 |
 |
Observing the etiquette of the conference, I want to comment on two points raised by Richard in this interesting and innovative discussion, but will first introduce myself and my particular perspective on the discussion topic. I am a Principal Lecturer in Design Management at Staffordshire University and a Senior Research Fellow at London Institute. My research area is design learning formerly in higher educational and latterly in design organisations. From both research and practice, I have gained respect for the concept of an interdisciplinary approach to teaching and structuring design programmes. I want to pick up the issue which I think is embedded in the following two extracts - if everyone thinks this is such a good idea, why aren't there more programmes like this. "The key factor that folks latch onto is the idea of a cross-disciplinary, rigorous approach to design. Individuals who have worked in more than one domain (whether it be medium or industry) or especially those who work in complex design areas (e.g. ubiquitous computing or vehicle design) recognize immediately the value in approaching design --- its pedagogy and its practice -- in an interdisciplinary manner. Multiple perspectives are essential to addressing difficult problems." "The interdisciplinary approach to design and its study, couched in a traditional, broad-based undergraduate university curriculum, is the core idea. This is not a "new idea", but it is difficult to find an institution elsewhere, especially in the U.S., that actually fulfills that vision deeply and broadly." One of the real advantages this kind of 'blank paper' thinking is that it can be vision driven. To hold the programme together and retain this distinctiveness, it needs to retain the vision and let this drive future decision-making. However, I think most design programmes have found over time that the need for pragmatism has crept in and as markets change (both student and workplace) and as national educational structures have made different demands on institutions, the vision often becomes no more than a piece of copy for the college brochure! As some one has already said, interdisciplinary programmes are not a new idea and I think there have been other attempts at it which have to some extent failed. Two possible reasons I want to explore are the expectations of the market (again both students and workplace) and despite buying into the rhetoric that interdisciplinarity is important, the actual behaviour of staff as they attempt to interpret and implement it. Actually, these two are linked! Managing the expectations of incoming students will be crucial. In the UK we take far more students into design programmes than could ever hope to find relevant employment. The job market is therefore highly competitive and as a result, students tend to come with a keen eye on job prospects coupled with a fairly weak and out of date view of what the design industry and the work of a designer actually looks like. This is not say students are entirely wrong in their focus - most of the jobs they see offered require at least highly relevant education (or maybe training would be a better word here, they want people who can use specific software or know about particular processes) or relevant work experience. As a result, students are highly resistant to classes which do not mention or fit into their idea of what a graphic/web/ceramic/textile designer does. People who have worked in more than one 'domain' may be, as Richard says, the more interesting designers, but the industry currently finds it hard to place them, in first jobs at least. Maybe, again as someone else has said, you will attract the brightest and the best, but you will have to instil and nurture in them the same vision you have otherwise, believe me, they will not be silent about their own perceived needs. Even so, it will be an act of faith on the student's behalf as there will be real differences between what they do and what other design students (sisters, friends) do. The brightest and the best will always have better job prospects - how are you going to assess the value you have added? How will you know your vision works? The role of craft skills in design education has been debated at length over as long as I can remember. I guess all design disciplines have craft skills of some kind as their roots. Many of these skills take a long time (a life time) to develop and the potential number of specific processes and techniques involved will fill far more than a normal undergraduate programme. But of course this force feeding of ALL techniques might be the expectation of the student (see above) and indeed the measure by which teachers are judged, particularly if evaluation includes the successful employment of past students. Richard may just say that they are cutting the cake in a different way - horizontally, rather than in silos - but the core and common threads have to 'hang' on something and inevitably students and staff will lean towards particular discipline preferences, 'langauges' and identities. Once people divide into groups (which is an inevitable part of human work/life needs) so empire building and a need to distance one group from another begins. If budgets or 'heads' that represent money are also involved this helps to drive factions apart particularly when groups require that students can only 'join' the group if they put in the time and commitment to master the craft language. There is often a tendency for staff to feel that students who 'pick and mix' are betraying the particular discipline and they communicate this very effectively to students. At undergraduate level, it takes a strong kind of student to break the rules. Groups in most design schools are discipline based and this tends to provide the differences they need to form their own identities. I guess these points make a compelling argument for just the kind of interdisciplinary programme proposed, but it may be that the groupings Richard suggests will be equally divisive. This may suggest why interdisciplinary programmes look good on paper but so far have failed to take hold. It may be that its time has now come and that the commitment of the individuals involved will ensure it succeeds. We will be watching with interest! Philippa Ashton The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.