schoolsofthoughts3sub

Preliminary thoughts on need

As I begin to consider the implications of ANY sort of disciplinarity (name your favorite), I find myself always circling back to considerations of ultimate outcome, i.e., what are the needs in terms of how citizens/colleagues/activists/designers/etc. operate now and in the future? If we decide that designers should operate along fairly narrow lines of problem-solving, then it stands to reason that the very notion of a discipline will, and should, be informed by that operational imperative. As such, the conversatio0n about various ideas of the design discipline will obviously relate a great deal to considerations of the profession.

To stake out my limb and take a step on it, I would offer that the most common educational approaches at this point are increasingly unable to bridge the gaps between the narrow "a to b" problems of the past and the incredibly complex (and complicated) challenges that designers are now dealing with in the professional arena.

Is professional design practice (and therefore education) interested in realtively formulaic problem-solving (styling?) versus decision makers and problem solvers that work carefully and widely through the murky issues that true solutions entail? Some call this "high value" thinking while others call it "big mindedness" (Roger Martin at the University of Toronto uses these phrases and refers to the need in business education for such thinkers, integrative people who can balance "multiple and possibly conflicting models...").

I would suggest that the very questions that are being asked of business education strike right at the heart of our discussion...

-Lance

Beginning discussion

Greetings - Forgive this rather brief post however I want to encourage participants to begin "ramping up" the discussion well in advance of the symposium for this panel. I will be checking in to read and respond to the comments, and offer some of my own developing thoughts regarding this very timely topic.

Best,
Lance Carlson

Multiple Disciplines

The terms “design” and “graphic design” exist as reference points for ways of working, or practicing within the field of design. At any point in time, careers are based on “understood” notions of design, firms are created, and educational pedagogy is crafted, all centered on traditions of disciplinarity and the existence of a discreet field of study that we know as design.

What is (and should be) the nature of disciplinarity in a professional environment characterized by the evolution of design practice away from a conventionally narrow range of focus (i.e., form) into the broader application of design methods to such areas as strategy, human systems, and business models? Given such a shifting professional landscape, what of the nature of the discipline, and what are the implications for design education and practice?

The emergence of competing ideas of disciplinarity (cross-, multi-, inter-, and trans-, among others) raises questions about not only design practice, but the education of designers. Design programs are rethinking approaches and new models are being developed in response to more fluid and emergent forms of practice.

Given the above, how do various ideas of disciplinarity apply to the education of designers and the future practice of design? What opportunities exist for the redefinition of the field, and what models in practice or design education are currently developing?