 |
 |
Cindy, Thank you for the concern.I agree about you misunderstanding the question, but also take your point, having a 'poly-personality' approach is not a suggestion to learn or to teach.But the main concern being, your way of answering this here over a participatory technological network, instead as a discussion when it is well possible within campus, is also the point. Best,Karthik --- On Wed, 3/20/13, Cindy Kohtala <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Cindy Kohtala <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Design education and the ego To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 7:18 AM Hi Karthik, My two euro cents, at risk of misunderstanding your question: first, in traditional product design education it's been clear that personalities have had their impact (I'll use the word 'personality' rather than 'ego') - look at Kai Franck's impact on his Finnish design students (which has been documented, if not systematically, at least through interviews, exhibitions, etc.). Maybe that's not what you were talking about though. Do students carry a certain baggage because of their disciplinary backgrounds? Yes. Look at e.g. Leiviskä's examination of the multidisciplinary International Design Business Management study programme in what is now Aalto University (Helsinki, Finland). The pedagogical methods need to take it into account - the different learning and teaching styles the students have encountered previously - and we are also constantly testing and improving this (or trying to) in the Creative Sustainability Master's Programme (also polydisciplinary). I'm not sure if you are now referring to the ego (or 'personality') of a particular student and her disciplinary background or the impact of the educator and her personality - but responsible educational programmes would take both into account - not even as ego/personality/influential person but as the disciplinary 'baggage', 'mindset', value set, etc. the person comes in with. For example in sustainability education Carew and Mitchell point out that studies have shown how teachers pass on their own assumptions and frameworks to students - in sustainability it's important that this is made transparent so the students know why the assumptions are as they are. This surely has implications for 'technological product development' in participatory design processes - what gets designed and why - but I can't tell you how systematically this has been studied. So in essence, I haven't answered your question at all, have I? ;) Carew, A.L. and C.A. Mitchell (2008) ‘Teaching sustainability as a contested concept: capitalizing on variation in engineering educators’ conceptions of environmental, social and economic sustainability’, Journal of Cleaner Production (16): 105-115. Leiviskä, E. (2001) Creative Interdisciplinarity: Engineering, Business, and Art&Design Students’ Collaboration and Learning in the International Design Business Management (IDBM) Program, Research Report 227, Doctoral Dissertation (Faculty of Education, University of Helsinki). ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------