I empathize with Deana's concern and have a similar story to Glenn's
to add to the discussion. Admittedly anecdotal, the pronouncement to
ASU students by a well-known American designer that he does not, as a
rule, hire many designers in his firm was nothing less than shocking.
When asked why, his answer was simple: unlike scientists and social
scientists, designers are not-as a rule-educated to be skeptical.
Admittedly, this is one person's opinion but when added to other
changes now occurring in design the situation of a rift between
design education and practice could be disconcerting. From my
perspective and in this context, the design picture in the USA looks
something like this:
--- Interaction between educators and professionals: My colleagues in
graphic design tell me that the AIGA has had little interest in
graphic design education. It is only of late, for example, that the
AIGA has supported design education conferences but only at a
regional level. I find this situation unacceptable given that there
are more than 800 degree programs in graphic design in the USA.
Clearly, educators and practitioners are not talking.
The IDSA has a somewhat better track record than the AIGA. It does
support an annual design educators conference but it is not part of
the annual IDSA conference, although it is usually in the same city
and within days of each other. Again, educators and practitioners are
not interacting face to face.
The interior designers seem the fare somewhat better than either the
graphic or the industrial designers, at least from the point of view
of scholarship. By way of IDEC, interior designers have established a
strong track record of research and publication. But again, educators
and practitioners are not really talking to each other.
--- Accreditation of design schools: Clearly, the accreditation of
design schools would be an effective first step of connecting
education to practice. More importantly, accreditation could allow
the profession to established desired standards. However, and again
from my experience, only the interior designers by way of FIDER have
an accreditation process with teeth. IDSA and AIGA worked closely
with NASAD to develop accreditation criteria, but the criteria are
too broad and do not address specific requirements of design
practice. Moreover, the criteria only encourage an artifact/skill
focus on design, not a process/knowledge approach.
--- The relationship between education and profession at the level of
design practice is not without criticism. Consider the following
picture in the USA. Unlike law, medicine or architecture, the concept
of formalized internship after graduation does not exist in the
design professions. It is my belief that no matter how good a design
education may be it is not practice. Consequently, there needs to be
realistic expectations on both sides. Educators must do their best to
prepare students for the so-called 'real world'; for its part, the
profession must be equally prepared to transition the student from
theory to practice. It is not realistic to expect that a student will
be a fully productive designer upon graduation.
--- Design education is not blameless. Alec's reference to a
vocational attitude in design education, i.e., the artifact/skill
model, still rings true in many colleges and universities. Just look
at the recent issue of Innovation and its spotlight on design
schools. The fact that in design an artifact is usually a means to an
end is lost. This is why effective design education must reach beyond
its boundaries and meaningfully engage business, engineering, the
social sciences, and any other area that has become part of the
interdisciplinary field we call design.
Design education, at least as it now exists, also has challenges that
are systemic to the their milieu. For example, most design programs
are four years in length; when a group of students enrolls in Year 1,
it accepts an explicit contract that a prescribed curriculum will be
delivered with the understanding that the institution cannot make any
significant changes to that curriculum for that group of students.
The reality, of course, is that a great deal can happen in the
practice of design over that same span of four years.
And then there is the professional obligation of research/publication
imposed at most first-tier universities. In one respect, this demand
may place faculty members in a less-than-favorable position in the
eyes of practitioners, a sentiment already shared by Rob.
What are some solutions? I have a few examples that I believe provide
a sense of direction:
--- IDEO and Kelly have developed a strong connection between the
office and Stanford. This close alliance between practitioners and
schools of design needs to be fostered and encouraged;
--- Universities need to consider clinical faculty, that is, a new
full-time appointment for professions where there there is a
recognizable professional practice and no need for research and/pr
publication. Medicine does it; why not design;
--- Design education has to do a better job at identifying the
ever-changing values in design practice and imaginatively incorporate
these in the curriculum. At ASU, industrial design is now focused on
'integrated innovation' and works hand-in-hand with business and
engineering. BusinessWeek and other magazines are paying more and
more attention to design and how it can be the interdisciplinary glue
that binds the process.
--- The profession must strive to send a clearer message about what
it values, at least to the educational community. It cannot, on the
one hand, advocate for designers as strategic thinkers and innovative
entrepreneurs and then, on the other hand, annually showcase the
results as pretty pictures in BusinessWeek. Design students are not
fooled by this message. For them, it is clear: cool things is all
that counts!
--- Designers and educators need to be locked in a room and not come
out until they have learned that they are the two sides of the same
coin.
Jacques Giard, PhD
Professor and Director
Design Studies
College of Design
480 965.1373
|
