 |
 |
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:14:56 -0400 From: Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask] Organization: NCSU X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Buchanan <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: PhD differentiation References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A88CED12F587A6BC01CAB1A3" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A88CED12F587A6BC01CAB1A3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick and all I apologize in advance if the following questions are redundant, but please allow me to use my 'license' of being a student. Richard Buchanan wrote: > Although I don't care for snappy one-liners in something so complex, I > think the cumulative progression is from reasoned facts, to reasoned > connections, to reasoned significance or principles. Or, as a > well-known twentieth-century philosopher has argued, from hypotheses to > themes to theses. I have learned that the chief characteristic of design is IMAGINATION, something that may be outside the realm of reasoning, although reasoning is an important part of designing. I can understand how Ph.D. in design possibly being the reasoned principles, but I have a hard time relating undergraduate and masters in design as reasoned facts and connections for the fact that reasoning alone is not enough for professional practice of design. My other struggle is with the idea of 'originality'. Although in reality many design objects or systems are hardly original, but isn't being novel one of the keys in design? So theoretically, to be original is required on all levels of design education. If that being the case, in terms of doctoral education in design, is the difference more of method of inquiry and making the 'new' understanding explicit and transferable? Allow me to stretch this further, if the difference is indeed a matter of 'style' of knowing and its presentation, does it also mean that we are adopting the existing model of knowledge generation that values rational, logical and conceptual way of knowing but may not be suitable for design education? The reason for my struggles comes from the belief and fear that theoretical knowledge and scientific knowledge in particular is hegemonic. By adopting existing ideas of what is considered valuable in education, do we not perpetuate the existing power difference and marginalize design knowledge further? Thanks Rosan --------------A88CED12F587A6BC01CAB1A3 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="rwchow.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Rosan Chow Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rwchow.vcf" begin:vcard n:Chow;Rosan tel;fax:919-829-2640 tel;home:919-829-2640 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:NCSU;School of Design adr:;;Brooks Hall ;Raleigh;NC;27695;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[log in to unmask] title:Graduate Student x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Rosan Chow end:vcard --------------A88CED12F587A6BC01CAB1A3--