- Email: [email protected]
Guidelines or aesthetics: design learning strategies
Guidelines or aesthetics: design learning strategies Erik Stolterman, Department of Informatics, University of Umefi, 901 87 Umefi, Sweden
This paper presents, as a theoretical vehicle, a simple dichotomy based on the concepts of the guideline approach and the aesthetics approach to design education. The dichotomy is used to deepen the understanding of design work and as a way of relating the question of design learning strategy to the historical controversy between the ideals of the Romantic and the Enlightenment traditions. The paper argues that the education of designers can be interpreted and understood to be based on some presuppositions about the nature of design work. It is concluded that design education should have as its first goal, to help design students to develop an intellectual capacity and to support them with necessary theoretical tools to be able to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice. Keywords: design education, aesthetics, rationality
o design a design education is a difficult task. What makes a good designer? What knowledge is needed? What is design skill? How is it possible to transfer skill from an experienced to an inexperienced designer? These are questions associated with the choice of learning strategy. There is no single, easy answer to these questions and maybe that is why it is possible to find such a diversity within different design education areas. One major difference is manifested in the way the relation and importance of practical training as opposed to the need of theoretical knowledge is treated within different learning strategies. Why is it that some designers are educated as if they only need to practice an art until they reach the level of a master, and some are educated as if they only need theoretical knowledge?
T
In this paper I will argue that the education of designers always can be interpreted and understood as based on some presuppositions about the nature of design work. Every area of design practice is dominated by its history. The customs and traditions reflect certain ideals and values and every design area is characterized by its own view on what constitues
448
0142-694X/94/040448-11 © 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
design knowledge and design skill. One conclusion is that design education should have as its first goal: to help design students to develop an intellectual capacity and to support them with the necessary theoretical tools to give them the ability to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice, and to help them realize that all design practice is a result of a design process and it is therefore possible to change and redesign it. In order to make my point I will present a simple dichotomy and use it to emphasize some important aspects of design learning. I will discuss two approaches: the guideline approach and the aesthetics approach. These approaches are, of course, idealized and simplified concepts. The power of idealized theoretical concepts is not that they necessarily tell us something about reality, but that they tell us something about our own ways of thinking about reality. Nevertheless, these constructions reflect some presuppositions about the nature of design work and design skill and they might, used in the right way, help us to reach some understanding of the diversity of design learning strategies. I want to analyse design learning as a philosophical and cultural phenomenon where the question of design learning strategy is seen as a conscious choice based on ideals and values as to what kind of society we want. I will use the presented dichotomy as a vehicle to discuss some of the more fundamental theoretical assumptions underlying the choice of a design learning strategy.
I The 'guideline' approach The guideline approach is based on the idea of the possibility of guiding the designer through the design process with the help of prescriptive guidelines. The design process is seen as the problem of finding the way from a present problematic state to a future desirable state. The approach is based on some assumptions which are not too obvious. 1) The irrational practice It is almost undisputed that a design process should be performed in a rational way, though there are many ideas explaining what constitutes rational action. According to the guideline approach, design practice, as performed by the practitioners, is something carried out in a very irrational way. One piece of evidence is that it seems to be very difficult to understand the rationale behind the actions of the practitioners, they seem to behave in a way which does not show what are believed to be the obvious and 'natural' signs of rational actions. Another evidence of the irrational practice is the well-known fact that the result of a design process
Guidelines or aesthetics
449
seems almost impossible to foresee. If design practice was performed rationally then this would not be the case. Based on these two observations, the irrational practice and the unpredictable design process, it is obvious, from the guideline approach point of view, that the designer needs to be guided through the process. 2) Transferable rationality According to this approach rationality is something which it is possible to describe, pack, unpack and use. The idea is that these detached and described rational actions could be used as guidelines changing an irrational practice into a rational process. One important feature of these guidelines is that it is possible to formulate them as generic design principles and therefore they do not depend on a specific designer or design situation. It thus becomes possible to externalize the rationality of design work, which means that the secrets of a skilful designer could be formulated as guidelines and transferred to an inexperienced designer. 3) The role of the designer Since it is difficult, within the guideline approach, to find the way to a design solution the designer is always in need of external suggestions and guidelines on how to act in order to be rational. The success of a design process thus becomes a result of good external guidelines and methods and a good designer thus becomes someone with the ability to follow prescribed actions. According to the guideline approach it is of interest to make the design process as little dependent as possible on the designer. In the extreme case this will lead to the situation where the designer is no longer a designer but merely an operator.
1 Humphrey, W S Managing the software process Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA (1989) 2 Avlson, D E and Fitzgerald, G Information systems developmsnt, methodologies, techniques and tools Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, (1988)
450
4) Process-oriented The guideline approach focuses to a large extent on the process. The approach is process-oriented in the sense that it is assumed that by controlling the design process it is possible to control the result. This is a common view within the field of quality assurance and especially within information systems design 1'2. The idea is simple and straightforward. If the design process is carried out in the 'right' rational way, the result will have the expected and wanted qualities. Based on this assumption, the main issue in design learning becomes to teach designers to read, understand and be able to follow guidelines (in the form of methods, techniques, standards etc.). The design process is, within the guideline approach, also viewed as a process producing a right or wrong answer or solution. It is therefore possible to check if a proposed design really is a solution or not. The design becomes a map which can always be compared and tested against the reality.
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
2
The aesthetics approach
The aesthetics approach is based on the idea that a designer can only be 'guided' through the design process by his own ideals and values. Some other fundamental assumptions are, for example:
1) The rationality of design practice According to this approach people succeed in their design work, despite the fact that it takes place in a very complex reality. It is assumed that even if the apparent behaviour in design practice does not show the common signs of rational work, a skilled designer still acts according to some kind of rationality. His behaviour is possible to understand as based on rational thinking and rational decisions, because there exists something we might label as the hidden rationality of design practice 3'4.
3 Stolterman, E Designarbetets dolda rationalitet - En studie av metodik och praktik inom systemutveckling (The hidden rationale of design work - a study in the methodology and practice of system development). Doctoral thesis, Institute of Information Processing, University of Ume~, report nr: RRIPCS: 14.91, (1991) 4/~yrl=, C Reasoning, /earning and action - individual and organizational Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1982) 5 Sch6n, D Educating the reflective practitioner Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1987) 6 Suchman, L Plans and situated actions: the problems of human-machine communication Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987) 7 Geeparski, W 'On praxiology of preparatory actions' InL J. General Syst., Vol 13 (1987) 345-353 8 Hebermaa, J The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society Beacon, Boston (1984) g Relmher, N Rationality, a phiiosophioal inquiry into the nature and the rationale of reason Clarendon Press, Oxford (1988) 10 Sch6n, D 'Learning to design and designing to learn' Proceedings International conference on theohes and methods of design, (Ed R KwlNnlan), 13-15 May 1992, Gothenburg University, Sweden (1993)
Guidelines or aesthetics
2) Situated actions It is possible to describe design work as if the designer were responding to a design situation 5 and it is thereby characterized as situated actions 6. A designer has to react according to the specific situation and there is nothing generic about the process. The designer has to be well prepared to be able to act in the specific situation 7. 3) The role of the designer The designer needs a well-developed ability to judge quality. In every moment of the design process he has to choose what he believes is the best way to reach his goal. He must have the ability to recognize and understand quality, i.e. to have a taste of his own. A designer is first of all guided by his aesthetics and not by some kind of theoretical externalized guidelines. His action is still rational according to his goals and ideals. This implies a broader interpretation of the concept of rationality 5'8"9. 4) Product-oriented The aesthetics approach is focused on the product, it is product-oriented. It is assumed that knowledge and ideas about the product will correctly lead the designer. According to this approach the design process in itself is no problem. A well-prepared designer is a designer with a developed notion and feeling for what constitutes a good solution. A strong vision is the force that will drive the designer in the right direction, that will make him 'react' to the design situation in the best possible way. The only way to guarantee a good product is to prepare the designer so well that he will be able to handle every kind of unexpected and changing circumstance 7'1°. Within the aesthetics approach there is no right or wrong solution, only good or bad designs and there is no way to guarantee a good product.
451
The differences between these two approaches are quite radical and maybe even obvious. My experience is that people advocating one or other of these approaches seldom have, or at least express, any deeper understanding of their historical background. Since almost everybody involved in design practice and in design learning has their own theories, ideas and preconceptions on the nature of design work, this dichotomy can be used to structure these ideas in a way that is easy to comprehend and without any request for prior knowledge of advanced philosophical thinking. Since the dichotomy could be interpreted and understood as an example and 'result' of a historical and much more general and widespread conflict it may serve as a way to deepen the understanding of design work and design learning.
3 The Romantic-Enlightenment conflict One way to examine the two approaches about the nature of design work is to interpret them as a reminiscence of the historical conflict between the Romantic tradition and the Enlightenment tradition. Both traditions could be characterized as broad cultural streams of thoughts, based on philosophical ideas manifested in many cultural areas, such as literature and art but also in the political, economic and sociological spheres. Romanticism, as a reaction against the strong Enlightenment tradition, is maybe more difficult to describe, since the fundamental ideas in this movement are very diverse and subtle. It is possible, and not uncommon, to portray the major conflicts between these movements first of all as a result of their view on reason, nature and progress. It is outside the scope of this article to elaborate on the finer distinctions, since my purpose allows me to use a layman's simple preconception about these movements. So, in this context a quite straightforward and easy-to-grasp description is needed. The Enlightenmentis a goal-directed, problem-solving, cognitive enterprise in search of the objective truth about the world, society and man, on which to found its projects of change. Romanticism is a process-oriented, inspired, expressive movement inviting us to participate in bold constructions of uninhibitedutopias. The Enlightenmenthas a strong sense of reality. Romanticism pushes further the frontiers of the possible. The Enlightenment, as an epoch in our history, is the era of map-making. Romanticism of world-makingS1.
11 Dahlbom, B 'The idea that reality is socially constructed' University of Gothenburg, Department of Philosophy (1990) 12 Colllngwood, R G The idea of history Oxford University Press, Oxlord (1946)
452
Even if these two cultural and philosophical traditions are long since gone, at least according to the philosophical textbooks, it is possible to assume that their fundamental ideas still influence our thinking12. We live in and by the theoretical and ideological remains from their period of greatness. Over time the conflict and the debate has constantly changed its expressions and manifested itself in different opinions and schools of thought.
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
A n d by an analysis of contemporary attempts to present new strategies of design learning it is possible to see the resemblance with this historical conflict. The same kind of reasoning and argument is still used, but unfortunately with less accuracy and precision, and is not as well elaborated as by some of the forefathers of the debate. The Romantic and the Enlightenment traditions have a lot in common with the two approaches earlier presented. It seems natural to relate the guideline approach to the Enlightenment tradition and the aesthetics approach to the Romantic tradition. If we regard these approaches as varations on the historical debate it is not surprising that the conflicts between the two are firm and well grounded and that each side in the debate finds itself quite safe and with a considerable amount of self confidence. Every person advocating one or other of the two approaches can 'feel' that he is actually 'standing' on a long tradition of thought. A person stating that he believes in and would like to rely on concepts such as intuition and judgement instead of pure and abstract reason as the major source of true knowledge could find support for his beliefs, for instance, by reading Schiller 13, one of the fathers of the Romantic movement. A conclusion of this reasoning might be that even though there exists some kind of discussion on design learning strategies it is seldom viewed as related to more fundamental and 'eternal' questions such as the nature of rationality, creativity, aesthetics and ethics (there are alternatives, e.g. Nelsonl4). Still, it also seems plausible that today's ideas of design learning reflect and are the 'results' of a long historical theoretical debate. It is my belief that a thorough study of the historical roots of our ideas would definitely contribute to and deepen our understanding of design learning.
4 1 3 Schiller, F 'On the aesthetic education of man in a series of letters' (1795), in M RlKler (Ed) A modem book of aesthetics: an anthology Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1973 14 Nelson, H G 'Critical and creative systems thinking and systems education' in B H Benathy and B A Banethy (Eds), Proc. of the ISSS Int. Society for the Systems Sciences 34th Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon, 8-13 July 1990
Guidelines or aesthetics
An example and an interpretation
A famous conflict in the history of design education can be used as a good example of the clash between the above approaches. Today almost nobody questions the idea that the education of an engineer should be based on theoretical and scientific knowledge. This is, however, historically a quite new idea. When the first engineering schools were established the engineer was seen as a craftsmen, an artisan. The education was first of all committed to practical training where the student was supposed to design and construct things in wood or iron. From the beginning these schools were established as parts of art schools. While this was happening in the education systems in different parts of Europe, a new picture of science and of the researcher was about to rise. This was the idea of the
453
scientist as a person able, based on scientific knowledge, to tell the practitioners, the artisans, how to do their work. Earlier the scientist had not been associated with any kind of practice and the practitioner could not understand how pure scientific knowledge could help him perform his practice. So, sometime around 1800 a new type of engineer appeared, the theoretically and scientifically trained engineer. This new education strategy was manifested by the new Ecole Polytechnique in France. Since then the theoretical dominance in education has been growing. Today the education of engineers, at least in Europe, is almost totally dominated by the idea of the superiority of theoretical knowledge over the practical knowledge obtained by doing. This short historical story tells us some important things. For instance, it reminds us that the idea of the rational and scientifically trained problem solver is quite a new idea. We might even assume that the conflict between the belief in theoretical versus practical knowledge still exists. So, when people today debate the education of engineers they are actually continuing a long historical debate.
5 Design learning - a matter o f guidelines or aesthetics? Perhaps the question in the heading is wrongly put. Perhaps it is not a simple choice between two dominating paradigms. My discussion and description above of the two approaches and the two traditions has one major purpose. My belief is that if we elaborate on the differences between these approaches we will be 'forced' to deepen and broaden our reflections and thoughts on the question of design learning and design practice. In this way even a simple dichotomy may function as a suitable and powerful theoretical vehicle. Before returning to the question of whether as a basis for a design learning strategy we should choose the guideline or the aesthetic approach, I will briefly discuss another question. On what fundamental assumptions do people make their choice of design learning strategy? It is obvious that the choice is not a completely conscious choice based on rational arguments. It is also a choice which is strongly contextually biased. This context could in a simple way be discussed using the concepts: tradition, practice and preconception. Tradition It is not unusual for a specific design learning strategy to be legitimized by explicitly referring to a long tradition and history. This is done in the belief that over time the best way of educating designers in a specific design area has been crystallized and refined. But tradition could also be
454
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
seen as a nonchoice option, i.e. if no explicit choice is made then the learning strategy will remain the same as before. Tradition is a conservative power in this choice situation, which has both good and bad implications. A n unreflective acceptance of a tradition is not more valuable than an unreflective break with tradition.
Practice Another way to legitimize a design learning strategy is by using arguments such as 'this is how it is done in practice'. This is often the case within design areas where the learning strategy is to let the student 'live the life' of a real designer, i.e. the education is first of all based on practical training as similar as possible to the real thing. Practice will heavily influence the choice of a learning strategy in a specific design area if that area has not developed its theoretical foundations or if the area is dominated by a strong community of practitioners. It sometimes seems as if the purpose of this kind of design education is to 'shape' students to fit perfectly into an existing practice. Students that easily fit into the existing practice will soon be able to contribute to that practice, but at the same time design education will never take an active part in the development and design of the design practice.
Preconception In many design areas both designers and laymen have strong preconceptions about different design practices. In contrast to practice mentioned above which is focused on the hands-on practical 'visible' aspects of practice (for instance, the techniques, methods, tools, etc.), preconceptions are mostly focused on how we perceive a designer within a specific design area (an artist, an engineer, an architect, an information systems designer, etc.) and on what constitutes his skill and knowledge. These preconceptions play an important role when the design learning strategy of a certain education is formulated. Education is seen as a way to prepare students to face practice and practice is often associated with the dominating preconceptions. These preconceptions are not a complete or true picture of the design practice or of the designer, still they have a strong influence. My point here is that the context where the strategic choices on design learning are made heavily influences the choice, and that tradition, practice and preconceptions are three important aspects of that context. In order to understand the way a specific design area educates new designers an analysis of the prevailing context based on these aspects could be useful. Even if these three aspects are all important, I would like to elaborate a little more on the concept of preconceptions and their role.
Guidelines or aesthetics
455
Preconceptions about, for instance, an engineer and an artist are radically different. According to these common preconceptions (held both by the professionals in the field and by others) the engineer and the artist live in disparate worlds of practice shaped by different ideas of what constitutes rational work, skill, knowledge, methods, techniques etc. There is also an obvious difference in the preconception concerning personal qualities characterising the engineer and the artist. It seems reasonable to assume that these preconceptions, though they are not scientific knowledge, still heavily influence the choice of design learning strategies. As an example we can take a look at the strategy behind the education of an artist, for instance a painter. Usually, at art schools, the artist student is not expected to learn a lot of theoretical knowledge, especially not methods on how to perform the artistic process, (this description is based on the situation in Sweden and may, of course, vary in other countries). The art student is viewed as a person who should be allowed to develop his own personality, style and taste. This is done by letting him experiment with and by his methods and possibilities. The teacher's role is only to discuss the student's products. The process on how to reach a certain product is given very little attention. In these schools words like rationality, creativity, knowledge are seldom reflected upon in an intellectual manner. Once a person is indoctrinated into the preconceptions dominating a specific design area it is difficult to change that person's view of practice. Though a lot of design education is directed towards the goal of 'designing' the good designer characterized by a creative, innovative and open mind with a critical sense of quality, it seems to me that this goal is only partially fulfilled. The student achieves perhaps some of the qualities aimed at, but only those qualities regarded as important in and by practice. The students will not be challenged to do a critical study of their future practice, to reflect on the current and dominating ideals and conceptions. This will in the longer view lead to a stagnation of design practice. It will also mean that in the future, practice will look for people from outside their own area in order to obtain new ideas and new perspectives on the goals, ideals and techniques of practice. Returning to the question of guidelines versus aesthetics, the question has not been resolved, instead it may disappear, as not being the appropriate question. Both the guideline and the aesthetics approach could be used as a strategy to indoctrinate new designers: the guideline approach by prescribing how to perform the design process and how to act in specific situations, and the aesthetics approach by carefully selecting the styles and
456
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
exemplars used to build the aesthetic feeling within the new designer. Neither of the approaches could easily be judged as being conservative or radical in their attempts to form new designers. If that is the case, a possible answer, to the question on what approach to chose, might be that since design learning in itself is a design process, it has to be based on a conscious notion of what is expected from a new designer. It is possible within both approaches to produce new designers unable to question the prevalent practice, unable to reflect upon their own preconceptions and ideals, unable to formulate radical new ways to carry out the design work, only able to be a smoothly functioning part of present practice. So, what then is the goal in design learning that has to be fulfilled in every design learning strategy? It is not a matter of how the education is actually carried out, i.e. whether it is theoretically based or based on training. First of all it is a question of bringing knowledge about design work to the student. It is a difference between knowledge in design work and knowledge about design work. It is important that they understand design work as being itself a designed product which it is always possible to redesign and to realize that practitioners always and constantly have the possibility and obligation to reflect and judge upon how the work is best done. This presupposes a thorough understanding of the nature of: tradition, practice and preconceptions. This is definitely needed if we want a designer with an open and reflective mind who has a chance of breaking with old ways of doing design and may thereby be more able to handle a complex and changing reality. But, it is also needed if we want designers who are able to continue within a tradition and with the ability to understand its benefits and strengths.
6 Conclusions The design of a design learning strategy is a complex task with a lot of important aspects to consider. My point is that every design education should have as one of its major goals, to stimulate a continuous process of reflection on the nature and preconceptions of design work in general and in the specific design area.
15 Gregory, W 'Designing educational systems: A critical systems approach' in Systems Pract/ce Vol 6 No 2 (1993) 199-210
Guidelines or aesthetics
It is not only knowledge about how to design that is needed, to be a good designer, it is also of utmost importance to have knowledge about design. It is necessary to have the intellectual capacity and the theoretical tools to be able to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice (a variation on this idea is presented by Gregory 15 with her concept of cognitive emancipation). The only way to do this is by questioning the traditions and values predominant in the specific design area. I have suggested that one way to achieve this is to use a theoretical
457
construction such as the idea of the conflict between the guideline and the aesthetics approach. Design learning should not be a process of conservation where an existing practice is taken for granted and as the only answer. Design learning is not only a question of a simple transfer of established knowledge from experienced to inexperienced designers. Design learning should strive towards the situation where new designers constantly reflect upon and critically examine their design practice. They should regard the design" practice itself as a result of a design process and therefore possible to change and redesign. Design learning is in itself a design process. It should be a creative and self-creating process where future designers are given the opportunity to develop their own ideas of what reason, aesthetics and ethics they want to be 'guided' by in their design work.
458
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
This paper presents, as a theoretical vehicle, a simple dichotomy based on the concepts of the guideline approach and the aesthetics approach to design education. The dichotomy is used to deepen the understanding of design work and as a way of relating the question of design learning strategy to the historical controversy between the ideals of the Romantic and the Enlightenment traditions. The paper argues that the education of designers can be interpreted and understood to be based on some presuppositions about the nature of design work. It is concluded that design education should have as its first goal, to help design students to develop an intellectual capacity and to support them with necessary theoretical tools to be able to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice. Keywords: design education, aesthetics, rationality
o design a design education is a difficult task. What makes a good designer? What knowledge is needed? What is design skill? How is it possible to transfer skill from an experienced to an inexperienced designer? These are questions associated with the choice of learning strategy. There is no single, easy answer to these questions and maybe that is why it is possible to find such a diversity within different design education areas. One major difference is manifested in the way the relation and importance of practical training as opposed to the need of theoretical knowledge is treated within different learning strategies. Why is it that some designers are educated as if they only need to practice an art until they reach the level of a master, and some are educated as if they only need theoretical knowledge?
T
In this paper I will argue that the education of designers always can be interpreted and understood as based on some presuppositions about the nature of design work. Every area of design practice is dominated by its history. The customs and traditions reflect certain ideals and values and every design area is characterized by its own view on what constitues
448
0142-694X/94/040448-11 © 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
design knowledge and design skill. One conclusion is that design education should have as its first goal: to help design students to develop an intellectual capacity and to support them with the necessary theoretical tools to give them the ability to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice, and to help them realize that all design practice is a result of a design process and it is therefore possible to change and redesign it. In order to make my point I will present a simple dichotomy and use it to emphasize some important aspects of design learning. I will discuss two approaches: the guideline approach and the aesthetics approach. These approaches are, of course, idealized and simplified concepts. The power of idealized theoretical concepts is not that they necessarily tell us something about reality, but that they tell us something about our own ways of thinking about reality. Nevertheless, these constructions reflect some presuppositions about the nature of design work and design skill and they might, used in the right way, help us to reach some understanding of the diversity of design learning strategies. I want to analyse design learning as a philosophical and cultural phenomenon where the question of design learning strategy is seen as a conscious choice based on ideals and values as to what kind of society we want. I will use the presented dichotomy as a vehicle to discuss some of the more fundamental theoretical assumptions underlying the choice of a design learning strategy.
I The 'guideline' approach The guideline approach is based on the idea of the possibility of guiding the designer through the design process with the help of prescriptive guidelines. The design process is seen as the problem of finding the way from a present problematic state to a future desirable state. The approach is based on some assumptions which are not too obvious. 1) The irrational practice It is almost undisputed that a design process should be performed in a rational way, though there are many ideas explaining what constitutes rational action. According to the guideline approach, design practice, as performed by the practitioners, is something carried out in a very irrational way. One piece of evidence is that it seems to be very difficult to understand the rationale behind the actions of the practitioners, they seem to behave in a way which does not show what are believed to be the obvious and 'natural' signs of rational actions. Another evidence of the irrational practice is the well-known fact that the result of a design process
Guidelines or aesthetics
449
seems almost impossible to foresee. If design practice was performed rationally then this would not be the case. Based on these two observations, the irrational practice and the unpredictable design process, it is obvious, from the guideline approach point of view, that the designer needs to be guided through the process. 2) Transferable rationality According to this approach rationality is something which it is possible to describe, pack, unpack and use. The idea is that these detached and described rational actions could be used as guidelines changing an irrational practice into a rational process. One important feature of these guidelines is that it is possible to formulate them as generic design principles and therefore they do not depend on a specific designer or design situation. It thus becomes possible to externalize the rationality of design work, which means that the secrets of a skilful designer could be formulated as guidelines and transferred to an inexperienced designer. 3) The role of the designer Since it is difficult, within the guideline approach, to find the way to a design solution the designer is always in need of external suggestions and guidelines on how to act in order to be rational. The success of a design process thus becomes a result of good external guidelines and methods and a good designer thus becomes someone with the ability to follow prescribed actions. According to the guideline approach it is of interest to make the design process as little dependent as possible on the designer. In the extreme case this will lead to the situation where the designer is no longer a designer but merely an operator.
1 Humphrey, W S Managing the software process Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA (1989) 2 Avlson, D E and Fitzgerald, G Information systems developmsnt, methodologies, techniques and tools Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, (1988)
450
4) Process-oriented The guideline approach focuses to a large extent on the process. The approach is process-oriented in the sense that it is assumed that by controlling the design process it is possible to control the result. This is a common view within the field of quality assurance and especially within information systems design 1'2. The idea is simple and straightforward. If the design process is carried out in the 'right' rational way, the result will have the expected and wanted qualities. Based on this assumption, the main issue in design learning becomes to teach designers to read, understand and be able to follow guidelines (in the form of methods, techniques, standards etc.). The design process is, within the guideline approach, also viewed as a process producing a right or wrong answer or solution. It is therefore possible to check if a proposed design really is a solution or not. The design becomes a map which can always be compared and tested against the reality.
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
2
The aesthetics approach
The aesthetics approach is based on the idea that a designer can only be 'guided' through the design process by his own ideals and values. Some other fundamental assumptions are, for example:
1) The rationality of design practice According to this approach people succeed in their design work, despite the fact that it takes place in a very complex reality. It is assumed that even if the apparent behaviour in design practice does not show the common signs of rational work, a skilled designer still acts according to some kind of rationality. His behaviour is possible to understand as based on rational thinking and rational decisions, because there exists something we might label as the hidden rationality of design practice 3'4.
3 Stolterman, E Designarbetets dolda rationalitet - En studie av metodik och praktik inom systemutveckling (The hidden rationale of design work - a study in the methodology and practice of system development). Doctoral thesis, Institute of Information Processing, University of Ume~, report nr: RRIPCS: 14.91, (1991) 4/~yrl=, C Reasoning, /earning and action - individual and organizational Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1982) 5 Sch6n, D Educating the reflective practitioner Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1987) 6 Suchman, L Plans and situated actions: the problems of human-machine communication Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987) 7 Geeparski, W 'On praxiology of preparatory actions' InL J. General Syst., Vol 13 (1987) 345-353 8 Hebermaa, J The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society Beacon, Boston (1984) g Relmher, N Rationality, a phiiosophioal inquiry into the nature and the rationale of reason Clarendon Press, Oxford (1988) 10 Sch6n, D 'Learning to design and designing to learn' Proceedings International conference on theohes and methods of design, (Ed R KwlNnlan), 13-15 May 1992, Gothenburg University, Sweden (1993)
Guidelines or aesthetics
2) Situated actions It is possible to describe design work as if the designer were responding to a design situation 5 and it is thereby characterized as situated actions 6. A designer has to react according to the specific situation and there is nothing generic about the process. The designer has to be well prepared to be able to act in the specific situation 7. 3) The role of the designer The designer needs a well-developed ability to judge quality. In every moment of the design process he has to choose what he believes is the best way to reach his goal. He must have the ability to recognize and understand quality, i.e. to have a taste of his own. A designer is first of all guided by his aesthetics and not by some kind of theoretical externalized guidelines. His action is still rational according to his goals and ideals. This implies a broader interpretation of the concept of rationality 5'8"9. 4) Product-oriented The aesthetics approach is focused on the product, it is product-oriented. It is assumed that knowledge and ideas about the product will correctly lead the designer. According to this approach the design process in itself is no problem. A well-prepared designer is a designer with a developed notion and feeling for what constitutes a good solution. A strong vision is the force that will drive the designer in the right direction, that will make him 'react' to the design situation in the best possible way. The only way to guarantee a good product is to prepare the designer so well that he will be able to handle every kind of unexpected and changing circumstance 7'1°. Within the aesthetics approach there is no right or wrong solution, only good or bad designs and there is no way to guarantee a good product.
451
The differences between these two approaches are quite radical and maybe even obvious. My experience is that people advocating one or other of these approaches seldom have, or at least express, any deeper understanding of their historical background. Since almost everybody involved in design practice and in design learning has their own theories, ideas and preconceptions on the nature of design work, this dichotomy can be used to structure these ideas in a way that is easy to comprehend and without any request for prior knowledge of advanced philosophical thinking. Since the dichotomy could be interpreted and understood as an example and 'result' of a historical and much more general and widespread conflict it may serve as a way to deepen the understanding of design work and design learning.
3 The Romantic-Enlightenment conflict One way to examine the two approaches about the nature of design work is to interpret them as a reminiscence of the historical conflict between the Romantic tradition and the Enlightenment tradition. Both traditions could be characterized as broad cultural streams of thoughts, based on philosophical ideas manifested in many cultural areas, such as literature and art but also in the political, economic and sociological spheres. Romanticism, as a reaction against the strong Enlightenment tradition, is maybe more difficult to describe, since the fundamental ideas in this movement are very diverse and subtle. It is possible, and not uncommon, to portray the major conflicts between these movements first of all as a result of their view on reason, nature and progress. It is outside the scope of this article to elaborate on the finer distinctions, since my purpose allows me to use a layman's simple preconception about these movements. So, in this context a quite straightforward and easy-to-grasp description is needed. The Enlightenmentis a goal-directed, problem-solving, cognitive enterprise in search of the objective truth about the world, society and man, on which to found its projects of change. Romanticism is a process-oriented, inspired, expressive movement inviting us to participate in bold constructions of uninhibitedutopias. The Enlightenmenthas a strong sense of reality. Romanticism pushes further the frontiers of the possible. The Enlightenment, as an epoch in our history, is the era of map-making. Romanticism of world-makingS1.
11 Dahlbom, B 'The idea that reality is socially constructed' University of Gothenburg, Department of Philosophy (1990) 12 Colllngwood, R G The idea of history Oxford University Press, Oxlord (1946)
452
Even if these two cultural and philosophical traditions are long since gone, at least according to the philosophical textbooks, it is possible to assume that their fundamental ideas still influence our thinking12. We live in and by the theoretical and ideological remains from their period of greatness. Over time the conflict and the debate has constantly changed its expressions and manifested itself in different opinions and schools of thought.
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
A n d by an analysis of contemporary attempts to present new strategies of design learning it is possible to see the resemblance with this historical conflict. The same kind of reasoning and argument is still used, but unfortunately with less accuracy and precision, and is not as well elaborated as by some of the forefathers of the debate. The Romantic and the Enlightenment traditions have a lot in common with the two approaches earlier presented. It seems natural to relate the guideline approach to the Enlightenment tradition and the aesthetics approach to the Romantic tradition. If we regard these approaches as varations on the historical debate it is not surprising that the conflicts between the two are firm and well grounded and that each side in the debate finds itself quite safe and with a considerable amount of self confidence. Every person advocating one or other of the two approaches can 'feel' that he is actually 'standing' on a long tradition of thought. A person stating that he believes in and would like to rely on concepts such as intuition and judgement instead of pure and abstract reason as the major source of true knowledge could find support for his beliefs, for instance, by reading Schiller 13, one of the fathers of the Romantic movement. A conclusion of this reasoning might be that even though there exists some kind of discussion on design learning strategies it is seldom viewed as related to more fundamental and 'eternal' questions such as the nature of rationality, creativity, aesthetics and ethics (there are alternatives, e.g. Nelsonl4). Still, it also seems plausible that today's ideas of design learning reflect and are the 'results' of a long historical theoretical debate. It is my belief that a thorough study of the historical roots of our ideas would definitely contribute to and deepen our understanding of design learning.
4 1 3 Schiller, F 'On the aesthetic education of man in a series of letters' (1795), in M RlKler (Ed) A modem book of aesthetics: an anthology Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1973 14 Nelson, H G 'Critical and creative systems thinking and systems education' in B H Benathy and B A Banethy (Eds), Proc. of the ISSS Int. Society for the Systems Sciences 34th Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon, 8-13 July 1990
Guidelines or aesthetics
An example and an interpretation
A famous conflict in the history of design education can be used as a good example of the clash between the above approaches. Today almost nobody questions the idea that the education of an engineer should be based on theoretical and scientific knowledge. This is, however, historically a quite new idea. When the first engineering schools were established the engineer was seen as a craftsmen, an artisan. The education was first of all committed to practical training where the student was supposed to design and construct things in wood or iron. From the beginning these schools were established as parts of art schools. While this was happening in the education systems in different parts of Europe, a new picture of science and of the researcher was about to rise. This was the idea of the
453
scientist as a person able, based on scientific knowledge, to tell the practitioners, the artisans, how to do their work. Earlier the scientist had not been associated with any kind of practice and the practitioner could not understand how pure scientific knowledge could help him perform his practice. So, sometime around 1800 a new type of engineer appeared, the theoretically and scientifically trained engineer. This new education strategy was manifested by the new Ecole Polytechnique in France. Since then the theoretical dominance in education has been growing. Today the education of engineers, at least in Europe, is almost totally dominated by the idea of the superiority of theoretical knowledge over the practical knowledge obtained by doing. This short historical story tells us some important things. For instance, it reminds us that the idea of the rational and scientifically trained problem solver is quite a new idea. We might even assume that the conflict between the belief in theoretical versus practical knowledge still exists. So, when people today debate the education of engineers they are actually continuing a long historical debate.
5 Design learning - a matter o f guidelines or aesthetics? Perhaps the question in the heading is wrongly put. Perhaps it is not a simple choice between two dominating paradigms. My discussion and description above of the two approaches and the two traditions has one major purpose. My belief is that if we elaborate on the differences between these approaches we will be 'forced' to deepen and broaden our reflections and thoughts on the question of design learning and design practice. In this way even a simple dichotomy may function as a suitable and powerful theoretical vehicle. Before returning to the question of whether as a basis for a design learning strategy we should choose the guideline or the aesthetic approach, I will briefly discuss another question. On what fundamental assumptions do people make their choice of design learning strategy? It is obvious that the choice is not a completely conscious choice based on rational arguments. It is also a choice which is strongly contextually biased. This context could in a simple way be discussed using the concepts: tradition, practice and preconception. Tradition It is not unusual for a specific design learning strategy to be legitimized by explicitly referring to a long tradition and history. This is done in the belief that over time the best way of educating designers in a specific design area has been crystallized and refined. But tradition could also be
454
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
seen as a nonchoice option, i.e. if no explicit choice is made then the learning strategy will remain the same as before. Tradition is a conservative power in this choice situation, which has both good and bad implications. A n unreflective acceptance of a tradition is not more valuable than an unreflective break with tradition.
Practice Another way to legitimize a design learning strategy is by using arguments such as 'this is how it is done in practice'. This is often the case within design areas where the learning strategy is to let the student 'live the life' of a real designer, i.e. the education is first of all based on practical training as similar as possible to the real thing. Practice will heavily influence the choice of a learning strategy in a specific design area if that area has not developed its theoretical foundations or if the area is dominated by a strong community of practitioners. It sometimes seems as if the purpose of this kind of design education is to 'shape' students to fit perfectly into an existing practice. Students that easily fit into the existing practice will soon be able to contribute to that practice, but at the same time design education will never take an active part in the development and design of the design practice.
Preconception In many design areas both designers and laymen have strong preconceptions about different design practices. In contrast to practice mentioned above which is focused on the hands-on practical 'visible' aspects of practice (for instance, the techniques, methods, tools, etc.), preconceptions are mostly focused on how we perceive a designer within a specific design area (an artist, an engineer, an architect, an information systems designer, etc.) and on what constitutes his skill and knowledge. These preconceptions play an important role when the design learning strategy of a certain education is formulated. Education is seen as a way to prepare students to face practice and practice is often associated with the dominating preconceptions. These preconceptions are not a complete or true picture of the design practice or of the designer, still they have a strong influence. My point here is that the context where the strategic choices on design learning are made heavily influences the choice, and that tradition, practice and preconceptions are three important aspects of that context. In order to understand the way a specific design area educates new designers an analysis of the prevailing context based on these aspects could be useful. Even if these three aspects are all important, I would like to elaborate a little more on the concept of preconceptions and their role.
Guidelines or aesthetics
455
Preconceptions about, for instance, an engineer and an artist are radically different. According to these common preconceptions (held both by the professionals in the field and by others) the engineer and the artist live in disparate worlds of practice shaped by different ideas of what constitutes rational work, skill, knowledge, methods, techniques etc. There is also an obvious difference in the preconception concerning personal qualities characterising the engineer and the artist. It seems reasonable to assume that these preconceptions, though they are not scientific knowledge, still heavily influence the choice of design learning strategies. As an example we can take a look at the strategy behind the education of an artist, for instance a painter. Usually, at art schools, the artist student is not expected to learn a lot of theoretical knowledge, especially not methods on how to perform the artistic process, (this description is based on the situation in Sweden and may, of course, vary in other countries). The art student is viewed as a person who should be allowed to develop his own personality, style and taste. This is done by letting him experiment with and by his methods and possibilities. The teacher's role is only to discuss the student's products. The process on how to reach a certain product is given very little attention. In these schools words like rationality, creativity, knowledge are seldom reflected upon in an intellectual manner. Once a person is indoctrinated into the preconceptions dominating a specific design area it is difficult to change that person's view of practice. Though a lot of design education is directed towards the goal of 'designing' the good designer characterized by a creative, innovative and open mind with a critical sense of quality, it seems to me that this goal is only partially fulfilled. The student achieves perhaps some of the qualities aimed at, but only those qualities regarded as important in and by practice. The students will not be challenged to do a critical study of their future practice, to reflect on the current and dominating ideals and conceptions. This will in the longer view lead to a stagnation of design practice. It will also mean that in the future, practice will look for people from outside their own area in order to obtain new ideas and new perspectives on the goals, ideals and techniques of practice. Returning to the question of guidelines versus aesthetics, the question has not been resolved, instead it may disappear, as not being the appropriate question. Both the guideline and the aesthetics approach could be used as a strategy to indoctrinate new designers: the guideline approach by prescribing how to perform the design process and how to act in specific situations, and the aesthetics approach by carefully selecting the styles and
456
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994
exemplars used to build the aesthetic feeling within the new designer. Neither of the approaches could easily be judged as being conservative or radical in their attempts to form new designers. If that is the case, a possible answer, to the question on what approach to chose, might be that since design learning in itself is a design process, it has to be based on a conscious notion of what is expected from a new designer. It is possible within both approaches to produce new designers unable to question the prevalent practice, unable to reflect upon their own preconceptions and ideals, unable to formulate radical new ways to carry out the design work, only able to be a smoothly functioning part of present practice. So, what then is the goal in design learning that has to be fulfilled in every design learning strategy? It is not a matter of how the education is actually carried out, i.e. whether it is theoretically based or based on training. First of all it is a question of bringing knowledge about design work to the student. It is a difference between knowledge in design work and knowledge about design work. It is important that they understand design work as being itself a designed product which it is always possible to redesign and to realize that practitioners always and constantly have the possibility and obligation to reflect and judge upon how the work is best done. This presupposes a thorough understanding of the nature of: tradition, practice and preconceptions. This is definitely needed if we want a designer with an open and reflective mind who has a chance of breaking with old ways of doing design and may thereby be more able to handle a complex and changing reality. But, it is also needed if we want designers who are able to continue within a tradition and with the ability to understand its benefits and strengths.
6 Conclusions The design of a design learning strategy is a complex task with a lot of important aspects to consider. My point is that every design education should have as one of its major goals, to stimulate a continuous process of reflection on the nature and preconceptions of design work in general and in the specific design area.
15 Gregory, W 'Designing educational systems: A critical systems approach' in Systems Pract/ce Vol 6 No 2 (1993) 199-210
Guidelines or aesthetics
It is not only knowledge about how to design that is needed, to be a good designer, it is also of utmost importance to have knowledge about design. It is necessary to have the intellectual capacity and the theoretical tools to be able to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice (a variation on this idea is presented by Gregory 15 with her concept of cognitive emancipation). The only way to do this is by questioning the traditions and values predominant in the specific design area. I have suggested that one way to achieve this is to use a theoretical
457
construction such as the idea of the conflict between the guideline and the aesthetics approach. Design learning should not be a process of conservation where an existing practice is taken for granted and as the only answer. Design learning is not only a question of a simple transfer of established knowledge from experienced to inexperienced designers. Design learning should strive towards the situation where new designers constantly reflect upon and critically examine their design practice. They should regard the design" practice itself as a result of a design process and therefore possible to change and redesign. Design learning is in itself a design process. It should be a creative and self-creating process where future designers are given the opportunity to develop their own ideas of what reason, aesthetics and ethics they want to be 'guided' by in their design work.
458
Design Studies Vol 15 No 4 October 1994