Emma,
As you might gather from Eduardo Real's postscript as well as from all the
postings by the genuinely smart people who can bandy about Wittgenstein
and Heidegger, answering your question will cause a fuss. The terms
"design" and "design method" and "design education" are in for a bumpy
ride.
Good. When as a young man I started my architectural career for then
70-some year old Arthur Rigolo FAIA, he imparted to me that, since no one
can be expected to know everything, he was not ashamed to admit his
ignorance...if by doing so he could rectify it. So, let us take a hatchet
to this can of worms or Pandora's box or whatever and open it properly.
I, too, currently am working on a PhD, albeit in instructional systems,
and teaching an introductory studio for architectural engineers. My
dissertation proposal involves an ethnographic study of our architecture
department and how they accept innovations to be incorporated into their
assessments (probably something like sustainable practices which is
finally a hot enough topic here).
But back in 2003 I started a literature search for a grant proposal that
my advisor was writing, and the search took on a life of its own. We were
poring over a concentrated effort by the National Science Foundation in
the late 1970s and shortly thereafter that funded research into
engineering design, especially to distinguish best practices. I think the
journal "Design Studies" was a favorite publication target at the time,
although there were several others.
One of my methods was to look over the appropriate lists of NSF project
managers and principal investigators in order to see whose name came up
often. And I was able to interview several. From them I got the impression
(that I believe Dr. Love has touched on, although I do not pretend to
speak for him and herewith apologize for any misinterpretation or
misrepresentation) that the genesis of the research involved support for
empirical application which was struggling to retain a place of importance
next to theoretical analysis. Additionally, it seems that in the US,
corporate engineering firms were dissatisfied with the university product
(i.e., kids who don't know how to design, whether it be experiments or
other prototypes).
However, the NSF project manager I spoke with was not encouraged by the
results of the funded projects. Probably more has been done in the
meantime at the level of the ABET accrediting agency than through research
in order to bring design back into the undergraduate engineering
curriculum. My own anecdotal observation is that the architectural
engineers I have seen as sophomores are not comfortable with ambiguity and
iteration, are ignorant of any sort of critical discourse, and don't like
to pursue multiple paths concurrently to what might be seen as equally
successful solutions. And they would rather drink poison than keep
journals in which to sketch. It is my opinion that exposure for 12 years
to public school approaches such as NCLB has made it difficult for them to
let their atrophied imaginations hold sway ("Harumph," grunted the creaky
old man).
Oh, and by the way, I played hooker for 10 years by the union code until I
needed a cane to get around and reluctantly had to give it up. But when I
saw a scrum I preferred it to be from the inside, while "acquiring" the
ball through fair means or foul, and that is why rugby cannot be played in
heaven: there will be no front row forwards available to be capped.
Charlie Cox
On Fri, May 18, 2007 6:11 am, Emma Jefferies wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> My name is Emma Jefferies, I am currently undertaking a Design PhD at
> Northumbria University. I am interested in understanding if research has
> been conducted into the use of "Design Methods" as a way to research
> into the practice of design education.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Emma Jefferies
>
|
