 |
 |
Dear Mike Thanks for bringing up this very important issue, and I am quite surprised we didn't get much suggestions, or at least more thoughts from the list members! For my part, I'll offer my suggestion for further reflection in your endeavour, based on current training in 'Design' here in Québec. Since 50 years ago, a major Education reshuffle was instituted here, following recommendations from a Government commissioned "Rapport Parent". It was then decided that after 11 years of compulsory Primary and Secondary general or vocational schooling, one would either join the labour market right away, or starts the first level of what is here called Higher Education. At this level are trained technicians in different trades, 'Design' included. 'Design' meaning exclusively draftsmanship, prototype building, and (intuition based) visual illustration and rendering. Students go through a 2 year program called CEGEP (College d'enseignement général et professionnel), upon graduation supplying to public and private employers with skills related to both manual and basic intellectual skills specific to each trade. Advanced field specific knowledge is eventually acquired through respective Higher level Technical Schools, during 2 to 3 years more training. To my knowledge, there is as yet no higher technical program available for graduates wishing to specialize in 'Design' techniques. The second level in Higher Education is that of University Bachelor, either 'general' (Natural Sciences, Social sciences, Humanities) or professional (Medicine, Law, Engineering, Nursing, Fine Arts, etc., and 'Design' : mostly graphic, industrial, and fashion, based on classical studio type teaching). The general baccalaureate is a three years program, whereas professional baccalaureates, were originally programmed to be of a 4 year duration. Recently, some professional programs have been reduced to 3 years only, to make it similar with general education programs. Both in general and professional programs, University Bachelors are trained to be autonomous workers, specialized in respective disciplines, performing as a skilled employee in private or public organizations. And where and when required, Bachelors may eventually have under their professional guidance and leadership teams of both technicians and skilled blue-collar workers. The third level is the one through which, during 2 years, are trained Masters in respective disciplines. Masters are "reflexive" employees, expected to methodically run or manage departments into which work Bachelors, technicians, and manual labourers. They are expected to be fully knowledgeable in respective expertise, that is in ways and means of proper performance, forecasting outcomes, and training technicians and manual labourers. The fourth and last level of Higher Education is that of PhD, training researchers and University teachers in respective fields for 3 to 5 years. Graduates at this level are expected to be deeply "reflexive", essentially providing, through research and teaching, disciplinary professional guidance to Masters and Bachelors of the same or different other disciplines, while at the same time sharing knowledge with fellow researchers in same and/or in different disciplines. I guess it is the same in other countries, the large majority of practitioners in 'Design' (above) fields here in Québec are graduates either from the technical (CEGEP) or University baccalaureate levels. For various reasons, I believe the major one being the lack of a corresponding demand a the labour market place, very few students venture up to the Masters' of Design level; and even fewer still dare going up to PhD. These few do rather enrol in Masters and PhD programs in other University disciplines, eventually bringing back into their professional practice, in Design and elsewhere, the knowledge gained from those meanderings. The other striking aspect, deriving from the above stated situation, is that quite often both technicians and bachelors in 'Design' fields compete for the same jobs; again, since the market has never made clear performance expectations to both CEGEP technicians and University graduates in 'Design'. This results in having most 'Design' jobs not being attended to at all, or being poorly accomplished, either by self-made bricoleurs, or by CEGEP technicians, and some times by University Bachelor graduates, all performing at (higher or lower) levels in which they were not trained. Particularly for University graduates, these are not hired to perform as 'Designers' in technical sense, neither in what I would call University "reflexive" sense. Conclusion, as a general observation not yet substantiated with facts (I didn't get any hints from the list when, a while ago in one of my previous posts, I enquired if there were some rationale to modern University training for Designers), it seems most University level Design teaching programs were instituted without much reflection on what was their specific purpose, or offer, to the labour market-place. So then, in response to your query, perhaps like in case of any other product or service, your reflection (or "reflexivity"??) should be aimed at specifying the market demand first, instead of starting with thoughts or 'ideas' on what to offer (to me, this a major weakness in most of approaches and/or practices in Design). Once clearly delineated the actual needs in Design at the labour market place, then you will 'design' a properly tailored teaching "structure". First, which are those Design tasks that are desired but not presently performed at all? Which are those tasks actually poorly executed by bricoleurs, by technicians, or by University graduates, and that would be accomplished much better if the match were right between the specified demand and the skills offered? Who are those demanding Design skills? Of course there are students; but also, I guess, there are industrial and commercial institutions, governmental and semi-public institutions, national and international civil society organizations, and private individuals (i.e. 5 Design market major constituencies). In other words, which are the (separate and/or compounded) Design skills that are actually - and in future - needed at the labour market place? Only following this prior "reflexive" facts finding above, you would then look into a sound, substantiated, and appropriate "future focused design education structure". And believe me, if thoroughly and honestly 'mined' (as it seems you are willing to not privileging only traditional, classical views and approaches in Design studio education), those kinds of facts above will necessarily call for a transdisciplinary structure building approach. Needless to say, in closing, that I am really curious to see what kind of Design teaching structure you'll come up with, following your consultation and cogitation. Best wishes Francois Montreal ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------