A New Paradigm for Design Studio Education

What I read

In this text, the author argues that complexity theory, a way of thinking about the world as systems to be explored, can be an explanation for how creative leaps in design perform, and can be an alternative model for design education.

The author begins by stating that there is an urgency in design education, where educators are uneasy about an imminent crisis. This crisis requires design to be better integrated into a larger university system, because educators feel their field is marginalized. The author indicates that he will use architecture as a way of describing all design, and that the text will argue for replacing architecture's positivist educational model with one based on complexity theory. The basis of complexity theory is defined as placing an emphasis on "what is", not "what ought to be," which the author indicates is a "fine intellectual balance" between objectivity and subjectivity.

Next, the author describes Schön's views of reflection in action, Dewey's experiential learning approaches, and the traditional architecture studio, as indicative of a form of systems thinking. The architecture studio's project-based approach is explained, and is grounded in creativity, collaboration, rapid communication and broad social relevance. This is fairly synonymous with complexity theory: "the culture of the design studio might be described as a vital complex of material representation, social collaboration, creativity, emotionality, and a tolerance for uncertainty—if not outright confusion—balanced with a faith that meaningful designs eventually will emerge." The author views that "intellectual rigor is often conspicuously absent in the design studio," and that leads to a lack of credibility in an educational context. There is a "leap in the dark" that occurs in a project context, and that is viewed as lacking in intellectual depth.

The author proposes that rather than implementing design studio education as a set of problems to be solved, the "end of design would become an open horizon of values and possibilities—not a solution to a problem." Education should be an "open-ended process of discovery yielded by assuming the educational process as a whole is a self-organising system."

Complexity theory is based on two assumptions. One is that it is impossible to use an objective methodology or seek an objective truth. The second is that "the whole of a system is greater than the sum of its parts." Something new is always emerging. Complexity theory is "limited to an investigation of processes, not products." He views this as a promise to unite science and art and "thereby bestow intellectual rigor upon the activities of the design studio." Complexity theory is "purely descriptive, not prescriptive." This is the "best hope for the discipline of design education achieving intellectual rigor and complete academic respectability."

The author then describes that there is a feeling that human-computer interactions can be an important part of design education, but there is no evidence for this. Complexity theory would indicate that "HCI might not result in students achieving higher performance scores, but it might positively—or negatively—affect their experiences of the educational process in the design studio." The author appears to be referring specifically to the use of CAD, and feels that the way CAD fits with the "ethical-personal and socio-political dimension of design education" needs to be articulated.

What I learned and what I think

This was a hard one; it's all over the place, and I'm struggling to identify the main argument and what I can glean from it. It feels like the content describing the context of the architectural studio is not important, and the content describing HCI is not important (and sort of indicates a complete lack of understanding of the word and idea—I think the author just means "using technology in the classroom"?); the goal seems to be to describe a new way of thinking, and argue for why it is a good way of teaching.

It's clear that the author views that Universities have over-indexed on objectivity, and that has crept into the way design is taught and learned. Projects appear to be the way this comes to life, specifically in the idea that a project is positioned as a problem to be solved. I have not thought of the entire idea of problem solving as positivist, and I'll give it some space:

The world is not made of problems to be solved, and if we're taking the approach that design is about managing the way technology shows up in the world around us, or design is about improving the social condition, or design is even about making stuff look good, then not solving problems may be a useful way of thinking about the discipline. Instead, the goal might be to understand problems, or to describe problems, or to have meaningful moments with problems, or to ignore problems and instead understand or describe or have meaningful moments with the designed world, or to add socio-political commentary about the designed world.

With that in mind, a design education would be to prepare students to do those things, and there are all sorts of useful ways to teach that. I think a lot of those things are already taught in foundations classes and in classes focused on qualitative research. An intro to photography would certainly hit on this. So would a drawing class. Any systems class teaches this. Advanced design studios teach this. The difference would be to remove the making of things to an end of practicality. I'm lost on the need for complexity theory here, although I do appreciate a lot of these qualities. These are qualities in different design programs, too, and it speaks to the ethos and goal of the program. If a student wants to go into a deeply politically-motivated educational program, and does it eyes-wide-open about the less-likely lack of employment at graduation, go for it.

So, complexity for positivism; I can work with that as a model. But what does complexity theory mean? There's no real in-depth discussion of this, and if I hadn't gone down the tangential James Gleick path in college, I would have literally no idea what he was talking about. I think he's really focusing on a way of thinking in systems. It would be more effective here to probably be more specific, and to show some examples of how this would show up in a design studio experience for students. What would they do? What would an assignment look like?

So many big claims, though, and haphazardly around the "leap in the dark." I think but am not sure that the author is trying to show that if educators are struggling to show the value of design to their institutions, it is because there's a big part of the design process based on this invisible, irrational leap, and that he calls this a lack of intellectual rigor.

I've heard lots of reasons why educational institutions don't value or respect design, but I've never heard once that an administrator has spent enough time and investigative detail into what is being taught in a studio to understand, much less critique, the need for some creative leaps. Instead, I expect that design doesn't get respect in universities because it doesn't bring in enough money (or has shitty margins.) I'm not sure what to do with the claim that design just lacks intellectual rigor, either.

My shift in reading focus from critique to studio culture is not off to a great start here.