Dear David,

Just a clarification. About bones. I was making a joke about my Jesuit 
background and the Mediterranean Atlantic Ghetto where I was thrown so 
easily.
Most of the recent Design education in Portugal was influencied by Italians 
but also by Saxons and mostly by German and Skandinavian Schools (like the 
rest of the world, I think).
In the rest I agree with you about Design students and Design Studium.
Cheers,
Eduardo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Durling" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Design research, design knowledge ...


>I agree with much of what Ken has said about the need for more and  better 
>research and the the kinds of contribution it can make, both to  design 
>practice and to the generality of knowledge about design and  designing. As 
>for historical precedents, I feel sure that many on this  list have seen 
>these statements before, and possibly several times  over. Stating the same 
>things time and time again does not make them  any more correct and, as 
>Eduardo points out, there are other  explanations relating to the rise of 
>modern design. Some threads woven  into our fabric come from engineering 
>and the crafts, and also from  art. I have no wish though to enter the 
>debate about research  artefacts, nor am I especially fascinated by 
>historical precedents, so  no more from me on those aspects of recent 
>posts.
>
> However there are some assertions in Ken's posts from yesterday and  today 
> that should be challenged. I can speak with good knowledge from  the 
> perspective of the UK [art and] design schools, but perhaps others  will 
> bring perspectives from their experiences as tutors at  undergraduate and 
> postgraduate levels.
>
>> I did some massive studies on these, including direct visits to over  two 
>> hundred schools. Things have no doubt changed since then, but  the deep 
>> traditions I observed, some going back many years, do not  vanish in a 
>> few decades, so I would argue that what I observed first- hand cannot be 
>> entirely dated or mistaken today.
>
>
> Ken, when you speak of the design education that you have observed  rather 
> than participated in, I do not recognise the tutors, students,  or the 
> model of teaching you describe. The notion that lecturers teach  and 
> students unquestioningly absorb this knowledge simply is not  something 
> that I experience, at least not here. I believe that things  have moved on 
> from the limited observations you made a good number of  years ago.
>
> It is true that when I was a student, some of my tutors had come from 
> very vocationally based education as furniture makers and  silversmiths. 
> That did not make them poor tutors, but even in those  distant days we 
> were also taught by people with a mixture of  backgrounds, often engineers 
> and architects. Some exceptional people  rose from humble vocational 
> beginnings and became superb teachers: one  colleague at Leicester, Derek 
> Buckley, who inspired several  generations of industrial designers, was 
> one of the best tutors I have  ever met, and he started as an apprentice. 
> There are many examples of  practitioners at the highest levels coming 
> from similar backgrounds.
>
>> When design teachers lecture to a class, students are usually likely  to 
>> accept what they hear based on the authority of the teacher and  the fact 
>> that a school has assigned them to learn what the teacher  says. When a 
>> student questions the teacher's claims, the teacher may  or may not give 
>> a satisfactory answer. A student who rejects the  teacher's answer and 
>> disagrees is likely to meet the fate that most  guilds meted out to 
>> dissenting apprentices: rejection, often formal.
>
> In my experience, as a GENERAL statement this is quite wrong. Sure,  there 
> is poor teaching in places, but the best practice left behind  the kinds 
> of didactic lecturing that you infer several decades ago  (there was some 
> of this when I was a student). Sure, there are still  lectures, but the 
> modern studio model of teaching gives most of the  time over to self 
> directed study, with supervision. There is  considerable freedom in this 
> model to develop self motivation and an  inquisitiveness towards the 
> world. For many years, the kinds of  teaching I have observed and been 
> involved in are participatory,  either in the studio or through workshops 
> rather than traditional  lectures.
>
> If you believe that design students accept everything that we tell  them 
> from a position of authority, maybe you have not met enough  design 
> students! Design students have the kinds of personality traits  that may 
> be seen as inquiring, challenging, and with a good deal of  flexibility (I 
> have no wish to get into personality type here, but  there is evidence). 
> It is very typical of design to be disrespectful  of authority: 
> overturning what went before, what they are told, is  natural to them, 
> healthy and encouraged.
>
> At the MA level, our students are often mature, may have worked 
> professionally for several years, and the best we do is to advise  them, 
> often as equal partners sharing the same problems.
>
> I would quite like to dress in a Jesuit gown and throw bones for the 
> students, but suspect wouldn't go down too well here...
>
>> There are now many more designers engaged in design research. 
>> Nevertheless, these are still a minority. If the majority of design 
>> school lecturers do not conduct research [...]
>
> It is my impression that over the past decade or so, there has been a 
> considerable increase in both quantity and quality of research in the 
> design schools here. The reasons are well known. One driver is a  system 
> of national audit (RAE) that rewards universities (and by  extension 
> individuals). Another driver is the growth of research  council funding, 
> not just through the relatively new AHRC, but also  through other research 
> councils, arts funding bodies, charities,  NESTA, and commercial work.
>
> The only national audit of the scope, quantity and quality of research 
> outcomes that we can rely upon is the RAE2001. The picture you paint  of a 
> minority being research active is too black and white. What we  can infer 
> from the results of RAE2001 was that there was a  considerable variation 
> in the proportions of staff submitted. In some  cases, 100 per cent of 
> staff in a particular department were  submitted. The typical profile was 
> sometimes a majority submitted,  sometimes a minority. What we don't know 
> is how many other tutors, who  were not selected for the RAE, were in fact 
> active in some form of  scholarship. In the two or three design schools I 
> have been closely  associated with during that period, the majority of 
> staff (expressed  as Full Time Equivalent) are active in some form of 
> inquiry that meets  the criterion of scholarly activity set out in their 
> contracts of  employment. I make the FTE point because, though it varies 
> between  programmes and universities, many staff are [small] fractional 
> staff  and may be hired specifically for the deep skills that our students 
> require. However, many do develop their work and put their work into  the 
> public domain.
>
> However, I think that the proportion of teaching staff that are  research 
> active in a department or university, whether entered for RAE  or not, is 
> irrelevant in the sector of [art and] design. We try to  hire the best 
> people to teach the intellectual and practical skills  that we think 
> students need, regardless of whether research is  required. Some of those 
> skills are vocational, they are what gets the  student a job and equips 
> them to perform professionally.
>
> I recognise that the world is changing, and that we need new ways of 
> thinking in the future. Programmes are evolving to suit this new 
> environment, and always have. But I would be very careful not to throw 
> away the great skills that designers develop: intuition,  visualisation, 
> inquisitiveness, observation, ideation etc. in a  misguided swamping of 
> undergraduate education, as though deep research  skills matter more than 
> practice skills, or that research skills  necessarily lead to better 
> design. It some design areas they will, in  others it may make little or 
> no difference.
>
>>  In some fields, researchers distinguish what we learn from what we 
>> contribute to the knowledge of the field in the motto, "If it isn't 
>> published, it isn't research."
>
> There may be a presumption here that the term 'published' means a  journal 
> or conference paper. Design has moved on from that position,  and you will 
> see in for example RAE criteria a much wider definition  of what 
> constitutes work that has been placed in the public domain.  Even 'in the 
> public domain' may be a misnomer, as there will be  commercially sensitive 
> reports that are not made public, but it  doesn't make them any less 
> important as research outputs. I have read  a number of such reports 
> demonstrating considerable advances (but I am  contractually bound not to 
> discuss them). There are also some serious  scholars figuring out quite 
> how research may be demonstrated through  exhibitions and new media: some 
> of those folks are on this list.
>
> Where I do agree with you is on the need for better peer review. This,  it 
> seems to me, is generally a rather neglected area for development.
>
>> Many, perhaps the majority, are chartered designers, industrial 
>> designers, graphic designers, etc., and they also belong to the 
>> professional societies for design practice.
>
> Are there chartered designers? I know some chartered engineers, but  that 
> is not the same thing at all. Chartered status for professional  designers 
> at an assured high level of expertise would be a very good  thing. 
> Chartered status for professional design researchers might also  be a good 
> thing, though that's probably beyond my lifetime!
>
> David
>
>
> ---
>
>
> RAE2001  http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/index.htm
> RAE2008  http://www.rae.ac.uk/
> AHRC   http://ahrc.ac.uk
> UK Research Councils   http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/default.htm
> NESTA   http://www.nesta.org.uk/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> David Durling PhD FDRS  |  Professor of Design
> School of Arts & Education, Middlesex University
> Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK
> tel: 020 8411 5108  |  international:  + 44 20 8411 5108
> email:  [log in to unmask]  |  [log in to unmask]
> web: http://www.adri.org.uk |  http://www.durling.info
> http://www.dartevents.net
> _______________________________________________