Thanks for pointing to the CSD survey. It looks a useful

reference. I feel a bit uncomfortable though with the idea of

applying the outcome of the CSD survey to design

education in general. As far as I can see, the CSD represents

only a small part of the overall design field. At the last count

there appears to be over 650 different subfields of

design, and according to the CSD website the CSD

covers only the five subfields of exhibition design, fashion

& textile design, graphic design, interior design and

I feel this makes it difficult to interpret the significance of

the CSD survey more broadly for design education

because most design happens in technical design

fields outside the scope of the CSD.

I'm also unclear what this has to do directly with the

design research community. Are you suggesting

design researchers should define the curricula for

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 7/01/2004 10:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 5 Jan 2004 to 6 Jan 2004 (#2004-5)

After reading some of the posts on how tied up with unreality and
aesthetics practicing designers are - this link might clarify some issues
with current UK design education and provide a sobering reflection on the
fact that many design colleges tend to be biased by non-designers,
non-specialists, non-artists, seeking to get professional designers to come
to their controversial points of view.... the current goals of the design
research community and it's effect on design education does not seem to be
working - at least in the UK.

http://www.csd.org.uk/members/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Polls&file=index&req=results&pollID=9&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0