for design and as a historical alternative of craft)

I will stop short here because the topic is endless and involves a myriad of sub-topics that are endless by themselves. This thematic circle is at the foundation of at least half of our discussions. 

Best wishes,

Lubomir



-----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 Francois Nsenga
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Think Design Ed has problems? Consider law

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

.............................
>
> 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 
> ....  Don Norman
> 
>