Thanks to Don Norman for sharing the intro to his new book, in which he comments on the pervasive impact of design and suggests that the impact may not always lead to more satisfying, high-quality experiences. He goes on to suggest that there is a need to change how we teach design. While I agree with Don, I believe that the problems are not specific to Design Education. I would argue that the problems are pervasive across the board, when it comes to university education.
Current educational systems are organized around disciplines and techniques. The emphasis on HOW has left little room for consideration and discussion of WHY. The emphasis on technical skills has left little room for consideration and discussion of philosophy, little room for explorations of fundamental questions about the nature of experience. For example, I have been shocked to discover that many students trained in systems engineering are clueless about general systems thinking. And I have long regretted the emphasis in the cognitive sciences on experimental and modeling methods at the expense of considerations of the philosophical roots of the science.
Current educational systems have been designed around selling answers and solutions - rather than around exploring questions. The educational systems have been organized around authority based on POWER and POLITICS, rather than authority based on CURIOSITY and EXPERIENCE. We need new educational systems designed around LEARNING, rather than around TEACHING.
Yes, Don Norman is right, but I hope people don't place the blame exclusively on Design Education and I hope they don't look exclusively to Design Education for the solution. Perhaps, Designers are the people who are best suited to lead the revolution. But the problems Don describes will ultimately require a more pervasive change to universities. It will require us to tear down the walls that separate disciplines and it will require educators, in general, to be more humble with respect to the current answers that they are selling. It will require educators to listen more carefully to the questions their students are asking. It will require re-envisioning education to be a process of co-exploration across generational perspectives - rather than a process of passing answers and techniques from one generation to the next.
And indeed, in my book, I blame education in general.
--
But on a different topic. I hate the butterfly example. It ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or more simply the dissipative impact of friction. The disturbance caused by the butterfly has a limited radius of impact. Yes, I understand the work of chaos theory that a trivial change in a value, you know a 1-digit change in the 27th place of a decimal expansion, can have huge impact, but that is measuring the change at the target location.\, not like the butterfly example, on the other side of the world.
Yes - point well taken - but it has become a 'meme' for chaos theory that everyone recognizes. In that regard it is a useful shorthand for communicating.
And indeed, in my book, I blame education in general.
--
But on a different topic. I hate the butterfly example. It ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or more simply the dissipative impact of friction. The disturbance caused by the butterfly has a limited radius of impact. Yes, I understand the work of chaos theory that a trivial change in a value, you know a 1-digit change in the 27th place of a decimal expansion, can have huge impact, but that is measuring the change at the target location.\, not like the butterfly example, on the other side of the world.
Yes - point well taken - but it has become a 'meme' for chaos theory that everyone recognizes. In that regard it is a useful shorthand for communicating.