Here are my views concerning many topics raised among the participants
of this group.

A personal account of design methods in architectural education in the
last three decades 

Prof. Şengül Öymen GÜR, Ph. D.

Karadeniz Technical University, Architecture Department

Abstract

Some believe that ?design methods? totally failed, and the first
remarks made concerning their failure were by those who pioneered in
developing them. In this paper I am arguing that this statement is very
much based on how one perceives what design methods were, in the first
place. Secondly, I am pointing down how they are still utilized in
architectural studios and the improvements made by myself with respect
to the phases and steps of the methodology, with special emphases on
intelligence and design phases. 
     Was not the aim of design methodology to make the process of
design more scientific? Was not the aim of design methods to make
externalization of the design process possible so that the process
could lend itself amenable to further developments?  I use them, I
incorporate changes in them, and I update them according to the major
transformations the design thought is going through. So, the design
methods in architecture are alive and well. Only, they are more
humanized, domesticated and viable now. 
     Eventually the question implied in this article is that; ?could
the major masterpieces of the last quarter of the 20th century be
realized without the slightest notion of systems thinking and of design
methodology developed so far?? 

Did design methods in architecture actually fail?

If any one had a chance to observe the processes of architectural
designing at major and minor firms and architectural design studios
over the world, at the first sight he/she might have come up with the
conclusion that design methods are totally forsaken as passed-out and
outmoded interests, as some sort of whims of earlier generations. 
     One reason which leads us to believe what is seen as looked at on
its own is that major pioneers in the field have almost readily
admitted that their professed approach to design methodology did not
work. Only after two years of having published his major work on the
synthesis of form (1964) Alexander confessed that the city was not a
tree (1966; 1971) . Jones (1970) unwittingly demonstrated especially
how design phase approaches were not operable. Broadbent described the
progress in 1973 and retreated in 1979. 

     Like many practicing architects, several researchers-even those
from design methodology field, such as Gedenryd-condescend design
research and contend that methods do not work. But all he is rejecting
is that design process seen as a problem solving activity is replete
with defects: It is as biased as the problem solving activity in
mathematics on which it is based. In order to substantiate his claim he
goes on demonstrating that in mathematics as soon as one analyzes the
givens one has already worked out the necessary calculations to arrive
at solutions. In other words, solutions are imbedded in the givens. In
geometry, for example, the proofs of theorems are the corollary of
appropriate choice of axioms. Therefore, analysis and synthesis are two
aspects of the same activity, not two different activities, stages and
processes; they are one and the same.    
     Thus, Polya?s problem solving methodology (1945), which is based
on classic mathematicians and Pappus especially, is no good; it is
dead-born since the structures of process and proof are conflated in
Pappus?s own approach. Therefore, he contends that ?had the original
model of mathematical problem solving been good, then it may quite
possibly have been a good start for a theory of action and cognition in
general? and implies that the design professions might have benefited
from this. He concludes that failure is located in the model of
rational action, on a cognitive level. He has a good point there. As I
proceed with architectural design methodology I will come back to this.
For the time being, I will simply be content by stating that
architectural design is a rational (justified) action, on a cognitive
level and what is defined as failure by Gedenryd is responsible for the
success of most talented architects.
     On the other hand, Darke (1982) some time ago declared that the
sole method adopted by the practicing architects was Alexander?s
Checklist approach, among many others proposed by design methodology
researchers. On the face of it, this might be a true assertion but does
it fully explain what is really happening at the architectural offices,
studios and more importantly, in the minds of the architect-designers?
No.
     That the architectural design methodology when propounded by
design researchers was not fully attended to by intuition-oriented
architects is quite true. I recall one by name, Louis I. Kahn of the
University of Pennsylvania. But most architects of the last three
decades are raised by some studio-masters that sometime in their
professional life were grasped by interest and concern in design
methodology. Notwithstanding the fact that design methods were
criticized in general, many studio masters, such as myself, have
developed their own methodologies by open-ended approaches and
incremental repairs, which they experimented all their lives. The
reason why such experiments do not show up in periodicals is that in
such a hard science and technology-oriented world we shy away with our
soft techniques, which I believe, are perceptive, reliable, affective
and eliciting for architectural design teaching. Our graduates
unconsciously and imperceptibly inherit these approaches. In this
indirect way methodologies live on. The fact that architects do not
consciously practice a formal methodology is very poor evidence that no
such methodology exists. There is a distinctive methodology of
architectural design, which architects practice unwittingly. 
     Architects differ in their stance to architectural theories and
the beliefs and values they are imbued with. The main dissension erupts
between those who stick with the fundamentalist theories of
architecture and others who flirt with the non-fundamentalist ones.
Architects differ in their affection, predilections and prejudices for
and about history and traditions of architecture. Some prefer
architectural conventions (see Ghirardo, 1991; i.e. Israel, 1991;
Vattimo, 1991, 1996; Pinos, 1993), some are socially motivated (see
Frampton, 1980, 1996; i.e. Dean, 1991); yet, some rely heavily upon
analogies, myths and fiction, such as Charles Moore, Michael Graves and
Robert Venturi; some prefer to play with geometry and ?other
geometries? such as Daniel Libeskind, Peter Eisenman, Eric Owen Moss,
etc. (Moss, 1993; Rajchman, 1998); and yet, some pour their thoughts
into shapes by and through three-dimensional hand-made models, such as
Gehry (1994), Coop Himmelblau (1993) and very many others. They
sometimes create and innovate concepts and lay special claims to
adjudicate upon their usage. They display differing attitudes towards
nature, culture and building context. 
     They have one thing in common though: if asked what is going on in
their heads on the verge of design or what methodology they followed in
putting out their first l?equisse, they fail to explicate it.
Unfortunately an architect?s account of his own intellectual procedures
is often untrustworthy, seldom convincing and usually an afterward
story. What Albert Einstein said once for scientists is equally valid
for architects: ?I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don?t
listen to their words, fix your attention to their deeds? (Medawar,
1969: p.10). In other words, methodology when propounded by architects
is a misinterpretation of what they do.
      Therefore, in this article by which I aim to clarify the
amendments I made to my almost thirty year old design thinking and
methodology, I will first expound on designers? lineage and strand of
thought during design process by emphaty and describe their differences
from other professionals and artists, and their similarities to
mathematicians. This clarification will help me to substantiate and
support the revisions and developments I implemented in my design
methodology (Fig. 1) .  
           

   




Figure 1. Architectural Design as a Process Matrix (Gür, 1978: p.121).


WHO ARE DESIGNERS?

Over the last 45 years or so, many researches-very few in architecture,
though-have been conducted on creativity. These focused on personality
variables together with the socio-cultural variables, which, to the
researchers? belief, might be responsible for creativity. Studies
almost univocally demonstrated that certain personality traits often
characterize creative persons and some traits of personality co-vary
with creative thinking. These studies made comparisons between artists,
scientists, other professionals and designers. They made a rather
convincing case that ?creative personality? exists; and that some
personality variables regularly and predictably relate to creative
achievements in arts, sciences and design professions (Myers and Myers,
1980; Myers, 1993; Diehl, 1992; McCaulley, 1990; MacKinnon, 1962;
Durling, 2003). 
     The common dispositions observed among these creative people are
openness to new experiences, being less conventional, less
conscientious, more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious,
dominant, hostile and impulsive (Feist, 1999). 

Furthermore, Durling (2003) contends that art students have a
propensity toward questioning and rebelling against established norms;
they have a disposition toward intense affective experience (a
tendency, which I believe is somewhat constrained among their architect
to-be peers). By relying on the cognitive characteristics measured by
those researchers who work toward establishing personality inventories
(Myers&Myers, 1980; Myers, 1993) he also demonstrated that interior
design students are of extraversion orientation, which makes them
comfortable in working with others; that they combine intuition with
thinking rather than combining sensing with feeling; that they markedly
prefer perception rather than judgement. 
     Intuitive thinking is concerned with future oriented ideas and
possibilities. It is seeking and sorting of alternatives. It is a
cognitive activity as opposed to sensing, which deals with directly
observable facts and things. These are essential qualities for
architects, too. MacKinnon (1962) had already demonstrated the
significance of intuitive thinking in high ability architects. Although
rapid judgment is also vital for architects than interior designers
under the constraints of environmental specifications prior to final
decisions, perceptiveness is also a quality more associated with
architectural design activity, since it involves remaining flexible,
open minded, with rich visions for the future, and adaptability to new
experiences. So, what is true for interior designers is almost equally
true for architects. 
     On another occasion Durling states that ?...being different is a
strong motivator-this is often difference for its own sake. Sometimes
style will outweigh practicality, or there may be a drive for some
particular aesthetic or tactile quality that must receive
expression.... They are given to proposing unusual associations, and
they sometimes deliberately break the rules set by the tutor, for
example by pushing a brief to the limit. Occasionally, they may be
rebellious and difficult...they seem happy to work with uncertain or
incomplete knowledge? 
     I personally do not disagree with any one of these observations,
except for one thing. One should clearly distinguish between artistic
creativity and problem solving creativity. A brief, if there exists one
in the head of the painter or interior designer, may be pushed to
limits. It won?t hurt anybody. At the most you do not buy the painting.
But, design in architecture is a realistic response to a real problem
situation. Although intuition is an essential precept in architectural
thinking, architectural thinking is at the same time a problem-solving
oriented rational action that needs to be substantiated and
corroborated by a solution, design. It is this reality that
architectural design studio has got to mimic. How far can the limits of
the reality be pushed in reality? How far can it be pushed in the
simulacrum?
In order to resolve the complications involved in the concept of
creativity and to be able to distinguish among varying conceptions of
and demands on creativity the term creativity requires further
clarification.

What is creativity?

The demand for environmental quality and livable environments today
aggravate the responsibilities of architects and render their task more
challenging and tough than ever. Architecture is enrooted in place. It
is a unique activity that is both geographical and cultural. Each
problem situation demands a particular solution appropriate for the
geography and for the culture proper. Therefore creativity in
architecture is of prime importance at the level of the individual and
at the level of the society. 
     Systematic inquiry into creativity occurred from 1950s onwards and
aimed towards a more fundamental understanding of human creativity.
These researches adopted psychometric, cognitive, psychodynamic and
pragmatic approaches to define creativity (Durling 2003). Only the last
one deals with design fields, to a certain extent. In fact, very few
researchers from a design background have undertaken studies on
creativity and have investigated the knowledge about the underlying
intellectual and social drivers of creativity.
     As for creativity, it is a broad and vague concept. Criterion of
creativity varies from one discipline to another. In engineering, for
example, it may be predicated on there being some functional
improvement on the product: It may be made cheaper, safer, stronger, of
better performance, multi-functioned, etc. Some creativity, for that
matter, may be a systematic affair with serious implications for
success and failure as opposed to creativity in artistic domains, which
value and cause the different, the eccentric, and the frivolous to come
into existence. The role of creativity in sciences, on the other hand,
is best understood by quoting Henri Poincare; 
     ?It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.?
     In effect, creativity is the ability to produce work that is both
novel and appropriate, although traditionally it used to be emphasized
as an ?effective surprise? (Bruner, 1962); and even lately described as
an act of creating  ?the unexpected? and ?the original? by the
Deconstructionist architects, i.e. ?shock? by Tschumi (1994). For
Polanyi it is an illumination (1958; p.123), a kind of awareness.
Nonetheless, as quoted by Durling (ibid.) an important and persistent
feature of all creativity is the ability to set aside established
conventions and procedures (Guilford 1950; 444-454).
     As a human behavior, creativity is a rapid intuitive deduction
that owes its power to the infirmity of our powers of reasoning. It is
generally considered a generative act, a leap in architectural
discovery, which obviates an image of a fragment of possible worlds.
Since creativity is a dynamic thought process in action some prefer to
use the idiom ?imaginative leap? instead of the passive concept of
creativity, in design disciplines.
     ?That creativity is beyond analysis is a romantic illusion we must
outgrow. It can not be learned perhaps, but it can certainly be
encouraged and abetted.? 
     Says, Medawar (1969; p.57). Therefore, I posit that any sound
architectural education and design methodology should be predicated on
fostering intuitive thinking, without neglecting however, the
obtainment of sensitivity towards nature, humans, history,
technological innovations and contextual essentials; on minding
students of the poetics of existence; and on building up of a reliable
perceptiveness for past and future, within them. 
     However, in order to teach creativity in architectural education
and implement intuitive thinking in design methodology one should first
understand and detect the critical moment and the nature of creativity
in architectural design process. Only then can one accordingly
implement changes in architectural education in general and in design
studios in particular.

The critical moment(s) in architectural thinking 

That architectural thinking is much different from other disciplines is
not fully investigated but a number of significant differences have
been postulated between designers, architects and engineers. One of
these differences is that the cognitive style of convergent thinking is
marked in engineers whereas designers appear to major on divergent
thinking (McCaulley, 1990).  Cognitive style of divergent thinking is
elaborated on De Bono website, and the term ?lateral thinking? is
introduced: ?Lateral thinking describes problem solving methods, that
instead of meeting the problem directly (conjectured as vertical
thinking) attempt to go around the problem (lateral thinking) to
facilitate the exploration of new territory often through unusual
associations of ideas. This seems to describe what designers do
naturally.? (Durling, 2003; p.5).
     This final statement is partially true if not totally incorrect,
untrue and unrealistic both in engineering and architectural design.
Lateral thinking is only a part of our job. Attempts to correlate
generative and exploratory thinking styles to different phase of design
as suggested by Finke (1992) can neither be authenticated. We do both
at the same time lapse and before every decision level. If either one
of the thinking processes outweighs the other this happens in
congruence with the problem recognition. 

Design is a reflective activity. The entire process of idea
exploration, evaluation and implementation is reflective. No one
mindset or attitude prevails. Instead it is the judgment of the
designer, or team leaders to approach each kind of problem in the
appropriate way. Some moments require an emphasis on the logical and
rational. Others demand creative exploration and expression driven
work. Often the entire project cycle is spent shifting between
different modes of thought, exploring, evaluating and exploring again.
There is no one mode of thinking explicative of design process in
architecture, there is no one critical moment in architectural design
thinking. There are many, contingent with the phases and steps of
architectural design (see Fig. 1). The guiding design concept can be
creative, the structural system can be creative, and a minor detailing
can be very genius. And this is exactly why architectural design is
always a creation, be it minor or major. Few things of importance
arrive from either/or thinking. Architects unify and combine rather
than separate and divide.  They design on both sides of their brain, at
the same moment. 
     However, as underlined above there are critical moments along this
thinking process. Although the part played by tacit knowledge in
intuitive leaps that precede the rigorous construction of knowledge in
science or in architecture is not fully understood, most architects
would agree that good designers, just like good scientists, arrive at
brilliantly rewarding solutions by way of analysis through synthesis
(Medawar, 1969; Gür, 1978). The nature of architectural thinking is
holistic as opposed to atomistic (Sternberg, 1986). Creative designers
somehow know when an idea is the right one (Davis&Talbot, 1987);
elements of solutions emerge very early in the design process (Eastman,
1970; Agabani, 1980; Lawson, 1990).  
     Among these researchers I fully associate with a philosopher of
science, Medawar and I think that ?analysis through synthesis? best
reflects architectural thinking and the major critical moments along
this thinking. I completely disagree with Rowe (1987) who says that
?their lines of reasoning are based on some synthetic and formative
design idea rather than on the analysis of the problem. He contends
that ?architects instead of slavishly following methods contemplate
solutions as soon as they conceive of design problems?. He implies that
it is all of a sudden: Ah-ha! As I stated above; the fact that
architects do not visibly practice a formal methodology is very poor
evidence that architects do not follow any methods and no such
methodology exists.
     In general what researchers are confused about is that, which
parts are played by theory, experience, drive and imagination in the
creation of this intriguing and fast (!) solution system. There is no
definite answer to such a query as yet. The importance of disciplinary
theoretical knowledge and of experience is not fully understood.
Intuitive thinking-or imagination seems a gift, a godsend or the result
of a beneficial hereditary; but is imagination not, in fact, the result
of the maturation of knowledge gained during education and professional
practice? Is it not born from facts apparently forgotten, stored in a
distant part of the memory, and suddenly remembered when circumstances
call them back? Is imagination not based partly on the ability to
connect notions which, at first sight, look quite unrelated? Is it not
the ability to catch barely seen analogies? Shall we ever learn how to
develop it?
     I personally believe that tacit knowledge is not that tacit after
all; and if there is any ability involved in developing the right
approach to a design problem in architecture, it is the ability to
connect design ideas, notions, which at first sight look quite
unrelated, and to catch barely seen analogies; and I strongly believe
that this ability can be improved in architectural education (Gür
2003). As usual, rules of thumb are more efficient than scholarly
developed recommendations in this realm. Nevertheless, views of
researchers on the nature of the generating idea in architecture vary a
great deal too and are worth discussing at this point. 

The generating idea and the nature of the tacit knowledge 

Early in 1973 Broadbent used the term ?preconceptions? to stand for the
guiding principles preferred by architects in contemplating solutions,
but it has a derogatory connotation: Preconception implies conditioned
consistency, whereas most creative designers are very much inconsistent
in their choice of guiding principles. On the other hand, Darke (1978)
contended that a simple idea is used by designers to narrow down the
range of possible solutions to a design problem and termed this idea as
?primary generator?. Recently Lawson claims that primary generators do
not merely get the design process started but they have an influence
throughout the whole design process; in many cases they are even
detectable in the solutions (1997: pp.45-46).
     As for me, architects may have ideologies that may lead them to
think in a certain way, architects may have, and do have their own
values that guide their overall design activities, but their ideas and
principles are in the form of vague concepts, in the beginning. Nothing
like scientific principles. Schön comes a little bit closer and uses
the term ?generative metaphor? with reference to Wittgenstein?s
?seeing-as? principle, implying that architect is framing the problem
situation and reflecting his dreams upon it. He is more right because
he mentions a ?problem situation?, meaning that designers do not throw
out concepts from the top of their heads. But the term metaphor is
still very much restrictive: In spoken languages a metaphor is so well
defined that the entire society is able to decipher it. This is not
always the case in architecture. Architectural design is an
individualistic and personal activity afterall, and the metaphors can
be very idiosyncratic and esoteric thereof. 
What architects actually work with are visio-spatial concepts with
depth of coverage and explanatory power. This is called right brain
thinking characterized by a distinct, holistic, visio-spatial approach
(Bogen, 1969). If we try to analyze the design process pseudo-stepwise,
the generative act is triggered by the observation of a problem
situation where critical physical matters and human participants are
perceived. Perceptive designers tend to be able to diagnose the real
problem behind the purported one. They do not merely respond to some
filtered needs statements. They often explore unarticulated or latent
needs of the society, which brings us back to the complexity and
tacitness that some methodologists have already suggested (i.e. Polya,
1945; Polanyi, 1958). In evaluating the problem and responding to it
they make use of hypothetico-deductive logic: they interpret and
validate the problem situation by passing individualized judgements,
seeking little approval from recognized rules or precedence. The
intuitive hypotheses they form and test one after the other are visions
for solution. The choice seems fast to ?others?. But it is not. It
varies from one architect to the other, though. The sieving of
alternatives is done again through visio-spatial concepts. They apply
the scientific premise of reducibility, clandestinely: an ill-defined
complex socio-physical problem is reduced to a visio-spatial solution-a
cloud-like concept, a vague image, yet.
     Knowledge and the power of imagination play an important role in
creating cognitive alternatives, but an inductive logic runs throughout
the sorting process (this is reminiscent of Baconian experimentation:
?Let?s say if...?). Naturally, causality plays the major role in the
choice and refinement of one of the vague and barely articulate visions
of future. However in this very complex act of perceiving, imagining,
thinking, feeling and judging five factors are involved:

1.      Foreknowledge gained from theoretical/historical knowledge of
architecture.
2.      Foreknowledge gained from the canons of masters of architecture then
and now.
3.      Foreknowledge gained from studio education and practice of
architectural design- skill of transforming and representing concepts.
4.      An incentive, which may be a restrictive clause-ranging from a
scientific/technological rationale to a personal fancy.
5.      Perceptiveness-a feeling for alternative socio-physical futures
gained from the knowledge of other disciplines such as philosophy,
sciences, literature, sociology, economy, etc., from arts, from
extra-curricular activities, life experiences, etc. Perceptiveness may
owe to some inborn insight for sensory clues, though.

Consequently, an internal censorship restricts available concepts to
those that are not absurd, and an instant apprehension of analogy
between the problem and solution is achieved, a convincing
illumination. ?The rite of discovery instantly coincides with a ritual
of proof? as they say in mathematics. Although this internal circuitry
is unknown to others, it is well known to the individual designer
herself. 
     To put it differently, the success of architectural design
co-varies with the digestion of the factors cited above. Therefore,
these should be the focus of architectural education, and they are.
Also, the observation that design is at the same time an analytic and
synthetic intriguing activity would not mean the renunciation and the
abandonment of design methods. On the contrary. We educators are
pro-methods anyway! and apply them in our own way, which we seldom
explicate. In this article I definitely will. But before I do this, a
few words must be said about the implications of this argument on the
learning theories in architectural education in general and design
studio approaches in particular.

Implications of this argument on learning theories in architecture

Any argument on creativity teaching should concern itself with learning
theories. The learning theories proposed so far falls into three
categories (Mayer, 1983; Broadbent, Martinez, Cardaci and Zoilo, 1998):
1. Conditioned learning, 2. Problem solving, 3. Cognitive learning. I
prefer to examine those under five concepts, the last of which I had
proposed in an earlier study (Gür, 2000), inspired by Einstein?s
heuristic inquiries (1963, 1993, and 1998) and Wittgenstein?s
Philosophical Investigations (1953):
1.      Conditioned Learning
2.      Problem Solving
3.      Observational Learning 
4.      Reflective Learning
5.      Conceptual Learning

Conditioned Learning involves stimulus/response strategy, which is
based on minimal memory reserve and the automatic retrieval of the
response, upon perception of the stimulus. It is imputed to Pavlov
(1927). It is the oldest method of learning and the most classical,
indeed. The second one is a decomposition and re-composition process,
based on the analysis of problem situation and a re-structuring of the
issues from down up, following a Cartesian methodology.  The third
theory of learning is learning from pure observations of both nature
and society. Types, modes and styles of interactions and behavior are
learned from such observations. It is first demonstrated by Aristotle
and advocated by Rousseau (Lecercle, 1995), valued by Freud (1998) and
followed by American sociologists such as Bandura and Walters. The
fourth derives from the work of Piaget (1955). It employs the
reflection of learned theories and hypotheses onto the object of
investigation. In other words, it is an at hand trial of cognitive
knowledge over practical problems. Trial and error involved in this
type of learning may also lead to new discoveries. 
     All theories of learning briefly described above are necessary and
valid in architectural education, but they are not sufficient.
Architecture differs from many disciplines, such as social sciences,
law and medicine where the knowledge is transmitted to the recipient
and demanded back as it is rendered. Therefore, conditioned learning,
observation, analysis and speculation based learning and the
corresponding teaching methods are sufficient to deliver successful
education in these fields.
     Architectural education consists of two main bodies of knowledge.
First body of knowledge can be taught as it is done in most other
disciplines. In the design studios, however, the student is not
expected to recite back the theories of architecture or the strength of
materials, etc.; he is expected to understand a problem fully and to
device a solution, shouting out ?eureka!? Therefore, architectural
education must furnish the students with something else in order to
guide them in discoveries. As a remedy to this situation, bearing in
mind the gravity of problems to face architects in future, I propose
?conceptual learning? as the fifth theory of learning. 
     Conceptual learning, although first proposed by myself (2000)
without the slightest notion of Mezirow?s (1978, 1991, 1997)
?transformative learning? could be understood as a special case of his
adult learning theory. Transformative learning offers a theory of
learning grounded in the nature of human communication. In this theory;
?learning is understood as the process of using a prior interpretation
to construe a new or revised interpretation of meaning of one?s
experience in order to guide future action? (Mezirow, 1996; p. 162). It
is both instrumental and communicative. ?It is instrumental in that it
focuses on learning through task-oriented problem solving. It is
communicative in that it is learning involved in understanding the
meaning what others communicate concerning values, ideals, feelings,
moral decisions and such concepts as freedom, justice, love, labor,
autonomy, commitment and democracy? (Mezirow 1991, p. 8). 
     Transformative learning attempts to explain how our expectations,
framed within cultural assumptions and presuppositions, directly
influence the meaning we derive from our experiences. ?Three common
themes of Mezirow?s theory are the centrality of experience, critical
reflection, and rational discourse in the process of meaning structure
transformation?. Instruments of Mezirow?s theory and practice is spoken
and written forms of language. In my conceptual learning theory these
are percepts, affects and expression instruments of design (Fig. 2).



                                               
                    

Figure 2. An Analogy between Spoken Languages and Architectural
Composition.

Conceptual learning proposed by myself is predicated on a deep
understanding of the architectural design activity itself (Gür, 2000).
Design in architecture is an act of transformation and in that sense it
is the highest form of practical adaptation to our environment. We
transform and adapt. Thus, designing itself is a perennial
experimentation process from historical, societal and individualistic
point of view. It is a double act of communication where existing
constructs, concepts, mental pictures of reality in the mind of the
designer are being transformed into visions of future realities at one
level, and they are being represented in the form of affects of that
vision through instruments of architectural representations and
expressions at another level. Studio efforts in architectural education
are still another level of communication where these mental
transformations of students (and may be of masters) are communicated
between the two parties through simulacrums of real life situations. 
     For this reason, I established a totally new approach to the first
term project in architectural education where transformative learning
was exercised through architectural and other concepts (Gür, 2000). At
this instrumental level of learning the emphasis was laid on students?
dealing with haphazard concepts some relevant and some seemingly
irrelevant to possible future architectural problems. This endeavor can
be likened to Mezirow?s understanding of instrumental learning because
these exercises were task-oriented, by definition. For example, an
exercise would expect from students to choose one from the suggested
concepts such as ?rain, deep, and other? and explain it on
two-dimensional surface by employing instruments of representation,
such as lines, shapes and forms, etc. First hand experience and
critical reflection were central to these exercises. After each
exercise masters of the studio would criticize the student?s drawing in
terms of essence, correlation of tools and percepts/concepts,
aesthetics of composition, etc. Especially the criticism, I believe,
helped students to change their perspectives toward architecture,
design, composition and future of the world, etc. Their mental
formation got used to transformations; they gained skill in thinking
abstractly and designing figuratively (Figures 3&4). Again, Mezirow?s
theme of rational discourse is met by my dialogue?based
learning/teaching theory, which I call ?conceptual learning? due to its
instruments. The course itself proved very successful in itself and for
the following studios.

   

Figure 3. Family                           Figure 4. Open air concert hall 
(by Muhammed Ekşioğlu)                    first term project as a
visio-spatial 
                                            image emerging yet	

Grounded on and substantiated by the above discussions now I can safely
proceed with the phases and steps of my design methodology.

Proposed methods and techniques in design methodology

My methodology consists of five phases and each phase of seven steps
(see Fig.1).
Intelligence Phase. Although I term this phase intelligence phase I
caution my students that information collection never ends in
designing, it only becomes more and more scrutinized towards the end.
Steps:

1.      Problem Recognition; the chief purpose of this phase is to create
consciousness. Depending on the experience level of the students I
follow two alternative ways. Usually in the first five semesters of
design studio I state a building purpose. In the higher levels of
education I leave the choice to the students by pointing to a problem
area and let them decide for the purpose of the development. At this
step the most important issue to transmit to the students is the
uncertainties and indeterminacies of our times. What inputs the defined
lot or lots would need to deregulate in a globalizing world. We speak
of major changes the world is going through, what kind of effects might
have impact on this place and what kind of a place this place is, first
of all. Observation and reflection, that is, understanding and feeling,
are very important in cognizing possible mental transformations of a
place. 
     To aid in this to happen I have already published one sensing-
    
feeling oriented heuristic approach to internalize spaces, and      
emphasized the role of history of matters and spirits and how 
they make themselves known to us at a place (2002; 2003b). I call 
this act ?Deciphering the Palimpsest?. When this guide is followed 
students develop a deeper understanding of a place. When they are 
to propose functions they have some background knowledge, their 
first-hand experience of a place to justify their proposals now.  
     When the younger ones are given a building purpose and a 
possible lot, they are  usually let to decide whether this building 
          purpose is the right choice there. Eventually, they have to go 
          through the same experiences, anyway. 
     Deciphering the palimpsest involves three ?T?s: a study of
topography, topology and typology. Determination of topography and
climate indicators is the easiest. Topology involves relation and
interrelations; main and minor traffic routes, pedestrian traffics and
the rationale behind these. Before any change is to be implemented into
the area the existing relations must be understood very well. Typology
may take some time depending on the situation but it is worth it.
Traditional buildings and the other existing ones are studied in
detail, typology-a strong indication of character-is searched, in order
to guide the students in her decisions of ?continuity or change? and
what kind of change.

2.      Identification of Human Behavior Sets; what the place was like and
what it looks like at the present is partly due to the impact of people
using it now. Therefore, I ask my students two things: First, what is
the human traffic like in the problem area and what the human qualities
are. Statistics do not tell us this. Second, who will use the
building-to-be? Classify and render scenarios applicable to each set.

3.      Identification of Problem Situation; define contradictions and
conflicts. Pinpoint where the critical decisions lie. Develop
intellectual ways to overcome and/or to compromise and upgrade them so
as to settle the issues in the future.

4.      Goal Setting and Prediction; obviously in architecture learning
consists in technical learning and in developing an attitude towards
designing. ?By far the most important thing for architectural students
today is forming a reasoned, coherent opinion on architecture as a
whole? says Grassi (1992), when referring to architectural education in
general.   In this article he reinstates the importance of history,
first hand experience of buildings as technicians and as judges,
especially the historical ones. My thoughts are very much in line with
him and I emphasize this way of looking at things even in the studios.
As a rule I discuss with my students alternative design thoughts and
canons imbedded in our past. In certain cases I include regional and
vernacular design thoughts as well, because I consider them important.
However, instead of directing them to a certain design thought I prefer
to speak on pros and cons, I invite them to speak too. I am famous for
organizing ?intellectual days? on such issues where students
collaborate and present certain epochs of thought and this is usually
open to other students. They come and go on a voluntary basis. Although
basic emphasis lies on my transmitting my own doubts and uncertainties
as to the present and future of 
architecture, which I believe is realized by my own critique of 	
  competing approaches to design, in connection with the pressing
   issues for the project I let the group to come up with user,
customer, business oriented goals. Setting goals is a significant tool
for further analysis, without them individual research of students run
very disorganized. I never let students to design objectives without
setting the goals because definition of goals makes the huge research
converge. 

5.      Design of Objectives; habitually I post the goals, and let students
decide for the alluding objectives of design for and by themselves. We
argue over them. We compare the design thought of past and present and
the contradictory ways architects approached to solutions. For example,
what transparency was for Raphael, Le Corbusier and Norman Foster, and
the like. At this point I give out assignments in order to further
develop an understanding of the ways past and present generation of
architects solved similar building tasks. My favorite method is the one
explored by Clark and Pause (1996) long after me. I have developed this
to a large extent with major canons of major architects to conform to
the building task. I have built in syntactic analysis steps which
distinguish the in-users and out-users of a building, day uses/night
uses of a building, major vistas of the interiors, geometry of the
distribution of vertical and horizontal circulation nodes, etc. I give
assignments to my students to make syntactic and semantic analysis of
existing buildings, either in architectural literature or in the
environment, thus they develop a talent to investigate similar
functions deeply and to compare the success of architects prior to
them. They learn to discuss and criticize. This is one key element in
the education of an architect. If you develop viewpoints to criticize
others, your ability to criticize yourself increases.

6.      Programming; While this process runs, students and me gradually
formulate what can be done in the problem area to upgrade life in
general and what the extent of the proposal could be. As the last step
we determine the basic functions of the building, we double-check it
with the competition programs in order not to omit some vital helping
functions and we determine the size and scale of our mutual endeavor. 

Design Phase. Design is a personal activity, however, I always ask my
students to create fundamentally opposing alternatives stemming from
the essential contradictions and conflicts which we defined but did not
compromise throughout the process. Although some are very determined
about their cognitive solutions almost none resists to this offer
because it is also challenging (and students in my studio already have
had heard about my approach and me-the irresistible). Here the play is
soft science. Berkun (2003) corroborates me: ?The ultra-compressed
scientific version of science has two parts. Part one: when you have an
idea, you must expend time and energy to prove that it works. Part two:
you must also expend energy to prove that it does not work? (p.1).
Designing two opposing alternatives may show that one should not
strongly defend his formulation to all extents, there may be other
solutions. Or may be the opposing one better meets the objectives and
passes more tests.       
     Nevertheless it is always better to have more than one alternative
because it is only when comparing the two ideas that the best idea-a
hybrid of the two-is discovered. Cars are designed to switch gears
easily, why not architects. I design them like cars! This attitude of
mine takes Wittgenstein as its point of departure (1935): ?seeing? and
?seeing as? ; and in that sense it is corroborated by Sless (1986;
2002) who introduces the notion of ?letness? into design field, which
reminds me of the Baconian play with heuristic questions: ?Let?s say
??. Actually next step is our Baconian play.
Choice and Development Phase. In face of contradictory and not so
contradictory alternatives we take our testament of goals and
objectives in our hands and discuss over the alternatives about their
pros and cons. That which gets the best grade is chosen for further
development. Naturally, causality plays the major role in the choice
and refinement of one of the vague and barely articulate visions of
future. Development is both functional and technical and involves
scrutinized and precise knowledge about structural systems, materials,
lighting, colours, textures, availability and maintenance of materials,
etc, an endless query.

Presentation Phase. Although presentation phase is deemed to be solely
in the responsibility of students, in order to broaden their view of
presentation techniques in architecture I present new and attractive
material to them and discuss about the relative value of one technique
of presentation over the other. While doing this I discuss the general
value and devaluation of simulacrums so that they gain consciousness
also in looking into the media and the present goals of media. Again
another hint of transformative learning.
     Implementation and evaluation phases are beyond our responsibility
but I value the feedback from the field and among the projects which we
criticize during the sessions I always prefer to choose at least some
of the buildings in the immediate environment. We discuss how well it
functions, responses of the user to the building how the passers-by
cognize the building, etc. At this point my intention is to breach the
gap between environment and behaviour studies and design studios. I
actually do the same kind of critique during the analysis of the human
sets.
     As one can see design methods are alive and well, only they are
more humanized, domesticated and viable now. 

A proposed approach to design studios

Grassi says that in face of such indeterminacy and uncertainty no body
should call herself a master. But I believe I have developed myself to
accommodate all sort of changes, therefore I call myself a master and
still wish to add some soft advices to those who run and will run
design studios. A design critique is a hairy issue because of the
complex interactions of masters and students, aggravated with the
complexity of inter-phases of contemporary design issues. Therefore as
a studio master;

1.      Be a reliable person so that your students will feel secure with
you, confide in you, entrust themselves, their ideas, dreams and their
work to you. If you are not one, disguise yourself as if you are one.
Even a simulacrum will do.

2.      Be open; let good ideas to surface throughout the entire process. 

3.      Feel free to speak in context of your point of view, but listen
before speaking. Facilitate the critique, do not dictate it. They are
not your puppets.

4.      Take down notes or make her feel that you remember the previous
critique very well. This will make her feel safe and cared for. Every
one needs some encouragement now and then. 

5.      Be extravagant in your praises when there is something to do so,
lower your tone otherwise. Design is one of the most difficult and
challenging professions, after all.

6.      Change your aspect now and then! This will help him to change his
gears. This will lead him into exploration of alternatives.

7.      Do not hesitate to set out goals, objectives or some rules and
guidelines. They clarify your intentions and students? search.
Modernist foundations and certainty is lost in architecture but without
a clear set of intentions you become ambiguous (indeterminacy and
unpredictability); all you have to be is non-determinant and
non-predictable. This is open-endedness. Ambiguity is something else,
open-endedness is something else. The latter encourages students to
recognize their abilities, their freedom for research and choice and
encourages them to imagine. The more they imagine the better it is.

8.      Do not forget the tone, content and quality of critique shepherds
creative process! Even when you are talking about uncertainties, use a
sweet but an authoritative, non-surrendering tone with the implication
that architect can vision better futures and that he must. If you
yourself are lacking any ideology, even this much will do to induce
courage and self-confidence in the students. 

9.      Learn history and theories of architecture and design very well. The
more inclusive you are in your design thinking the more influence and
authority you will have over them. This will higher the creative
momentum of the team. 

10.     Try to follow methods. Without some knowledge in systems
methodology I could not have developed my design methodology. Learn
scientific methods and systems thinking well. ?The surprising truth is
that for designers everywhere, the scientific method can be an
extremely powerful tool for finding and evangelizing their
ideas.?(Berkun, 2003; p.1).  Let them be your main references. But
apply them softly and poetically. This will highly improve your
critiques, attendance and your reputation. 

11.     Reputation is half of the success of the studio work. When you
build a good reputation as a studio master it will have a challenging
impact on your students. They will compete among themselves to receive
praise from you for their work. The resulting learning and teaching
will turn into memorable days of your life.    

12.     Avoid statements that refer to absolutes. Instead of saying; ?this
is bad?; or ?How could anyone figure that out?? say; ?Well, if the goal
is to make this door look friendly, black and flaming red doesn?t
convey this to me!?

13.     Although then practical certainties of our discipline are built by
other professionals now, emphasize the point that they will still be
built as the architect provisions them. 

14.     Post some valuable references onto the walls and panels of the
studio and encourage the students to do so. They love to post and see
their names posted on some sample assignments worth exhibiting. I have
seen some taking shots. 

15.     Do your best to memorise names!

Conclusion: repercussions in design education

Naturally this argument has grave implications for architectural
education. Continuous efforts to update and improve architectural
education are undertaken by world?s leading architectural education
organizations. Prototype curriculum is designed and distributed to be
adhered by accredited schools of architecture. At first sight
everything seems fine and working. I am not against it. However, none
of the organizations is dealing with the essence of architectural
education and the quality of people who render it. Nonetheless the
quality of people who render is what counts for the quality of
architectural education.  And this is where we should start. As Karl
Marx once said; ?If you wish to implement a change in the society,
start by changing yourself?. My goal has been constant improvement of
self, and ?I? as a studio master. Hereby I admit what I have been
doing; anyone can improve on it and initiate a change for the better,
starting from the self. 

References

Agabani, F. A. (1980). Cognitive aspects in architectural design
problem solving, Ph. D. Dissertation, U of Sheffield. UK.
Alexander, Christopher. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard
     
        U. Press. Cambridge.
Alexander, Christopher. (1966). The City is not a Tree. AD
Berkun, Scott. (2003). how to run a design critique. January. www. 
        CHlplace Interactive discussion forum.
Bogen, J. (1969). The other side of the brain: an oppositional mind. 
        in Bulletin of the Los Angeles neurological society (34)3.
135-162.
Broadbent, Geoffrey. (1973). Design in architecture. John Wiley. N.Y.
Broadbent, Geoffrey. Martinez, A. Cardaci, E., Zoilo, A. (1998). The
        design studio Revisited. Environments by design, 2 (1). 5-29.
Bruner, Jerome S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. in Contemporary
        approaches to creative thinking. H. Gruber et al. (Eds.). Atherton.
        New York. 1-30.
Clark, Roger H. and Pause, Michael. (1996). Precedents in architecture.
        Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.
Coop Himmelblau. (1993). The end of architecture. in The end of
        architecture: documents and manifestos. Peter Noever (Ed.).
        Prestel-Verlag, Munich and the MAK-Austrian museum of   applied arts.
Vienna.17-25.
Darke, J. (1978). The primary generator and the design process. in
        Proceedings of EDRA9, Washington. USA.
Davies, R. & Talbot, R. (1987). Experiencing ideas; identity, insight
and     the imago. in Design studies 8(1), 1725.
Dean, Andrea. (1991). Socially motivated architecture. in Critical
        architecture and contemporary culture edited by William J.      Lillyman,
Marilyn F. Moriarty and David J. Neuman. Oxford U.      Press.  Oxford.
125-133.
Diehl, J. L. (1992). The relationship between creativity, imagery and
        personality types in interior design students, Doctoral         Dissertation,
Oklahoma State University. University Microfilms        International, 1993.
93-21561.
Eastman, C. M. (1970).  On the analysis of the intuitive design
process.        In Emerging methods in environmental design and planning. The
        MIT Press. Camb. Mass. 
Einstein, Albert. 1969 [1949]. Autobiographical notes. in Albert
Einstein.       Philosopher-scientist. Paul Arthur Schilpp (Ed.).Open Court
Press. La Salle. Illinois. 1-94. 
Einstein, Albert. 1993 [1954]. Relativity: the special and the general
        theory. Translated by Robert W. Lawson. Routledge. London.


Einstein, Albert. 1998 [1905]. Einstein's miraculous year. five papers
that    changed the face of physics. Edited and introduced by John
Stachel.        Princeton University Press. Princeton. New Jersey.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The Influence of personality on artistic and
scientific      creativity. in R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of
creativity, Camb.       U. Press. Camb. 273-296.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B. and Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition:
        theory, research and applications The MIT Press. Camb. MA.
Frampton, Kenneth. (1991). Reflections on the autonomy of
        architecture: a critique of contemporary production. Out of site:       a
        social criticism of architecture. D. Ghirardo (Ed.). Bay Press.
        Seattle. 
_______ (1980). Place. Production and scenography: international
        theory and practice since 1962. Modern architecture: a critical
        history. Thames&Hudson. Londra & N. Y.
Freud, Sigmund. (1998). Case histories I. Translated into Turkish by
        Ayhan Eğrilmez. İstanbul. Payel.
Gehry, Frank. (1994). Keynote address. in Critical architecture and
        contemporary culture William J. Lillyman, Marilyn F. Moriarty   and
David J. Neuman (Eds.). Oxford. Oxford U. Press.  165-185.
Ghirardo, Diane. (1991). Terragni, conventions, and the critics. in
                critical architecture and contemporary culture. William J. Lillyman,
        Marilyn F. Moriarty and David J. Neuman (Eds.). Oxford U. Press.
        Oxford.  91-104.
Grassi, Giorgi. (1992). An opinion on architectural education and the
        conditions our profession has to work in. A.C.S.A 1992 Conference.
        Conference Proceedings. The Nederlands, 13-24
Gür, Şengül Ö. (1978). Social sciences in architectural education: a
        proposed approach. Ph. D. Dissertation, U. of Pennsylvania,     Microfilm
Labs. Ann Arbor. Michigan.
___________ (2000). An application of first year design studio in
        architectural education. Architecture 293 (June/July), 25-34.
_____________ (2001). ?Pomegranate?, 1st International Congress on
Livable         Environments and Architecture, LIVENARCH, 4-7 July. KTU.
        Trabzon. 8-17.
___________ (2002). Deciphering the palimpsest. YAPI 246. 64-74.
_____________ (2003a). Concepts as tools of semiosis: an approach to
        creativity teaching in architectural education. paper submitted to
        the international conference on Innovation in Higher Education.
        Center for technology in learning and teaching. Kiev.
____________ (2003b). Keynote address: deciphering of the palimpsest:
        proposed as a soft method for the information gathering phase of        the
architectural design process.  XIVth Building/Life      Congress. Bursa.
Israel, Frank. (1994). Montage, collage, and broken narrative. in
Critical        architecture and contemporary culture. William J. Lillyman,
        Marilyn F. Moriarty and David J. Neuman (Eds.). Oxford U. Press.
        Oxford. 104-125.
Lawson, Bryan. (1990). How designers think. 2nd Edition. Butterworth
        Architecture. Oxford.
Lawson, Bryan. (1997). How designers think-the design process
        demystified, Oxford.
Lecercle, Jean. L. (1995). Jean ?Jacques Rousseau hayatı ve eserleri,
J. J.   Rousseau, insanlar arasındaki eşitsizliğin kaynağı (Discours sur
        l'Inégalité). Translated into Turkish by Rasih Nuri İleri. İstanbul.
        Say. 
McCaulley, M. H. (1990). The MBTI and individual pathways in
        engineering design. In Engineering education. Vol 80. No.5. American
society for engineering education. 537-542.
Macdaid, G. P., MacCully, M. H. & Kainz, R. I. (1986). The Myers
        Briggs Type Indicator: Atlas of Type Tables. Center for         Applications
of Psychological Type. Florida.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The Personality correlates of creativity: a
        study of American architects. in Proceedings of the fourteenth
        International congress on applied psychology. Vol.2. G. S. Nielson
        (Ed.). 11-39. (Reprinted) P. E. Vernon (Ed.) (1970) Creativity.
289-    311.
Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking problem solving cognition. W. H. Freeman
        &Co.New York.
Medawar, Peter B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific
thought.        Philadelphia. American philosophical society. Independence
        Square.
Mezirow, Jack. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult education 28.
        100-110.
____________  (1991). Transformative dimension of adult learning.
        Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. CA.
____________  (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning.  in
Defense of the life world. M. R. Welton (Ed.). Sunny Press. New         York.
39-70.
_____________ (1997). Transformative learning: theory to practice. in
Transformative learning in action: insights from practice. New
        directions for adult and continuing education. No. 74. P. Cranton
        (Ed.). Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. CA. 41-50.
Moss, Eric Owen. (1993). Out of place is the one right place. The end
                of architecture: documents and manifestos. Vienna architectural
        conference.  Peter Noever (Ed.). Prestel-Verlag. Munich. 61-71.
Myers, I. & Myers, P. (1980). Gifts differing. Consulting Psychologists
        Press. Palo Alto. CA.
Myers, I. B. (1993). Introduction to type. Fifth edition. Oxford
        Psychologist Press. Oxford.
Pavlov, Ivan  P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. An investigation of the
physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. London. Oxford U.
Piaget, Jean. (1955). The child?s construction of reality. Kegan        Paul.
        London
Pinos, Carme. (1993). Following the trace. The end of architecture:
        documents and manifestos. Vienna architectural conference.  Peter
        Noever (Ed.). Prestel-Verlag. Munich. 73-84.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge towards a post critical
        philosophy. Routledge. London.
Rajchman, John. (1998). Constructions. The  MIT Press. Camb. Mass.	
Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. The MIT Press. Camb. Mass.
Sless, David. (1986). In search of semiotics. Croom Helm. London.
Sless, David. (2002). Designing philosophy, Paper Presented at the DRS
        Common ground conference, [log in to unmask]
 Sternberg, R. J. (1986) Intelligence applied: understanding and
        increasing your intellectual skills. San Diego. Harcourt Brace
        Jovanovich.
Tschumi, Bernard. (1991). Event architecture. Architecture in
transition:     between deconstruction and new modernism. Peter Noever
(Ed.).  Prestel. Munich. 125-130.
Vattimo, Gianni. (1991). The end of modernity, nihilism and
        hermeneutics in postmodern culture. Translated into English by Jon      R.
Snyder. The     John Hopkins University. Baltimore
___________ (1996). Ornament/monument. Rethinking architecture: a
        reader in cultural theory. N. Leach (Ed). Routledge. N.Y. 147-  160.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Translated
into English by G.E.M. Anscombe. Blackwell. Oxford.
www.lucs.lu.se/People/Henrik Gedenryd/How DesignerWork/index.html

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:11 +0000
 Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There are 10 messages totalling 941 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
>   1. people (staffing) + kindness: response to Michael, Carma, Kar
> i-Hans &
>      Sanjoy
>   2. SIGNOFF PHD-DESIGN
>   3. MP Ranjan _ Rosan Chow: On Kindness via Hamrick
>   4. <No subject given>
>   5. UCI School of Design Proposal
>   6. PhD bursaries for Art and Design
>   7. Comment on Michael Clark's UCI School of Design Proposal (2)
>   8. citation lost in transit on comment
>   9. Consultant reports SC1 251203 and SC2 251203
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:36:50 +1030
> From:    Jan Coker <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: people (staffing) + kindness: response to Michael,
> Carma, Kar i-Hans & Sanjoy
> 
> Finding design teachers:
> Rosan brings to the discussion table the idea of kindness. It is a
> difficult to
> know what kindness is at all times. But I would attach it to respect.
> If a
> teacher treats a student with respect and dignity, acknowledging
> their common
> humanity that might be a good start. It is often easy to identify
> unkindness
> but sometimes learning takes place when people are destabilized. In
> fact I
> would suggest it might be more likely to take place when someone is
> in
> unfamiliar territory. But there is a dramatic difference between
> doing
> something someone doesn't want or like and being unkind. Since
> education could
> be considered to be about learning, although sometimes lately it may
> seem to be
> more about finance, a desired quality in a design teacher, or any
> teacher,
> might be the ability to teach, which implies an understanding of how
> people
> learn.
>         Although Huxley said a good teacher is someone in whose
> company I do my
> best work, I would suggest that a good design teacher would be
> someone in whose
> company a student learns further how to find internal coherence and
> at the same
> time learn how to do their best work, which doesn't necessarily mean
> that they
> do their best work at that time. Like other professions teaching can
> be taken
> to an "art form. If you ask yourself who was the best teacher you had
> at
> university and then ask why, the answer is interesting.
>         It is easy to confuse desired outcomes. What the learning
> outcomes are
> may not be directly translatable to what the designed object outcomes
> are.
> There is a difference between an apprenticeship and an education. The
> first I
> would define as teaching a skill, without necessitating understanding
> or
> intellectual, emotional coherence. The second might include a
> transformative
> content involving more of the student, psyche, physicality,
> sociability,
> intellect. In design what learning outcomes do we want? Where are we
> headed?
> How much are we focused on skill? I would personally like to include
> skill in
> the education because it is a framework within which students can
> learn the
> application of a complex body of knowledge. But a critical question
> might be
> about balance. What is the balance are we looking for?
>         Further learners may need opportunities to fail. Learning
> often takes
> place when there it is possible to fail without censure. I follow
> with a story
> told to me by a friend about angel food cake.
>         In high school my friend was in a cooking class when they
> were supposed
> to learn how to cook angel food cake. Everyone followed the
> directions and
> example of the teacher. My friend's cake was outstanding. It was
> highest
> quality work, even perfect. She received an A for the cake. Since
> that time 20
> years ago my friend has never been able to repeat the process. In
> fact she
> didn't  know quite what she had done to make it so well. She had made
> no
> mistakes from which to learn.
> Jan
> Jan Coker
> C3-10 Underdale Campus
> University of South Australia
> +61 8 8302 6919
> "There is no way to peace, peace is the way"
> Gandhi
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:28:41 +0000
> From:    Prue Bramwell-Davis <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: SIGNOFF PHD-DESIGN
> 
> "SIGN-OFF PHD-DESIGN"
> 
> Prue Bramwell-Davis               Telephone: +44 (0)207 590 4343
> Senior Tutor/Acting Head of Department
>                            Fax: +44
> (0)207 590 4340
> Industial Design Engineering
> Royal College of Art
> http://www.ide.rca.ac.uk
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:46:21 +0100
> From:    Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: MP Ranjan _ Rosan Chow: On Kindness via Hamrick
> 
> Dear Ranjan
> 
> thank you for your reassuring post. while reading it, i experienced
> the k=
> ind of wonder that i long for in a teacher-student relationship.
> 
> this wonder emerges when a teacher detects significance in a
> student's bu=
> mble jumble, helps her to articulate and helps her to seek. i wish i
> coul=
> d do
> that.
> 
> please allow me to indulge myself further and to quote from my paper:
> 
> "Kindness may seem a very soft purpose for DfN. Nevertheless the fact
> tha=
> t kindness seems soft may reflect how ethics of duty dominates our
> thinki=
> ng.
> The philosopher William Hamrick (2002) points out the neglect of
> kindness=
>  in ethical discourse in general. He attributes its neglect to the
> domina=
> nce of
> deontological and utilitarian moral theories, the preoccupation with
> issu=
> es of power and injustice among philosophers and the double meanings
> of t=
> he
> word =91kind=92 namely something morally praiseworthy, and natural
> kinds =
> or natural abilities. I believe that the first cause of neglect
> directly =
> affects
> us. .... Both dominating theories lead to take kindness not
> seriously. An=
> d the current discourse on DfN appears to be driven by an ethics of
> duty,=
>  and
> an ethics of kindness may address the imbalance and command our
> attention=
> ".
> 
> "In my view, DfN out of kindness differs from DfN out of either
> externall=
> y or self-imposed obligation. The latter is done because of some
> extrinsi=
> c or
> intrinsic rules of obligation. The former is done because we
> empathize wi=
> th others=92 sufferings, and enter a state of which Hamrick calls
> =91self-transposal=92. =91Self-transposal=92 happens when we take the
> pla=
> ce of others and feel their anxiety and pains. According to Hamrick
> =91ki=
> ndness emerges
> in our relationships with others and their reciprocal relationships
> with =
> us=92 (p.3). A kind act is intentional, voluntary and it is done for
> peop=
> le and
> for their welfare and it embodies =91a sensitivity to the need of
> other a=
> nd a resolve to attempt to remedy the need=92. In short, feelings for
> oth=
> ers
> motivate us to respond to their needs. And motivation underlies
> one=92s u=
> ltimate purpose for action".
> 
> "However contrary to common belief, a kind act or kind omission to
> act is=
>  not only a result of feelings. Hamrick points out, =91(k)indness is
> an
> accomplishment rather than a given, because it requires not only the
> righ=
> t sort of disposition but also a factual understanding of the
> external
> circumstances that we wish to arrange to our purposes=92 (p.88). To
> act k=
> indly requires not only sensitivity to others=92 pain but also an
> ability=
>  to assess
> whether an act is truly kind in a certain context. If we are
> genuinely in=
> terested in alleviate others=92 sufferings, besides being empathetic,
> jud=
> gements
> and competence are necessary to accomplish the goal. Kindness, as
> Hamrick=
>  says, is a form of practical wisdom. Kindness, like obligation
> presuppos=
> es the
> recognition of needs and the decision to respond to the needs. It is
> a le=
> gitimate motivation for DfN".
> 
> besides, Hamrick makes a distinction between Kindness and Niceness.
> but i=
>  will delay this for other time. i also understand that eastern
> philosoph=
> y and
> religions of all sort have had a long tradition on this topic. i
> wonder i=
> f others can kindly bring in different perspectives.
> 
> rosan
> p.s. MP Ranjan: do you have a document on your four-node model for us
> to =
> read?
> 
> 
> > The three base nodes represent "Knowledge" i.e.. the ability to
> find an=
> d
> > know, the second is "Thinking" i.e.. the ability to process
> concepts an=
> d
> > images as in imagination and cognitive modelling, and the third is
> > "Action" i.e. the ability to act and do or make which includes
> skills
> > and negotiation and transactional abilities with materials and with
> > other people and the fourth node is "Values" i.e. to do with
> feeling an=
> d
> > sensing and discriminating with empathy, and in my view the word
> empath=
> y
> > has a very significant role in design feeling, taking anothers
> point of
> > view with tolerance etc. The node in the centre is perhaps the most
> > important one for education but I do not know how many curricula
> state
> > this as its key objective. In a world heading towards a greater
> need fo=
> r
> > ecological sustainability and social equity in a globalised arena,
> thes=
> e
> > qualities may be the only ones that would perhaps inform and help
> > discriminate (even intuitively) those extremely complex issues that
> we
> > will be faced with as designers and design teachers. So your search
> for
> > kindness is not misplaced and I do agree that we will need to look
> > deeply into these qualities over and above the ones that help us
> > maintain a practical domain of action in economic and social and
> > functional terms.
> 
> --
> Rosan Chow
> Female Doctoral Student
> University of Arts Braunschweig, Germany
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:14:09 +0000
> From:    David Durling <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: <No subject given>
> 
> Friends,
> 
> Many will know that Ken our convenor has fled Europe until next week,
> and as you may have guessed I was impersonating him yesterday in
> sending the introduction for Michael Clark on Ken's behalf.  I am
> continuing the impersonation today in introducing our commentators
> for
> this final session.
> 
> This is not quite the same order as was announced originally, but I
> will follow up in a couple of days with a response which will include
> some summary comments on the debate as a whole.
> 
> Ken will I am sure finally wrap up the debate in his own special way
> when he returns next week.
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> David Durling
> 
> ---
> 
> Susan Hagan is well known to the readers of PhD-Design as the
> author of elegant and often entertaining notes. She was invited
> to join us as a doctoral student. As it turns out, this
> invitation was a good choice and a bad one. It was good because
> Susan is an elegant contributor to our list. It was bad because
> she is no longer a doctoral student.
> 
> Last week, Susan Hagan defended her dissertation at Carnegie
> Mellon University. Today, she joins us as Dr. Hagan.
> 
> Following a cum laude BFA at Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
> Susan took her MDes at Carnegie Mellon where she went on to a
> PhD in rhetoric.
> 
> Her doctoral research involved developing a framework for
> communication design that uncovers levels of collaboration
> between visual and verbal concepts on the page. Within that
> framework, she explores a high level of collaboration in which
> both visual and verbal elements provide essential meaning to
> communicate new knowledge.
> 
> Dr. Hagan's research interest continues in related areas. She
> studies how visual and verbal concepts work together to
> communicate meaning. She explores situations in which meaning
> collaboration may be an effective means of persuasion. Most
> interesting for us, she is developing better ways to teach the
> fundamentals of visual design to non-designers.
> 
> I cannot recall a conference speaker who actually defended her
> dissertation and completed her PhD while the conference was in
> session. Admittedly, this is more likely during a month-long
> on-line conference, but it must be some kind of first. At the
> very least, it is a first here on PhD-Design.
> 
> Dr. Hagan has developed a conceptual framework of six
> fundamental kinds of visual/verbal collaboration which she calls
> types of play as a synonym for collaboration. The types are
> Identity Play, Parallel Play, Sequenced Play, Echoing Interplay,
> Contradicting Interplay, and Redefining Interplay. Each of these
> collaborative types is an inventional resource that serves
> specific rhetorical situations. Theories of visual/verbal
> composition need to account for all of these types of
> collaboration. Her dissertation is a discussion of these
> theories.
> 
> I look forward to reading the dissertation!
> 
> Chris Heape is the literal embodiment of all of our list themes.
> He was educated at Falmouth School of Art in the UK where he
> graduated with an honors BA in  painting and art history. Chris
> moved to Denmark, where he has lived for the past 26 years. He
> went from painting to furniture design and production, and he
> has worked in graphic design. He also earned an MA in Industrial
> Design from DesignSkolen Kolding in Denmark.
> 
> In Denmark, Chris had his own design firm for many years until
> he took up an 18 month tenure at the User Centered Design group
> of Danfoss a/s in 1999. At Danfoss, Chris was introduced to a
> combination of action research and design practice that focused
> on innovative ways to involve users and other company players in
> the ongoing negotiation and generation of ideas and solutions
> for design tasks.
> 
> Since September 2002, Chris has held a position as senior
> researcher at the Mads Clausen Institute for Product Innovation,
> University of Southern Denmark. Also a doctoral candidate at
> SDU, Chris has been actively involved with design research,
> principally in the area of design learning.
> 
> I first met Chris in Oslo five years ago for a delightful
> evening of conversation. I always learn a lot from Chris Heape.
> He is a reflective practitioner of the studio arts and a
> sophisticated researcher. As of next month, Chris will don a new
> hat as visiting assistant professor of design in the new
> Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering in Needham,
> Massachusetts.
> 
> M P Ranjan is professor of industrial design at the National
> Institute of Design in Ahmedabad India where he has innovated
> design courses in geometry, drawing, design methodology and
> design management.
> 
> During a professional career in design that began in 1972, Prof.
> Ranjan has designed a large range of toys, furniture, products,
> interiors, and exhibitions for clients in industry and
> government. He has also been a design consultant to various
> government agencies, advising on design and setting design
> training and design management systems.
> 
> Ranjan has approached technology from several levels - and on
> several scales. As head of computer activities and chair of
> information technology at NID, he was responsible for
> integrating IT solutions for all activities at the Institute
> from 1991 to 2002. He is now Head of NIDs Centre for Bamboo
> Initiatives, developing one of the world's oldest technologies
> for a critical area of development in India's Tenth Plan period.
> 
> Prof. Ranjan has done extensive research on handicrafts in India
> particularly on bamboo crafts. In 1986, an influential book was
> published featuring this work. He has also been an active writer
> on design and crafts. Ranjan's contributions to curriculum
> review and development have transformed design education
> programs at the National Institute of Design, and he set up the
> Accessory Design Program at the National Institute of Fashion
> Technology (NIFT), in New Delhi and the new Institute of Crafts
> (Design, Technology, and Management) at Jaipur.
> 
> Prof. Ranjan has been a consultant to the United Nations
> Development Program (UNDP) conceiving and developing a vision
> for the National Bamboo Development Project. His report titled
> "From the Land to the People: Bamboo as a sustainable Human
> Development Resource for India" was a major initiative of the
> UNDP in India between 1999 and 2002. The project vision included
> the wide spread cultivation of bamboo linked to the development
> of new knowledge resources for using bamboo and adding value at
> all stages. Design was the primary discipline guiding the
> implementation of this vision.
> 
> Members of PhD-Design know Ranjan as the author of many
> thoughtful posts and articles that combine historical
> understanding, scientific knowledge, and reflective practice.
> 
> Al Selvin is a working designer in the high tech end of design.
> He is Director of the External Portals and eLearning group for
> Verizon's Customer Management Systems-Wholesale organization, a
> part of the Verizon Information Technology Group.
> 
> Al earned a BA in film and video studies at the University of
> Michigan and an MA in communication arts at the University of
> Wisconsin. He worked as an independent user interface and
> technical writing consultant for firms in New York, Washington,
> and St. Louis. Later, he led web design and software development
> teams at Verizon, Bell Atlantic, and NYNEX Science and
> Technology.
> 
> Al is the orginal developer and architect of the Compendium
> software and methodology which is now being developed at KMi.
> For the last ten years, Al facilitated design, strategy,
> analysis and modeling sessions using Compendium for hundreds of
> groups in industry, academic, community, and non-profit
> settings. Al has published articles on Compendium and related
> issues in a number of journals and conference papers. For a list
> of these publications, please see
> 
> http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/library/papers.htm
> 
> If you wish to learn more about Compendium, please see
> 
> http://www.compendiuminstitute.org
> 
> Today, Al is both a manager and a scholar. He is pursuing a PhD
> at the Knowledge Media Institute, Open University UK (KMi). His
> main research interests are in aesthetic mediation,
> collaborative hypermedia, participatory design, and sensemaking
> support, especially for groups in complex or difficult
> situations.
> 
> Al's home page at OU is
> 
> kmi.open.ac.uk/people/selvin/
> 
> Welcome, Susan! Welcome, Chris! Wecome, Ranjan! Welcome, Al!
> 
> -- Ken Friedman
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:37:01 -0500
> From:    Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: UCI School of Design Proposal
> 
> Thank you Mr Clark,
> 
> I think that your posting is one of the most understandable and
> reasonable =
> since this discussion began on PhD design.I have worked in a similar
> =
> environment as ideo for a number of years . I will try to find the
> time =
> over the next two days to reply to it in some depth. I am currently =
> involved in student reviews and will be out of the country from
> Sunday for =
> ten days.
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________
> 
> R   o   b     C   u   r   e   d   a   l   e
> Professor, Chair Product Design
> College for Creative Studies Detroit
> 201 East Kirby
> Detroit MI 48202-4034
> 
> Phone: 313 664 7625
> Fax:      313 664 7620
> email: [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ccscad.edu
> ______________________________
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:48:12 +0000
> From:    Michael A R Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: PhD bursaries for Art and Design
> 
> ANNOUNCEMENT
> 
> Faculty of Art & Design, University of Hertfordshire
> 
> Faculty Research Student Scheme
> 
> 
> The Faculty of Art and Design offers bursaries to help fund tuition
> fees
> for the first year of post-graduate research in art, design and
> related
> disciplines leading to M.Phil/PhD. The bursaries of 3000 GBP are
> awarded on
> a competitive basis and are open to UK, and oversees students.  After
> the
> first year, eligible students may still apply for continuation
> funding
> under the doctoral competition of the Arts and Humanities Research
> Board.
> 
> Studying full-time for year one shortens the overall duration and
> cost of
> part-time doctoral research and enhances success by quickly providing
> a
> secure foundation to the programme of study.  Information about the
> Faculty
> Research Student scheme can be found at
> http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/resdegs/frss.htm and we are
> pleased
> to offer help and advice with your application.  Our web site also
> lists
> other forms of funding available for postgraduate research in the UK.
> 
> The Faculty supports a lively research culture and supports research
> and
> scholarship in a wide range of fields under the broad aegis of
> Research
> into Practice including the fine and applied arts, product, model and
> graphic design, digital practices in art and design. Other areas of
> specialization including art therapy and art and design history, and
> we are
> able to draw upon the expertise of other Faculties in the
> University.  Details about research in the Faculty are located on our
> web
> site at:  http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/index.html
> Information
> about research degrees can be found at
> http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/resdegs/resdegs.htm
> 
> For further information and advice please contact:
> 
> Dr Steven Adams,
> Faculty Research Tutor on 00 44 (0)1707 285330
> 
> ************************************************************
> Dr Michael A R Biggs
> Associate Dean (Research)
> Reader in Visual Communication
> 
> Faculty of Art and Design, University of Hertfordshire
> College Lane, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
> United Kingdom
> 
> Telephone  +44 (0)1707 285341
> Fax  +44 (0)1707 285350
> E-mail  [log in to unmask]
> Internet
>  http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/creac/html/intrombiggs.html
> 
> Coordinator of the Centre for Research into Practice
> http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/cr2p/index.htm
> 
> RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE CONFERENCE 2004
> http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/res2prac/confhome.htm
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:38:53 -0500
> From:    "Susan M. Hagan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Comment on Michael Clark's UCI School of Design Proposal
> 
> I would like to thank Ken both for his work on this conference and
> his very =
> 
> much appreciated introduction. I think this forum has given all of us
> the=20
> opportunity to look at design education from a broader perspective,
> one=20
> that moves outside of our own particular area of expertise. As a=20
> communication designer and rhetor, interested in expanding the
> usefulness=20
> and uses of visual/verbal forms, I am grateful for the opportunity to
> think =
> 
> more carefully about design writ large.
> 
> Dr. Clark eloquently summarized the nature of design from a broad
> vantage=20
> point as having a "syncretic element" that "helps define design as
> an=20
> academic field and distinguishes it from other fields of expertise."
> He=20
> also stated, "[t]he integrative power of design as a conceptual
> process=20
> should be an object of knowledge in itself...."
> 
> These observations have encouraged me to feel bound me to practices
> in=20
> design that I had never felt as connected to before. His
> perspective=20
> encourages inclusion between research and practice -- the
> collaboration of=20
> business with academia. I find myself caught up in the possibilities
> he=20
> encourages. But I also see a potential for problems in the
> development of=20
> that inclusiveness, which I believe could result from the very
> research=20
> that will forward our field.
> 
> Dr. Clark talks about the design school's, "capacity to generate new
> forms=20
> of knowledge that are presently unknown, or at least unappreciated."
> 
> I completely agree with this statement. I want to contribute to those
> new=20
> forms. But in order to optimize the opportunity for design
> practice,=20
> education, and research to benefit from these new forms of knowledge,
> we=20
> must consider the cognitive cost they will bring. Design research
> will not=20
> just add knowledge, I believe it will produce radically new
> knowledge, the=20
> type that requires the learner to change his or her context of=20
> understanding (Petrie, 1979). As that radically new knowledge moves
> from=20
> the research journal to design practice, it will be even more
> important for =
> 
> practice and research to find ties to one another because radically
> new=20
> knowledge is not easy to assimilate.
> 
> Eddie Harmon-Jones states that cognitions can be broadly defined as
> "action =
> 
> tendencies" (1999, p. 93). When we encounter radically new knowledge
> we=20
> find that "effective and uncontested action" (93) has to stop until
> we can=20
> absorb the new knowledge and understand its usefulness. That is a
> difficult =
> 
> moment. So, this radically new knowledge we all want and all believe
> will=20
> change our field could also lead to even more fracturing between
> related=20
> design professions because dissonant information can result in
> negative=20
> emotions. (Harmon-Jones, 1999) According to Harmon-Jones, those
> negative=20
> emotions arise because it is cognitively difficult to halt action in
> order=20
> to consider the radically new.
> 
> If I believe the world is flat, it is a big leap to begin thinking
> about it =
> 
> as round.
> 
> I offer up this observation only because I have begun, through
> this=20
> conference, to care more about the integration of these four design
> areas=20
> in terms of research and practice. Because radically new knowledge
> can be=20
> fracturing, we must be ready for it. We must find the ties between
> practice =
> 
> and research, between product and print that pull us together, so
> that as=20
> we discover the radically new, we will also understand the value
> of=20
> stopping uncontested, and "seemingly" effective action, in order
> to=20
> consider the value of the new.
> 
> How this begins is an area for speculation, but I wonder if it will
> not=20
> have some element in core readings concerning particular theories and
> core=20
> observations concerning particular practices and products that hold
> all of=20
> us together. I believe we must find those readings and observations
> and=20
> encourage their inclusion in all schools of design, not just this
> emerging=20
> new school.
> 
> As a rhetor, I was first exposed to Aristotle's "Rhetoric." There
> is=20
> probably no one in rhetoric, no matter what their specific area of=20
> expertise, who is not familiar with that text. I have found
> anecdotally=20
> that when rhetors encounter useful radically new knowledge in that=20
> discipline, they also have problems with it. They may unfortunately
> dismiss =
> 
> it. But the core that holds them together may also keep them from=20
> fracturing so easily.
> 
> While we have considered this question of fracturing in different
> forms=20
> throughout this conference, I think the issue must be addressed from
> a=20
> different angle. As the process of discovering the radically new
> unfolds in =
> 
> research and business institutions, and radically new knowledge
> forces us=20
> to reconsider our contexts of understanding, what specific core will
> help=20
> to hold our areas of expertise together even if radically new
> knowledge=20
> does contribute to fracturing? Are there perspectives from Dr.
> Clark's=20
> presentation or from others in this conference which should form a
> part of=20
> that core?
> 
> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute.
> 
> Susan
> 
> Petrie, Hugh G. =93Metaphor and Learning.=94 In Metaphor and Thought,
> =
> edited by=20
> Andrew Ortony, 438-61. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University
> Press,=20
> 1979.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:29:01 -0500
> From:    "Susan M. Hagan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: citation lost in transit on comment
> 
> Hello,
> 
> My citations seemed to have been cut off on their way to the list.
> Here
> again is the Harmon-Jones citation.
> 
> Mills, Judson, and Eddie Harmon-Jones. Cognitive Dissonance :
> Progress on a
> Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. 1st ed, APA Science Volumes.
> Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1999.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Susan
> 
> ===========================
> Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh PA 15213
> 
> v. 412.268.7508
> f. 412.268.7989
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:33:00 +0000
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Consultant reports SC1 251203 and SC2 251203
> 
> Consultant reports SC1 251203 and SC2 251203 are available at:
> 
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Sundries/SC1_251203.htm
> and
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Sundries/SC2_251203.htm
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Terry
> ______________________
> 
> Dr. Terence Love
> Love Design and Research
> PO Box 226
> Quinns Rocks WA 6030
> Tel/fax +61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> www.love.com.au
> _______________________ =
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:04:30 +0100
> From:    Chris Heape <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Comment on Michael Clark's UCI School of Design Proposal
> 
> Shared understandings.
> 
> Ken, thank you for your introduction and thanks for asking me to
> take=20
> part in this on-line conference.
> 
> Michael, I hope you don=92t mind me addressing you in the first
> person =
> as=20
> opposed to the third. I feel that one of the qualities of this
> list,=20
> even though we are dealing with an on-line conference, is the
> informal=20=
> 
> nature of the discussions.
> 
> I=92ve pondered a while on your contribution, trying to find a way
> in,=20=
> 
> but I must admit, the longer I read what you=92ve written the more I
> can=20=
> 
> see the complexity of what you have to say. I think the reason is
> that=20=
> 
> you have managed to lift the concept of design education and its=20
> ramifications out of the narrow sphere of producing design solutions
> to=20=
> 
> a level that considers the flow and dynamics of collaboration with=20
> others and the interactions of =93shared understandings=94.
> 
> Your introduction to this fifth session is literally peppered with=20
> ideas and approaches that I=92d like to take up. I=92ll try and stick
> to =
> a=20
> few, whilst at the same time introducing a few thoughts from
> previous=20
> contributions, notably Keith Russel, Charles Burnette and Linda Drew.
> 
> As I read your post, you discuss how the UCI=92s proposals =93create
> a=20=
> 
> space=94 where =93issues=94 and =93questions... can come to the =
> forefront=94 and=20
> that these can effect the interaction of attitudes and educational=20
> approaches towards both design and the university as a whole.
> 
> You quote Prof MP Ranjan: =93industry calls the shots in design
> training=20=
> 
> at least in the past. Our research found that some areas of
> industry=20
> are beginning to see the benefits of =93theory=94 or =93research=94
> in =
> design,=20
> mostly as an engine for innovation...=94
> 
> And you continue:
> =93I really think the primary benefit of a School of Design at the=20
> university will derive from its capacity to generate new forms of=20
> knowledge that are presently unknown, or at least
> unappreciated.=A0=20
> Design seems not only to allow, but to actually require
> collaboration=20
> across disciplinary boundaries, so it can serve as a nexus that
> unites=20=
> 
> disparate areas of the university, and that in itself will create
> more=20=
> 
> opportunities for interdisciplinary work...
> The connection between Arts and Engineering is usually invoked as
> a=20
> foundation for design programs, but in the proposal we argue that=20
> binary model is very misleading and really constricts the more=20
> pervasive influence design can have in bringing together fields of=20
> management and business (both as professional and as academic
> fields),=20=
> 
> computer science, social sciences, and the humanities.=A0=94
> 
> And finally:
> ...=94The integrative power of design as a conceptual process should
> be=20=
> 
> an object of knowledge in itself ...(One member of our UCI faculty,
> a=20
> distinguished expert in decision theory, told us that the
> articulation=20=
> 
> of this aspect of the design process could be a genuinely new=20
> contribution to the understanding of how human beings deal with
> complex=20=
> 
> decisions as part of their interaction with the material world.=A0
> That=20=
> 
> is an example of what I mean by the potential for design to
> contribute=20=
> 
> new knowledge beyond the customary limits of the field.)
> 
> I could go on displaying your thoughts as the string of pearls they
> are=20=
> 
> and with regard to the concept of cross discilinary contributions
> to=20
> design thinking and education, I think your post puts to shame the=20
> notion that it is only so-called =93real designers"  who can relate
> to=20=
> 
> and articulate design issues.
> 
> Just to put my thoughts into context, I would like to refer to the
> last=20=
> 
> few days I=92ve had at the local design school. I=92ve been censor
> for=20=
> 
> interactive media graduates who=92ve been presenting thier recent
> work=20=
> 
> sfor clearance to take their=A0final graduation projects. Those =
> students,=20
> dealing with =93real life projects with local companies=94, who
> had=20
> collaborated with other students from the local business and
> marketing=20=
> 
> department of the local university presented projects that clearly=20
> indicated an understanding and grasp of a much broader range of
> issues=20=
> 
> and a discovery of values that even the host company had not=20
> considered. The students concerned were very taken up with the
> fact=20
> that their main contribution to the companies concerned was an=20
> interactive product.
> They failed to realise that their presence in and interaction with
> the=20=
> 
> company players had enabled the compay to identify a range of
> =93soft=20
> values=94 that were vital for the company=92s network and
> communication =
> to=20
> the rest of the world. The company concerned was a freight
> company.=20
> They (the students) also failed to understand the difference
> between=20
> =93presenting=94 a concept to a company, to that of inviting
> company=20
> players to take part in collaborative design activities, which
> would=20
> allow the company to also identify areas of concern, stake a claim
> to=20
> the process and thereby engender a sense of identificaction with
> and=20
> ownership of the final result.
> 
> I would like to challenge the notion that it is industry that calls
> the=20=
> 
> =93qualified shots=94. It could well be that they =93call the
> shots=94, =
> but=20
> generally speaking - in design terms and in my experience -  the
> shots=20=
> 
> are of yesterday. Here I feel we have a clear indication of the
> value=20
> of design students being educated in a research environment that=20
> grounds its research practice in an appreciation of industry=92s =
> practice=20
> and concerns, yet moves forward to indicate richer possibilities.
> If this were to be the basis for a design education, then I feel
> that=20
> well educated  and innovative design students will be those that=20
> introduce new practice and methods to industry. By taking the=20
> initiative in this way, one can consider a design education that is
> not=20=
> 
> continually trying to ape the so called =93real world practice=94,
> but =
> an=20
> eduaction that asks the students to take part in the development of
> new=20=
> 
> collaborative practice and design methods that they can then
> introduce=20=
> 
> and share with industry. The graduates will be the innovators, and
> will=20=
> 
> fulfill their role of contributing to industry and of expressing
> the=20
> innovative design research of the eduactional institutions they
> come=20
> from.
> Unfortunately I think the potential of a post to this conference
> has=20
> been overlooked. Unfortunate, because I think Linda Drew
> identified,=20
> what to my mind, is one of the main aspects that new design
> thinking=20
> can contribute to industry, namely the whole concept of
> collaborative=20
> practice and context oriented learning. Linda also quotes Charles=20
> Burnette, who touches on the =93how=94 of helping students understand
> =
> and=20
> articulate their own process and design thinking.
> 
> Session 3: Drew -- Commentary on Burnette and Mazumdar
> Date: December 1, 2003
> =93...Chuck also refers to this as an issue for design schools:
> 
> =91We are only beginning to begin to look at the cognitive
> processes=20
> involved in design and schools must begin to articulate and=20
> scientifically, philosophically and humanistically explore what is=20
> involved=85
> Learning to practice, whether in design school or simulated settings
> is=20=
> 
> seen as a move towards full participation in a community of
> practice=20
> (Lave and Wenger 1991; Lave 1993). That move to full participation=20
> takes place by engaging in =91legitimate peripheral participation=92
> =
> which=20
> is taking part in the authentic activities of the practice albeit
> with=20=
> 
> guidance and at the edges of the practice community. These views=20
> emphasise social practice as a premise for learning and that
> =91knowing=20=
> 
> in practice=92 arises from participation in that social practice
> (Billett 1998)...=94
> 
> Michael, you mention how a decision theory expert focuses on the
> need=20
> to articulate the =93integrative power of design... and that it could
> be=20=
> 
> a genuinely new contribution to the understanding of how human
> beings=20
> deal with complex decisions as part of their inteaction with the=20
> material world=94.
> 
> This is music to my ears. My belief is that the issues of context=20
> oriented learning, related to professional and collaborative
> design=20
> practice - design learning - is and will continue to be a core area
> or=20=
> 
> fulcrum of design research. And which, if duly considered and=20
> understood, will contribute to allowing others than those with a=20
> specific design eduaction to play a major role in any
> collaborative=20
> design practice.
> 
> As with the pre-graduation students mentioned above, the ability
> to=20
> actively engage a wide range of people in any collaborative design=20
> solution, both users and company players is crucial for the
> development=20=
> 
> of products that a company can both identify with and feel a sense
> of=20
> ownership for and which can fulfill the needs of a product=92s users.
> 
> A rich understanding of these processes of collaborative
> =93decision=20
> making=94, or interactions, will also reveal that the process of=20
> identifying values that are to be embedded into the product, will
> also=20=
> 
> cultivate and establish a series of =93soft values=94 of
> inestimable=20
> importance to any company and those working or affiliated with
> that=20
> company.
> 
> Keith Russell, in one of his posts to this conference, indicated a
> need=20=
> 
> to identify a fulcrum around which the academic discipline of
> design=20
> could rotate.
> I wonder if the concept of the very human area of collaborative
> design=20=
> 
> interactions, acting as a driver for design research, that could
> then=20
> be introduced to industry via graduates, could serve as one
> fulcrum.=20
> Just getting people together does not constitute a fulcrum, yet=20
> understanding the interactions and sense of a =93design process
> rugby=20
> scrum=94 could well be rewarding.
> 
> On-line conference: Session 2: Keith Russell Response to Lorraine=20
> Justice
> Date: November 21, 2003
> =93...Design, as an academic domain, lacks the justification of a=20
> discipline. In its efforts to secure political recognition, it
> keeps=20
> putting up weak examples that do their job, at the political level
> but=20=
> 
> fail at the intellectual level. The Tufte one, of why the Shuttle=20
> should not have taken off, has the same failure at its core. Design
> may=20=
> 
> well have its lever (economics - hence the China example of 400=20
> schools) and it may well have its load (making everything
> different)=20
> but it lacks, at the level of an academic discipline, a fulcrum.=20
> Getting lots of diverse people together does not constitute a
> fulcrum=20
> (more like a rugby scrum)...=94
> 
> Michael, you mention in your post that:
> =93The resistance has come primarily from some faculty who simply are
> =
> not=20
> convinced that design is really a field of research, and /or they
> feel=20=
> 
> that design lacks scientific/academic rigour...=94
> 
> This makes me want to finish on a lighter note, by way of a short=20
> anecdote from two spectators at a rugby match. Suffice it to say,
> those=20=
> 
> concerned didn=92t understand the rules.
> Someone held onto the ball after being tackled. The whistle was
> blown=20
> and the forwards crouched down to form the scrum. The scrum-half
> was=20
> about to pass the ball into the scrum, when there was a loud remark:
> =93What are they doing? Are they trying to find something they=92ve =
> lost=94?
> 
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> Best regards from an ex scrum-half.
> 
> Chris.
> =00
> -------------
> 
> from:
> 
> Chris Heape
> Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice
> Mads Clausen Institute
> University of Southern Denmark
> S=F8nderborg
> Denmark
> 
> http://www.mci.sdu.dk
> 
> Work @ MCI:
> tel: +45 6550 1671
> e.mail: chris @mci.sdu.dk
> 
> Work @ Home:
> tel +45 2620 0385
> e.mail: [log in to unmask]
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 10 Dec 2003 to 11 Dec 2003 (#2003-282)
> *****************************************************************

Prof. Şengül Öymen Gür, Ph. D.
Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi
Mimarlık Bölümü 
61080 Trabzon/Turkey
Phone: ++90 462 325 4060
Facsimile Mes:++90 462 325 0262
e-mail: [log in to unmask]