Thanks Johann for putting some moral sense into this debate. By the side of the issues you raise the "question" of the professions falls into insignificance.
Best wishes
Clive
Clive Dilnot
Professor of Design Studies
School of Art Design History and Theory
Parsons School of Design,
New School University.
Room #731
2 E 16th St
New York NY 10011
e [log in to unmask]
>>> Johann van der Merwe <[log in to unmask]> 06/03/11 8:10 AM >>>
To all
To Fil, I apologise for using your post as a platform ...
The very significant implications that Fil mentions are, surely, the
basics of any practical course of know-how, and ANY version of design
will include this knowledge in its basic course(s), whether this means
one or two years of learning about "the profession" so that you do not
design a car or a bridge that will kill people.
However, teach them as you may, no "professional" training will deter
former pupils from access to 'professional' platforms that will allow
them to act against the general good of the population they are supposed
to serve.
As a student I had direct knowledge of this shameful process because I
shared a student house with an aspirant "lawyer" who was, in nature, a
thief, and he was "taught" this very lucractive trade by his
"discipline".
SO, sue me for speaking out.
Too many "design" students are "taught" (indoctrinated) to become
"professional" designers that have no use for the "consumers" of their
products, since they themselves cannot distinguish between an informed
user and a mindless consumer.
"Professionalism" too often coincides with "what the INDUSTRY wants",
but they are mostly too busy with making money to spare any time to
finding out what the "real customer" wants/ needs.
Just as the "profession" of family therapy have turned to systemic
thinking and cybernetics, so too the general (i.e., very wide ranging)
profession (i.e., 'what exactly are we doing?') of "desing" can find
what I can only describe as the only 'solid' ground for "launching
sorties from", the ONLY platform from which to "know" any-thing in the
environment outside of the "self" ...
All this talk about "professionalism" is counter-poductive ....
What's in a name - what is at stake for my students are their own
personal reputations ... and they do not like the way that the "world"
is developing ...
Johann
Johann van der Merwe
HOD: Research, History & Theory of Design
Faculty of Informatics and Design
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
South Africa
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 06/03/11 5:19 AM >>>
Ali,
Terry has already commented on your remarks below. Let me expand
(slightly).
As a member of a profession myself (engineering), I can tell you that
there
are very significant implications to the characteristics that Terry
mentioned. You wouldn't want just anyone designing and validating the
cars
your drive or the houses you live in.
It's not just a matter of compiling lists of what is and isn't a
profession;
there are many, many implications for training, practice, and regulation
that must be dealt with before an occupation is added (or removed) from
the
list.
And it isn't a "laundry list" - it's quite a short list. I find Terry's
list to be quite obvious - though distilled and described much better
than I
might have done.
On the matter of the traits not informing one about the process of
professionalization, it seems rather straightforward to me. Any process
that turns an occupation into a profession is a professionalization
process.
One can then study and compare different process to discover/invent the
best possible one. That is, the traits can be used as the basis for
establishing metrics to compare professionalization processes. From the
subsequent study, I should think a great deal could be learnt about
professionalization.
The "unique, codified body of knowledge" is a bit of a mirage. Not even
physics as one. I think a better perspective is to consider what a
professional does rather than what one has to know. I agree with you
that
asking about a body of knowledge is a bad question, but it's not because
of
the traits of professions - it's just a faulty argument.
Cheers.
Fil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This e-mail transmission contains confidential information,
which is the property of the sender.
The information in this e-mail or attachments thereto is
intended for the attention and use only of the addressee.
Should you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
and destroy it and any attachments thereto immediately.
Under no circumstances will the Cape Peninsula University of
Technology or the sender of this e-mail be liable to any party for
any direct, indirect, special or other consequential damages for any
use of this e-mail.
For the detailed e-mail disclaimer please refer to
http://www.cput.ac.za/email.php or call +27 (0)21 460 3911
|