 |
 |
Hi Tim (and Rob) and list All design boundaries are political. For example, in some contexts Engineering wants to own industrial and product design, architecture wants to own interior design, Fine Arts may believe Graphic design is under its wing etc... Compared to architecture and its disciplinary stability, history and status the disciplinary project in the more recent design disciplines - apart from their purported or real parrainage and affiliation by some other big brother is a project of some interest to some scholars, educators and practitioners outside the more established disciplines (Tony Becher's work is useful here). Pragmatic exclusion and inclusion through boundaries is also part and parcel of research and evaluation. So, if I'm in an appeasing mood with the title I will make it clear in future that PhD Programs in Design will be subtitled with (communcaiiton, interior, industrial, product) or some such explicit (albeit polemical still) practical line drawing. Anyway lets see. All this debate of course is very stimulating and pertinent to what I'm trying to see ultimately. Thanks for chipping in. >>> Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]> 06/06/07 3:55 PM >>> Dear Gavin, In reply to Rob Woodbury you say "... but I'm not into a power game." But, when you then say "... design (interior, industrial, product, communication) I think needs some champions." it sounds like you are indeed into a power game. To exclude architecture programmes from any list of design programmes, for whatever reason, could hardly be anything but power gaming. -- Tim ========================================================================= At 11:06 +1000 6/6/07, Gavin Melles wrote: >Hello Robert (and others) >Yes, I suppose it is a political boundary and yes I know that >architecture owns design (also) but I'm not into a power game. I >also know there are tussles over territory e.g. interior >design/architecture but really architecture is far better served in >the literature and design (interior, industrial, product, >communication) I think needs some champions. On the other hand, if >someone else wants to do the math on architecture - I don;t have the >time - then we can produce and expanded spreadsheet. > >>>> Robert Woodbury <[log in to unmask]> 6/06/2007 12:45 am >>> >I note you exclude architecture. Why? If you visit architecture >graduate programs today, you will find that many projects and theses >involve issues indistinguishable from other areas of design. > >I would argue you are drawing a political, not a substantive, >boundary. Is your goal power, or knowledge? > >-rob- > >-- >Rob Woodbury >Professor >Scientific Director, Canadian Design Research Network (www.cdrn.ca) Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.