Rejected…

Below is the abstract for a paper that I was working on for a recent UCDA design education conference. Unfortunately, it got dismissed… As I complete my thoughts on the subject, I thought I would share this in the mean time. When I tighten up the writing, I will post it here. Be sure to come back soon!

Passion, Curiosity (and not Technology) in Design Education

Technology is a necessary evil to becoming a designer today; students feel the need to learn it, their parents want to know about it, our institutions sell it, and design firms are dependent on the technical knowledge base of these young designers. But what if I told you that you did not have to teach technology to teach design? Surprised? Outraged? 

Passion, curiosity, and communication are the skill sets that make for successful design learning, in the long-term. These are the attributes that are inherent in all top-tier design students, and, if we bring this to the classroom on a regular basis, it is something that can eventually rub off on these young creative minds.

This paper will discuss the origins of passion, curiosity, and a thirst for knowledge, and how we, as the educators of the next design generation, can help our students achieve their professional goals by instilling these values.

“Our passions are the winds that propel our vessel. Our reason is the pilot that steers her.”—Proverb

The MFA is the new MBA—Literally

In the summer of 2011 I enthusiastically attended the UCDA Design Education conference that was hosted by New Jersey City University. Below is the abstract for the paper which you can find here.

In 2008, when I first read these words by Daniel Pink, “The MFA is the new MBA,” I immediately understood the impact that this statement would have on the design profession and, in turn, on the future of design education. Three years later they have taken on a whole new meaning, as I am experiencing first hand in my graduate level teaching. For the past two quarters my students and I are utilizing the vaunted “case study” as a pedagogical tool, having dove head first into dozens of pages of data as well as numerous videos to ask new questions and seek innovation through designerly thinking means.

My intention with this paper/presentation is to discuss the increased use of case studies as a tool for design study. With an open mind I began a new road into the teaching of design thinking through the open case studies provided by the Yale School of Management (and the Design Observer). The use of case studies as a means of learning is, historically, something that was typically utilized by students of law and business, but not by designers. So it was with great trepidation (and intrigue) I began this ‘experiment’. “What could be learned through the access to raw data and video interviews?”, “What connections could we make in relation to design problem solving?”, and, “What ‘design’ outcomes would come of this study?” were all questions that I had going into this endeavor. What I hope to share are some outcomes, successful and otherwise.

Design Thinking and The Future of Design Pedagogy

Last June (2010) I was privileged to present my ideas on the following at the UCDA Design Education conference in Lawrence, KS. Below is the abstract for the paper which you can find here.

What is the buzz surrounding this thing called “design thinking”? Where has it come from and why should we care? All very good questions given that it is hard not to see a new publication or twitter post that does not mention it in some way or another. For many this is a familiar phrase while for others this may be the first they have heard of it. Either way, it should be something that all design educators consider as part of their teaching methodology so that our students are amply prepared to become the leaders of the next design revolution.

The past five years or so have brought about seismic shifts in the way that business is done both here in the U.S. and abroad. Old business models are no longer looked upon as ways of achieving innovation in the market place. Many of the leading companies such as Apple, Proctor & Gamble and Steelcase have achieved great success in these challenging times by incorporating the “tools” of design thinking. These companies have leveraged the ways of design: holistic thinking, collaboration, empathy, prototyping and user experience, (just to name a few) to build strong brand positions and product lines that continue to outperform the competition. But if we were to look at the curriculum of most design degrees we would hardly find any of these words. Why is that? Well, most design curriculums are built on the premise that the designer is an artist or craftsperson. This idea has lead to designers being looked upon as “other”, especially when it comes to our relationship to business. Instead of designing the business model/direction, the designer is usually asked to style it.

How we, as educators of future designers, think about our curriculum, will directly impact this trend. We can continue to teach style or we can teach the redefinition of problems. The opportunity is before us; let us reconceive our definitions of design.

Design Statement…

For those of you who may have missed it we here in SAV just had a faculty show. I had a difficult time trying to justify this event so this is part of what I presented along with a print-out of my most recent twitter posts and accompanying printed links/site shares:

Think. Share. Educate.

In my endeavor to find my way in design education I have spent a great amount of time over the past year researching and reading ways to inform the ‘designer of 2015’. This search has lead me to become very interested in what is termed ‘design thinking’. The term can be traced back to the writing of Walter Gropius who stated, “Design is neither an intellectual nor a material affair, but simply an integral part of the stuff of life, necessary for everyone in a civilized society.” Understanding the ‘meta-’ implication of this statement I do not personally believe that design, in and of itself, can solve all of the world’s ills, but can be a significant contributor to the formation of workable solutions and therefore needs to be thought of more for its intellectual contributions than for its material outcomes.

By its very nature I feel that the title of this years exhibition is quite appropriate to the ‘thinking’ nature that I speak of. Does it make sense for the designer of 2015 to make more?, or less? Do we need more superfluous ‘toys’? Maybe the answer to the communication problem is to do nothing? This seems counterintuitive, especially for what was traditionally a ‘making’ profession. This does not preclude the need for things, whether they be posters, annual reports, packages, etc.. But I sincerely believe that, from a systemic position, the designer must truly understand that every object created has an effect. Could it be that the effect is one of negativity without that being its initial intention?

During my years as a practicing designer, I spent long hours thinking and making for others. I did not consider myself, nor do I now consider myself, an ‘artist’. I was tasked with communicating the business needs of others to an audience, so the thought of making just for the sole purpose of doing so never was a goal; neither has it been a goal to ‘say something’ in terms of graphic authorship. This does not mean that I do not appreciate these more artistic endeavors; as a matter of fact, I am a huge supporter of these concepts. But from my personal perspective, I never felt the need beyond my ‘day job’ to create. Instead I found joy and happiness in entertaining the physical nature of life to counter balance the intellectual engagement of the days work.

With this in mind, I have been searching for ways to enliven my student’s educational experience while introducing them to design thinking. This has recently lead me to social media: twitter, blogs, facebook, etc. Since many of the individuals that I am charged with educating spend a good deal of time interacting with their computer screen, why not try to use this as a way to share, and in turn, educate them? So, instead of a piece of ‘art’ you see before you a portion of the resources and findings that I have engaged myself with during this time.

I would be more than happy to continue this intellectual discourse as a way to further my own education in this area. I greatly appreciate your time and attention.

Please return for Part II of this thought, entitled “I am NOT an artist”.

(Originally posted 10/4/2009)