Hi Don,
Nice paper. Well put.
A three issues spring to mind:
1. Apart from the Bologna process, few external factors in the world
currently force change in undergraduate and Masters programs in Design.
Makes sense to look at variety in undergrad and Masters courses. In the PhD
arena, worldwide a large number of forces act to force change in future of
Design PhD. Would appear more useful to look at factors and less useful to
look at PhD programs. Bryn Tellefsen and myself did research to try to pin
likely outcomes (ref below).
2. Tends to be an assumption all education programs at a level (undergrad,
Masters, PhD) similar in product of breadth and depth. Course in some fields
seem bigger , i.e. both breadth and depth are bigger than other courses. If
I remember right, a Scottish university arranged for students from a variety
of disciplines to take examinations of other disciplines. Some fields did
much better than others indicating the depth-breadth product higher in those
fields (I'd be grateful if anyone has a reference). There is opportunity for
design education to have greater depth and breadth - it would mean design
courses had more material in them and it was more difficult...
3. There's a suite of design methods engineering designers use in addition
to those taught to Art and Design designers. Many focus on identifying the
multi-dimensional shape of solution space, factors acting within it, and
regions of solution space with best solutions. This enables identifying the
main details of a best design before any designing is undertaken. Hence much
less need for serendipitous design activity through idea generation and
brainstorming. In contrast, other design fields superficially generate many
ideas and then try to choose from them without a deep understanding of the
design situation. This difference in design approach presents a very
significant difference in education and professional behaviours
(particularly at PhD level) and yet is hidden from view when looking only at
curricula and syllabi.
All the best,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
==
Tellefsen, B., & Love, T. (2002). Doctoral Research in Design: The Future of
the Practice-based Doctorate. International Journal of Design Science and
Technology, 10(2), pp. 45-59.
http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2004/future_of_design_doctorat
e.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don
Norman
Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 8:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Seeking recommendations for design curricula. Not philosophy --
actual courses
As many of you might know, I have been trying to understand the nature of
design education across the world for at least 3 different levels:
undergraduate, professional masters, and an academic PhD.
I have written a paper for the conference on Doctoral Education in Design to
be held in Hong Kong 22-25 May, 2011.
The paper is: Design and the University: An uneasy fit.
http://db.tt/vI0HRGv
The conference is:
http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/DocEduDesign2011/index.php
http://www.icograda.org/events/events/calendar810.htm
One of the reviewers of my paper wished I had more references (I have
no references). Alas, I don't know of any that deal with actual
curricula. I seek your advice. I am interested in the actual courses that
are required of undergraduate, masters students, and PhD students in design.
I am NOT interested in the philosophy of the curriculum -- I want actual the
actual curricula -- the courses.
Repeat: I do NOT want references on the philosophy of design education. I
have encountered many excellent papers on this topic. For example, the very
excellent papers by Archer, Baynes, and Roberts (Framework for design):
http://www.data.org.uk/generaldocs/dater/Framework%20for%20Design.pdf
This collection is all about philosophy. i highly recommend these readings,
as well as that of our esteemed fellow discussant, Ken Friedman. But none of
these recommend actual courses. What is it that we should be teaching?
I want examples of real curricula: actual courses.
EXAMPLES: The ACM (the professional society of computer science)
has issued several curricula recommendations. Here are some, including one
for Computer-Human Interaction (which, to me, is a subset of interaction
design).
http://old.sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html
http://www.acm.org/education/curricula/IS%202010%20ACM%20final.pdf
http://www.acm.org/education/curric_vols/CC2005-March06Final.pdf
I am not saying we should follow these recommendations. But I am looking for
something in the field of design that has the same flavor as these: a set of
actual course recommendations.
Thanks
Don Norman
www.jnd.org [log in to unmask]
|