Dear David,

On a quick reading, points well taken.

The first thing I'd have to admit is that my on-site observations in 
design schools are out of date. At the time they were extensive, but 
that's a gone-by era. I have observed some of the same kinds of 
behaviors on a more limited basis -- at least with relation to what 
one might call research-based education. It could be that I am also 
inferring too much from some of the problems I have seen, and this 
sample is clearly limited. I did have a chance to observe a fair 
amount of of studio teaching and research teaching in some European 
schools -- I may have inferred too much about thought habits from the 
ways that people put ideas forward in research courses, and the ways 
that students often took this on board. I do know there have been 
many improvements to studio teaching, and I've got to apologize if I 
wasn't more clear on this. (On a personal level, I know a management 
scholar from Universidade Nova de Lisboa who has been teaching at 
IADE. UNL is one of the top business schools in Portugal, and a 
leading school in Europe. He says the IADE teachers and students are 
terrific.)

Anyhow, I've got to travel around and learn more about studio 
teaching today. I'll have an opportunity to do more of this now.

Alas, you have seen some of these conversations before on the 
development of guild traditions in design education. Repeating an 
historical account doesn't make it more correct, but neither is it 
less correct than it was. When debates recur in which others review 
their position, I sometimes review the counter-position, even if I 
have stated it before.

There is chartered status of some kind for designers through 
membership in the Chartered Society of Designers. Perhaps I am 
confusing the way one describes them with the way one describes 
chartered engineers. Members of the CSD have the designation MCSD or 
FCSD. I thought one referred to such designers as "chartered 
designers," in the same way that one refers to chartered engineers. 
They have about 3,000 members worldwide, and they function under 
royal charter as the engineers do. Their web site is at 
http://www.csd.org.uk/index.jsp

As I said to Eduardo, I don't really feel that I disagree with him -- 
and I don't disagree with you. I've put the book on the Florentine 
Academy in my Amazon basket. Now I must catch up a bit on current 
trends in studio education as well.

Yours,

Ken


On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:04:29 +0000, David Durling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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