Design Think-er-ing

January 22 2009
by

You probably saw this on Core, but perhaps you didn’t read it. I think you should:
Design Versus Innovation: The Cranbrook / IIT Debate.

The difference between the two viewpoints on design education is enlightening. Can an institution follow and impart multiple approaches effectively, or does it need a strong coherent design philosophy to attract, nurture, and graduate students of high caliber that are inclined in that direction?

The argument for a wider lens is clear, but I wonder if it is possible or desirable. What is the flavor of our school (aside from what the official website states)?

from: Academic, Education

5 Comments leave a new comment!
January 23 2009
rc permalink

I perceive a move away from incubating *sketching robots* and think it is healthy. I don’t know if it is real, however.

January 25 2009
pea permalink

To me, the “debate” these gentlemen are having, as they sort of point out in disguised words in the final “question” or topic of their discussion, is non-existant—meaning that we need both “innovators” and “crafters”. In other words—and like in any other thing concerning life—, you need thinkers and doers, which dosen’t mean that doers can’t think and vice versa.

I personally think that there is a good balance in the interaction program’s current curriculum. For one, the program certainly dosen’t form sketching robots because I wouldn’t have stood a chance of entering it and for second, because it is a specific sub-genre of design—meaning that the program allows it’s students great levels of freedom within the briefs, etc.

My opinion concerning the debate? I don’t know if I have one, really. I think we’re fooling ourselves a bit if we think that as designers we can naturally be great managers. I think we should be great designers first. However, I do agree that the designer’s so-called creative mind can contribute a great deal in companies generating interesting new solutions (whether these solutions be products, services or what have you).

January 25 2009
Camille Moussette permalink

I think UID aims at educating great professional designers, be it in Transportation, Product or Interaction. I think the education here at UID is very focused on training you at what you’ll (probably) be doing professionally out there in design consultancies and corporations. Sure you have more freedom and room for experimentation in school, but the higher education programs are very “professional oriented”. This is in contrast to other education routes that are more self-centered or “artistic” one can say (where you really develop you own style), or research/academic focused like many higher-education in other fields (I don’t know many MA programs that are as much project-based as UID, most of them involve attending few classes and then you write a big thesis for 12-16 months).

Anyways, back to the article/debate. I feel the separation is too drastic in the discussion. We need both angles and perspectives. Sure you can have a stronger expertise in one of them, but you should be aware and knowledgeable of the other. The famous “T-shape” profile often mentioned. It’s like the symbiotic relation of thinking with your head and your hand. Intellectual work needs an healthy and functional body to flourish. And you need vision, dreams and imagination to fully drive and enjoy practical/craft work, otherwise it is just mechanical and machine-like actuation of human limbs.

From my perspective of the Interaction Design program at UID, I think we are moving from Thinking about Interaction to Thinking and Building Interaction. It’s a big shift as we can not only produce concepts nowadays, we have the tools and methods to actually prototype, evaluate, refine the details that make interaction so good (or bad).

/Camille

January 26 2009
Mikko permalink

I think that the chaos last year shaped pretty much the course for us 2nd years. Now the course seems to be in control again and has a definite direction. I don’t know if I like it or not. Also the fact that some of us don’t have a sponsor for our final project will probably create interesting results. I’m not saying that the previous years had uninteresting projects, but they were dictated, to at least some degree, by the companies interests. I think it might lead into something that is more of a showcase of the persons abilities in designing interactions, rather than thinking differently and perhaps finding a new of doing them. As usual, I might be totally wrong.

January 26 2009
rc permalink

I’m glad to see opinions.

As stated, I think it’s clear that both approaches are necessary (either within the same entity, or through the right mix within a studio) in the real world. That isn’t the debate as I see it. Both points of view are valid.

What I find interesting in this discussion is the question of “adequate balance” versus a more pronounced point of view. If we use the “T-shape” reference, what is the depth we are aiming for? Forming professionals with the practical skills for (mostly) business-driven problem solving is a sensible goal, but I think it leaves open room for a stronger opinion about the future of design. If the education model is reactive – preparing students for the demands of the profesional world – there’s a missed opportunity to aim for a wider perspective and a stronger voice in shaping design. I am not suggesting this doesn’t happen at UID. I’m quite glad that it has in some measure, but I think it might be coincidental (the right project with the right tutor and students), rather than encouraged. Case in point: the APD/IxD soudn workshop this year is segregated.

I too, might be totally wrong.

Leave A New Comment

Captcha Challenge * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.