Dear Allan,

Thanks for your response. I get the sense that we view the importance
of thinking in the same way. You seem to be more pessimistic than I
am about the value societies -- and business firms -- give to
thinking and inquiry. I sometimes share your pessimism, but I behave
as an optimist regardless of my mood.

Human history to date gives you good reason for pessimism. Future
needs and the shift in perspective that is developing in many sectors
of the knowledge economy gives me reason to believe that we must
carry on despite occasional pessimistic signs. These skills are
visible in effective organizations and business firms. Other
organizations are coming to value these skills, merely to survive in
a competitive environment. An increasing number of organizations
welcome skills in thinking, problem solving, and learning.

The debate on the role of the university in vocational education is
visible in many nations. To the degree that most forms of education
and lifelong learner are being incorporated into universities, it is
to be expected that some forms of vocational training will take place
within universities. These are not the integrated programs leading to
university degrees. They are subsidiary courses, and special
certificates. They also include add-on skills courses for those who
already have degrees.

There is an historical distinction to be made between vocational and
professional degrees. The early university degrees in law, theology,
and medicine were professional degrees, not vocational degrees. The
occasional skills of law were taught in lawyer's office, the
vocational practices of the priesthood were taught in special
institutes and courses under the direct supervision of senior
clerics, and the vocational practice of medicine was taught in the
guild of barber-surgeons or in the private practices of physicians.

The distinctions between the professional and vocational aspect of
law, ministry, and medicine are still visible in the legal and
customary professional practice of many nations.

Lawyers in some nations are required to apprentice for a year in law
office, government service, or a police department AFTER taking the
law degree and BEFORE admission to the bar.

In many nations, priests or ministers take a special year's course in
practical ministry AFTER receiving the theology degree and BEFORE
ordination. In other nations, this is required in a special program
even before the degree in theology or ministry is granted. In some
nations, they are also required to serve an apprenticeship in parish
ministry or other pastoral service.

Physicians in many nations are required to serve a term of practical
residency under a supervising senior physician before they are
permitted to enter unsupervised practice.

In all the nations where universities were responsible for
professional degrees, vocations distinct from professions were taught
in other ways.

Vocational training was practiced in the guilds, and later in special
vocational schools, trade schools, academies, and - later - technical
colleges and polytechnics.

Now that many forms of education are being consolidated within the
university, we must address these issues in new ways.

Reducing the universities to vocational training centers is no
solution. Vocational schools were merged into universities precisely
because the older forms of vocational training proved inadequate to
the needs of the late 20th century. Now that we have interested the
21st century, there is no point in training students to solve
yesterday's problems.

Instead, we seek ways to help people learn to address current
challenges. We also seek ways to encourage lifelong learning so that
people can renew themselves for the challenges of the future.

Learning and training are two entirely different approaches.

Vocational schools generally involve training in a tradition anchored
in the craft guilds. This is a tradition of high craft skills
embedded in a context of tacit knowledge and reproductive thought.

University education strives toward learning rather than training. It
embeds necessary training in a larger and more robust context of
explicit knowledge. This requires analysis, criticism, and
constructive thought.

The university of the future must finally address one of the great
problems of our time. This involves developing forms of knowledge
that link theory and practice, explicit and tacit knowledge,
reproductive and constructive thought, concrete and abstract
learning, experiential skill and general reasoning.

The trade colleges and vocational schools that once represented an
important social advance cannot do this. They are advanced no longer.
Our challenge is solving the problem of what university should be. We
will not meet that challenge by abandoned the university as a system
or an ideal.

The earlier title of this thread was "interesting times." It is
sometimes said that the statement "may you live interesting times"
is, in reality, a curse. Not hardly. I would not trade the
opportunity to live at this time for any other era.

The challenges we face make this an extraordinary era. This is a
great moment for the field of design, the professions of design, and
the disciplines of design research. I recently wrote that design
research today is where physics was in 1895. I would like to see us
move up to 1905, the year that Annalen der Physik published
Einstein's five great papers. This requires the foundation of
learning as distinct from training. This learning is based on
university skills as distinct from the skills of the vocational
school.

Best regards,

Ken



Allan Reese wrote,

"It is arguable that historically universities *were* about
vocational training: specifically in law, medicine and theology."

and

"On a personal level, I think that HE (compared with other types of
education or training) is about teaching people to think and to
question. I therefore echo Ken's comment, by suggesting that trades
that depend on detailed knowledge or application of formal
procedures, rather than exploration and rational analysis, are not
appropriate to HE."

and

"On a very personal level, I am unconvinced that learning to think
and question is a useful vocational skill. It is certainly not
appreciated in a managerial society, establishment or organisation."




--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Technology and Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University