Damn. I've been trying to stay out of this conversation and concentrate on other tasks but I really think that this is important. 

Ken--Maybe I'm not following your reasoning. You have quite often indicated that a PhD degree should be a research degree and you've defined that in what might fairly be described as a traditional academic manner. You seem to advocate control over design education by people with PhD degrees specifically, thus researchers. If we assume that those design researchers are, for the most part, designers, there may be little problem with that. But to deny that there is any threat involved in such a transformation strikes me as having some problems. If we define "design" broadly and treat it as one subject (as many people active on this listserv including, I believe, you seem to) and accept a very broad range of design-related research as being the suitable focus for the researchers who will control curriculum, the political threat to design as generally defined is very real. (Please note that recognizing a threat--the title of this thread--and recognizing a need--e.g., as described in Kate's posts--are not the least bit incompatible.)

As Don Norman put it:

> is the PhD harmful to design education?  The answer is Yes and No, depending upon what aspect of design education is being considered. One could make a case that they (sometimes) can be harmful for the training of practitioners. But No -- they are essential to advance the underlying knowledge base and deep understanding of design.
> 

Of course, if we merely redefine design, all of the archaic vocationalism goes away and there's nothing left to threaten.

If we are going to do that, however, I'd think it incumbent on us to spread the word. It's not just naïveté on the part of prospective students (or archaic practitioners) who are waiting to be educated on what design -really- is. Universities are perpetuating the view of design that is plausibly threatened by PhD dominance. (Please note that I am talking about PhD as the sort of research degree advocated here and not in any way suggesting that a broader and better educated faculty would not be a clear benefit.) Here's some copy from the website of a major university with a program in communication design.

Communication design is described as follows: "Communication Design courses aim to turn you into a creative thinker and an effective, well-informed visual communicator capable of working to the best and most appropriate aesthetic standard. The strong technology base at _________ is complemented by solid industry links and a commitment to outstanding research. You will graduate with a portfolio that reflects a diversity of ideas, production skills and experiences that will prepare you to cope with the challenges of an exciting and evolving industry."

That is followed directly by a section titled "Careers" that says "Employment may be found in: Advertising; Communication strategy; Corporate branding; Design consultancies; Education; Graphic design; Merchandising; Packaging design; Publishing; Research"

Then there are links to the stories of three students. The first says "_______ has helped clarify that design is most definitely the career path I want to pursue. By having the opportunity to take part in the Industry Placement program, I have learnt how to properly put together a folio and become familiar with the interview process. . . . " The next says "Several factors contributed to why I chose to study at _______. I had heard many positive things about ________ Communication Design course, but when visiting the campus for the first time, I felt very comfortable and felt that’d I’d fit in nicely, but more importantly the course structure also appealed to me, especially the options for different types of study such as Industry Placement . . . ." and the third says "Before I came to [this country] I didn’t have much industry experience. _______ provides teaching methods and industry connections that far exceeded my expectations. Design Centre trains you how to talk to clients and present your ideas professionally. Being able to speak with real clients who provide good feedback and insight has really helped me to pursue my career goals."

This seems, for the most part, to be about a fairly straightforward traditional view of graphic design and it probably fairly typical. (I suppose it's on the slightly more progressive edge of that range since "research" is mentioned twice in passing.) It strikes me as the sort of project one could do well--but not one that would necessarily be done well if it came to be dominated by, say, social scientists and philosophers who do design research but are not directly connected to design as described above. (Please note that I am NOT making a claim that the university whose website I'm quoting has suffered this. I AM making a case for a very real general threat.)

I have no hesitation in saying that design fields in general and graphic design in particular need to grow and mature. I also have no trouble with the belief that academic research is one of the ways we will grow and mature. I agree with Kate's position that graphic design (or whatever it becomes) is to survive, such research is vital. I assume that the same applies for most design fields. I also have no trouble with the statement that the present faculty in most graphic design programs are woefully unprepared to lead the way into a better future. I have no doubt that a much greater understanding of research is vital to the needed preparedness and that greater understanding of research should be expected of all faculty.

But here's where it gets interesting. Many (most?) universities are under a variety of pressures. One of them is to serve specific purposes that universities have, in the past, claimed to serve (e.g., preparing students for a career and adding to regional economic development) but have not been asked to prove their effectiveness. Another is to do whatever they do with less money. Another is to live up to expectations of more and more people who are not of the social classes where university graduation is a given, or where university education is not seen as a vital part of personal development. . . (Such class issues are not unrelated, I believe, to some of Teena's concerns about underlying assumptions about the nature of research but I'll let Teena address that.)

Universities (at least those in my edge of the world) are going into a real crisis--an identity crisis forced by an economic crisis forced by several factors including absurd financial mismanagement that has been building for many years. An embracing of many modes of knowledge (Please note that I am NOT suggesting an uncritical embracing) is essential to universities' reinvention. Various design disciplines are great examples of where demands for professionalism, reconsiderations of political and financial structure, and a look at what higher education means and should mean to a diverse range of people can be focused.


Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006

http://www.gunnarswanson.com