Dear Eduardo,
You raise an interesting question in your reply to João Ferreira (copied below). This moves beyond the thread that Fernando Mendes started, titled: “Re: Stigmergy in [Design] Education(?),” and it no longer involves the concept of stigmergy, Rather, you are raising a question in which there are many claims and relatively little well established evidence.
My question to you is this:
How, in your view, it is possible to build doctoral education for a PhD, the research doctorate, on the base of undergraduate and postgraduate studio education in the tradition of the academies and the artisan craft guilds?
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
—
Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:
—snip—
By limiting a field of “Design Education” instead of creating a circle around Educational systems created by designers to serve future designers (You pointed out very wisely Academias and Guilds) that should be studied in its own terms, it opened the field to others. Especially those who are so sure that design education is poor, recent and unsubstantiated, so that they are entitled to proclaim its lack of substance and propose substances for a new “Design Education". These people dare to say that a design education that, since at least, early 1500’s was wrong, regardless that it made almost all of our useful visible world… In fact, these people were nourished outside design education and shamelessly protrude their views of education based in their original areas. What is sad is that a great deal of their knowledge would be interesting for “design education”, only if they humbly offered their knowledge to our field. Instead they seem to try to reset the whole thing by:
1. Falsifying History
2. Claiming Design as their activity
3. proclaiming a new world where they are the true prophets.
The saddest thing is that the opportunity to, in contemporary terms, understand what Design Education was and is, as a base for doctoral studies in the matter, has been systematically interrupted by external colonizers.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|