Critical absence versus critical engagement: problematics of the crit in design learning and teaching

What I read

In this article, the author examines the value of critique. She briefly explores the change in power-dynamic when a critique is mediated with a computer screen.

The motivation for this research was based on the "increasing exodus" of students from the design studio towards working remotely from home (note that this paper was published well before COVID19). However, the focus shifted to include investigation into the effectiveness of the crit, and the potential for changing it.

The methodology of the study involved observation of critique in-person, interviews with students and staff, and one member of the research team observing students who worked from home. The method of at-home interview is not described in any detail. The gathered data indicated that faculty see value in critique, primarily in providing "an opportunity to engage in a critical narrative on practice." However, there is a separation between how a crit is held and the value of learning through practice. The author notes that "students gain cognition and understanding through attending to their practice" rather than talking about it, which then questions the value of a critique: "there was little evidence of students being taught the skills of critical reflection and argument." Students don't have the ability for argument, or for discussing the roots of their practice, which "are predicated on the ideological, sociological, and historical network of systems they negotiate."

Additionally, the data shows that students focus primarily on assessment and grades, even when a critique is positioned as generative. Some of this is driven by the "large" personality of the faculty, who dominate the discussion; some of the response is caused by the vague language that is used, which students simply accept rather than question or challenge.

This changes, however, through an online medium, where "conducting crits online reduced the power relations between tutor and student." There's no real ability for a professor to understand the design process or evolution (as they weren't there to see it, and it's rarely displayed on the screen), and the authors indicate that "students become empowered in this situation" because they have to become more vocal in the discussion. When a critique is online, "knowledge and ownership was returned to the student," both because they must lead the discussion and because "they often demonstrated a more advanced technical knowledge than their tutors" which increased their confidence. The authors conclude this section by noting that even with these benefits, "it remains questionable whether online learning can be utilized as a vehicle for deep engagement in debate."

The authors discuss the implications of their research. They describe that "With the demise of the 'base room' and the informal day-to-day contact with the students, the crit has taken on the privileged arena of a performance art, where competing staff did battle for supremacy." However, "online crits presented a friendlier environment for students to actively rehearse their personal understanding of the project brief and their progress."

What I learned and what I think

The online findings are fascinating. If I'm interpreting it correctly, there's a large positive and negative to online critique. The negative is what is to be expected: that the professor never actually sees the work in progress, and so it's impossible to meaningfully understand and discuss the development of the idea. Instead, they only view the design at presentable points, and so each discussion becomes an assessment. The positive, however, is something I hadn't considered: because it is always a presentation, and because the instructor has no real understanding of the project, the conversation has to be driven by the student. The power dynamic shifts (unless the student completely blows it on presenting, which is certainly possible or likely), with the student in a driving position. Additionally, the screen changes the "bigness" of the professor: they are equal to the student, in terms of the literal and figurative space they take up. And the comment about them being less technically savvy than the students is right-on; faculty just look dumb when they can't get things like screen sharing to work.

This was published in 2004. I'm trying to remember what tools we were using at that point. I think chat was still ICQ and AIM. I remember having an external webcam, but I don't remember what software we used. Was it Web Ex? I have to imagine it sucked, and the student probably called into a "bridge" (lol) so they were talking on the phone and showing on the screen.

The rest of the conversation is duplicative of the other papers—the mixing of assessment and improvement, the power-struggle, the value of learning in context. Maybe I'm running out of newness in the space, so it's time to summarize this and move to a new focus.

Also; woof on the language. "Problematize..."