I usually only have time to read the content of this list with great
interest (and use/pass along much of the information I glean from it), but
this last thread has compelled me to contribute.
Dr. Jones isn't the only reader of this thread who's "been struck by its
endurance," although I'm less concerned about just how far it has strayed
from Don's impetus.
What has intrigued me the most re: what I've read thus far in this thread
involves the need to ensure that when design is taught at the graduate
levels in university-level settings--regardless of WHO is actually doing
the teaching--bridges of a sort must be built and then maintained between
four of what I'll refer to here as "primary tranches" inherent in the
facilitation of grad-level design education. These tranches are, in no
particular order:
-research; -teaching; -writing; -practice (as some of you have already
acknowledged--I'm repeating them here simply to emphasize that various
means to bridge gaps in understanding between "what it takes" to engage in
each of them needs to be at least attempted at grad-levels of study, as
I'll articulate a bit more as follows).
I use the term "grad-level" very purposefully here, as I think it's risky
to separate what my colleagues and I here at the Design Research Center at
the University of North Texas feel must occur at both the master's and
doctoral levels of study in design, to ensure that, as Ken reminded us a
few posts ago, our ultimate goal of "improv[ing] the field" is actually
met.
My colleagues and I haven't had the privilege of visiting and reviewing as
many design programs as Ken has, but between us, we've seen enough
examples around the U.S. and Canada of programs that claim to be able to
facilitate a good deal more than they actually do or are even capable of
thinking about doing. Of the programs that we have observed/reviewed that
we found most laudable, a trait they shared was being very comfortable
with "what they were NOT" as much as they were with "what they were,"
without pretending that the need for "what they werenąt doing" wasn't
important to the overall "health" of the discipline of design. We've
found, through our observations and in the manner that we facilitate even
some of our undergraduate curriculum, that understanding at least some of
the rudiments of research formulation, the application of select theories,
data analysis and reporting can and does ('long story short here...)
positively abet professional practice, especially when designers at
master's level and beyond are challenged to improve or, even more
daunting, invent complex systems that must account for the actions of
multiple actors, biases, agencies, etc. This has also proven to be
true--at least for us--time and again WHEN THE DESIGNERS ARE CHALLENGED TO
WORK WITH OTHER PROFESSIONALS AND ACADEMICIANS WHO POSSESS Ph.Ds IN
DISCIPLINES THAT HAVE NOT REQUIRED THEM TO EVER SET FOOT IN DESIGN SCHOOL.
At least acknowledging that design needs to be informed by at
well-intentioned, if not always well-brokered, interactions between the
four primary tranches I mentioned previously, and sensitizing
undergraduates (think: FUTURE master's and doctoral candidates...) has
begun to be shown to be a good idea, at least in our programs.
A Ph.D. is indeed a research degree, but when "research" is preceded by
the word "design," which, among many, many other meanings that this word
now conveys or is associated with still involves processes inherent in
making or re: processes that contextualize making or inform how particular
types of the study of making are conducted, reported and criticized.
Borrowing from one of Gunnar's earlier posts in this thread, in the U.S.,
at least in the realms of visual communication design and interaction
design (with which I'm most familiar, although I have practiced as an
industrial designer...), most of the over 1,900 university- or so-called
university-level programs that offer undergraduate degrees in these areas
require only an MFA for those who teach them, and most U.S.-based MFA
programs (there are almost 400 of these) are still primarily
"practice-based," without much more than an occasional acknowledgement
that research is evidence-based, that it requires formulation,
data-gathering and data analysis that is as neutrally biased as possible,
and that it requires at least some stops up the "ladder of validation."
To offer that MFA programs in the US "vary widely in quality" is akin to
offering that "some animals with four legs run faster than others," but
there's no room in this already long post to address the enormity inherent
in that dilemma... It IS possible to emerge from a select array of MFA
programs in the U.S. very well-prepared to enter a Ph.D.-level design
research program WITHOUT having to learn the "nuts and bolts" of how to
conduct a viable round of etic observations of user behavior, or how to
conduct and actually derive benefit from a comprehensive review of
literature, or how to constructively enact particular instantiations of
activity theory during your first two to three years of doctoral study,
BUT, BUT, BUT--this means you have to limit your choice to about 25
schools out of that group of 400 I wrote about earlier.
Like Peter Jones, I now direct/lead/coordinate design projects, but I
rarely program or do much of what he refers to as "craft work," but I work
with many others who have accrued a great deal of professional knowledge
re: doing these things and have discovered that their ability to assert
what they know about doing these things doesn't do them much good when
they are challenged to formulate an argument re: WHY they're doing it (a
tip of the hat to Ranulph Glanville, there...). It's being immersed in
these types of situations which has led many of our grad students here at
UNT into our design research programs, which have in turn led some among
them to writing, and others to teaching, and, as Ken alluded to earlier, a
scant few to being able to "handle" all four of these tranches really
well. We operate lots of projects at the UNT DRC that require us to "make
our cases" to the boards of Foundation funders, or to governmental
agencies (NSF, NIH, CPRIT, THECB, etc.), or to private corporations, to
even begin operations. This means that, generally speaking, we have to use
theory to "build a foundation" upon which to operate one or more
research-project "frameworks," which means we have to do our share of
writing, research formulation and service, at least some teaching, and,
ultimately--we are a Design Research Center--we have to make something
(via mostly applied research) that actually has to WORK.
I kept using the word "WE" in that last paragraph--that's of crucial
import to us...
What we've learned as faculty who facilitate our constantly evolving array
of grad-level learning experiences is that no one of us needs to be
particularly adept or adroit in all four of the tranches, but we do need
to have a great deal of facility with at least two, and have good working
relationships with colleagues who are facile with whichever among them we
are not. We also operate from the belief that, based on our experience,
that poorly educated master's level candidates tend NOT to turn out to be
particularly strong doctoral candidates.
All for now,
Michael R. Gibson
Graduate Programs Coordinator >> Design with Concentrations in Innovation
Studies
The University of North Texas
College of Visual Arts and Design
http://art.unt.edu/designresearchcenter/
On 10/10/11 10:57 AM, "Peter Jones | Redesign"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I'm struck by the endurance of this thread, one which has left Don
>Norman's
>original impetus behind as most are considering the core proposition of
>the
>list: PhD -level design education.
>
>The PhD is a research degree, so why would we expect the PhD to have to
>be a
>superior practitioner? It is fine if they are, but it is not relevant to
>the
>drivers of research necessarily. The time and dedication it takes to learn
>and perform good research almost necessitate that an advanced practitioner
>set their tools aside and focus on research. I wonder how long it's been
>since Don led the design of a system or product. I keep a design /
>research
>practice (actually two different practices, one in US and one in Canada)
>and
>teach at OCAD University as an associate prof in the new MDes Strategic
>Foresight and Innovation program. I constantly lead design projects, but
>subcontract most of the craft work to designers who are MUCH better than I
>at form-giving, coding, and presentation. The practice helps in teaching,
>absolutely, but I am not a studio leader. I teach design research and
>systemic design methods.
>
>Among these are dialogic and systems-oriented methods, which I just
>convened
>a workshop at AHO with Birger Sevaldson and his 24 MDes and some PhD
>students. We covered new ground, and advised with the studio projects as
>well. At the MDes level though, it's not expected that students learn the
>scholarly literature in full. At the PhD level, the literature is a huge
>new
>commitment, as well as research methods, teaching and co-education, and
>research writing for publication. At the PhD level it's not just user
>level
>research, but well-framed and proposed, carefully sampled, and
>theoretically
>resolved research projects. These are enormous differences, and design
>education at the graduate level needs to clarify how these distinctions
>are
>resolved.
>
>With respect to Lubomir's medical example, I'd just it's not that simple.
>I'm working on a book on design and systemic design research methods
>across
>the spectrum of healthcare, and have done a lot of research into clinical
>practice and clinical education. Design for Care http://designforcare.com
>will be out next year on Rosenfeld Media. And there really isn't a good
>comparison with medicine - for one thing, an MD degree is already a
>doctoral
>degree for medical training. The residency - practice training - last for
>years AFTER medical education. Cardiology is a good example, because it
>goes
>well beyond the basic residency period. The extension of cardiology into
>advanced research is done through Fellowships, which is more like a
>post-doc
>than a PhD. These advanced practices and specializations are certified
>through board exams, and unless the clinician is going into research,
>there
>is no need for a PhD. (Perhaps that's where it is similar - unless the
>design grad student is going to continue in research and graduate level
>teaching, the PhD may be more than necessary for good studio teaching.)
>Then
>again, it depends on the PhD program!
>
>Peter
>
>Peter H. Jones, Ph.D.
>Redesign, Inc.
>OCADU, Strategic Foresight and Innovation
>
>http://redesignresearch.com
>http://designdialogues.com
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Are PhDs a threat to design education?
>
>Friends,
>
>Please let me make that last note quite precise: This is not about whether
>most people are good design teachers, but whether most are BOTH strong
>design practitioners AND strong researchers. But that said, even based on
>the experience of most folks on this list, relatively few good design
>teachers can make a go of top-level professional practice.
>
>In visiting many art and design schools, I found very few people who could
>really make a mark as practicing professionals in either design or art.
>In a
>young research field such as ours, there are very few truly strong
>researchers.
>It's hard to see how there could be more people who are strong at BOTH
>research AND professional practice than the number of people who are
>strong
>at one OR the other.
>
>Again, the purpose of doctoral education is to build stronger
>university-based design schools for a stronger field.
>
>Ken
>
>
>--snip--
|
