Paul David Hardman HOW SHOULD WE TEACH DESIGN? THE STUDIO MODEL AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH Tese no âmbito do Doutoramento em Arte Contemporânea orientada pelos Professores Doutores Licínio Gomes Roque e Nuno Miguel Cabral Carreira Coelho, apresentada na Colégio das Artes, Universidade de Coimbra. Julho de 2020 Paul David Hardman How should we teach design? The studio model and the potential for its development through Action Research Advisors: Licínio Gomes Roque Nuno Miguel Cabral Carreira Coelho Thesis completed at the University of Coimbra for compliance with the requirements necessary to obtain the degree of Doctor of Contemporary Art held under the supervision of Licínio Gomes Roque and Nuno Miguel Cabral Carreira Coelho. College of Arts, University of Coimbra, Portugal 2020 3 4 Dedicated to my parents. 5 6 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the my orientators for their support and guidance, and the subjects of the interviews who kindly gave up their time: Susana Lobo, Artur Rebelo, Andrew Howard, Francisco Laranjo, Sofia Gonçalves, and Pedro Cruz. Of course, the contributions of the many students of the classes described in the case studies should be acknowledged, as should that of Rui Craveirinha who was kind enough to test out my proposed crit format in his own class. Words of encouragement throughout the process of completing this thesis from many of my colleagues were also appreciated but are too numerous to list. 7 8 Research question This thesis asks the basic question, how should we teach design? Or, more precisely, can the interrelated methodologies of Experiential Learning, Reflective Practice and Action Research be applied to the studio model to adapt it for the challenges of the contemporary paradigm of design education? 9 10 How should we teach design? The studio model and the potential for its development through Action Research Abstract Design is a field that requires a complex mix of knowledge: practical, technical, aesthetic and cultural; it has important aspects that are objective and subjective; and demands ways of thinking that are at times both convergent and divergent. Education in design therefore requires a holistic approach. The traditional form of design education, which follows the studio model (borrowed from architecture) is under threat at universities, due to restricted budgets and an increasingly quantitative assessment model. At the same time, thanks to digital technology, design itself is increasingly distanced from its base in the creation of physical objects, becoming an area that is increasingly about systems and communication rather than material production. These conditions make an assessment and rethinking of design education both necessary and inevitable. This thesis addresses these issues through a mix of practice based and theoretical research methods. These include a series of exploratory interviews that are used to suggest a general picture of contemporary practices in design education, and a case study based on my teaching practice at the University of Coimbra. This qualitative investigation is supported by a theoretical framework that covers the origins, variations and characteristics of the studio model, which provides a basis upon which to build a discussion of this teaching format consisting of; an analysis of the contemporary paradigm of design education, based on the reading of a series of views by educators and critics on how design education should change; and the various interrelated theories of Experiential Learning, Reflective Practice and Action Research, which, it is argued, are relevant for the transition to this new paradigm. However, this thesis provides an analysis of the ideological aspects of design education that suggests there are inherent contradictions and conflicts both within the traditional and contemporary interpretations of its pedagogy that must be resolved if the potential of the discipline is to be realised. 11 12 Como devemos ensinar design? 0 studio model e o seu potencial para desenvolvimento através de Action Research Resumo O campo do design usa uma complexa combinação de conhecimento: prático, técnico, estético e cultural; engloba aspetos importantes, sejam eles objetivos ou subjetivos; e exige raciocínios que podem ser simultaneamente convergentes e divergentes. Como tal, o ensino de design requer uma abordagem holistica. O modo tradicional de ensino de design a nível universitário, que usa o studio model (adotado da arquitetura), encontra-se ameaçado face a restrições orçamentais e modelos de avaliação tendencialmente quantitativos. Face à tecnologia digital, a prática do design tem-se distanciado das bases no que concerne à criação de objetos físicos, tornando-se uma área cada vez mais virada para sistemas e comunicação e menos para produção material. Estas condições tornam a avaliação e o repensar do ensino de design tanto necessário como inevitável. Várias entrevistas exploratórias, aqui usadas com o propósito de traçar um retrato das práticas pedagógicas contemporâneas no ensino de design, e um caso de estudo baseado na minha experiência letiva na Universidade de Coimbra, compõem a abordagem qualitativa da investigação presente nesta tese. O quadro teórico que suporta esta abordagem abarca as origens, variações e características do studio model, formando a base a partir da qual é construída a discussão em torno deste formato de ensino. É feita uma análise do paradigma contemporâneo do ensino de design baseada no ponto de vista de variados autores, educadores e críticos, acerca do rumo que a educação de design deverá tomar. São igualmente estudadas as teorias de Experiential Learning, Reflective Practice e Action Research, as quais se argumenta serem relevantes na transição para este novo paradigma. Não obstante, os aspetos ideológicos da educação de design aqui analisados sugerem haver contradições e conflitos, tanto dentro das interpretações tradicionais como nas contemporâneas, que deverão ser resolvidos para que o pleno potencial da disciplina seja concretizado. 13 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 23 1.1 Motivation and objectives 25 1.2 Design education: purpose and practice 26 1.3 The origins and characteristics of the studio model 27 1.4 Beyond the studio model: HfG to Sheila Levrant de Bretteville 27 1.5 Design education paradigm shift 27 1.6 Experiential learning, Reflective Practice and Action Research 28 1.7 Coherence and contradictions between education theory and the studio model 29 1.8 The application of Action Research to design pedagogy: a case study 29 1.9 Conclusion Chapter 2 Design education: purpose and practice 31 2.1 Introduction 32 2.2 The meaning of design 37 2.3 The interviews 2.3.1 Interview methodology 38 2.3.2 References 38 39 2.4 Biographical information and interview summaries 2.4.1 Andrew Howard 39 2.4.2 Artur Rebelo 39 2.4.3 Francisco Laranjo 40 2.4.4 Pedro Miguel Cruz 40 2.4.5 Sofia Gonçalves 41 2.4.6 Susana Lobo 41 42 2.5 Building an understanding of design 2.5.1 Conflicting conceptions of design 42 2.5.2 Defining design 43 14 2.5.3 Design education as a brief 43 44 2.6 Design Pedagogy 2.6.1 Universal design principles 44 2.6.2 Teaching a nonlinear design process 44 2.6.3 Verbal teaching 46 2.6.4 Student dialogue 47 2.6.5 Discipliniarity 47 2.6.6 Critical thinking 48 2.6.7 Collaboration at post-graduate level 48 49 2.7 The studio model 2.7.1 The crit 50 2.7.2 Studio atmosphere and dynamics 51 2.7.3 Materiality 52 2.7.4 Final exhibition 52 2.7.5 The Bologna Process 53 2.7.6 Student numbers 53 2.7.7 Studio teaching and professional practice 53 2.8.1 Evaluation and motivation 54 55 2.8 Workshop style teaching 2.8.2 Participative processes 56 2.8.3 Making design education less formal 57 58 2.9 Design and politics, theory and practice 2.9.1 The political aspect of design 58 2.9.2 Confrontation as teaching strategy 60 2.9.3 Reception of overtly political teaching 61 61 2.10 Summary 2.10.1 Building an understanding of design 61 2.10.2 Critical thinking 62 2.10.3 The studio model 62 2.10.4 Workshop style teaching 62 2.10.5 Design and politics 63 2.10.6 Conclusion 63 Chapter 3 Origins and characteristics of the studio model 65 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 Master-apprentice to the atelier model 3.2.1 The Guilds 67 15 3.2.2 The academies 69 3.2.3 L’École des Beaux-Arts 71 73 3.3 Arts and Crafts to the Werkbund 3.3.1 The Arts and Crafts Movement 73 3.3.2 The modern aesthetic 76 3.3.3 The Werkbund 78 80 3.4 The Bauhaus 3.4.1 Introduction 80 3.4.2 Conceptual orientation of the Bauhaus 82 3.4.3 The Vorkurs 84 3.4.4 The workshops 85 3.4.5 From craft to technology 86 3.4.6 Radical pedagogies 88 3.4.7 Legacy of the Bauhaus 90 93 3.5 Summary of the development of the studio model of design education 95 3.6 Characteristics of the studio model 3.6.1 Core Elements 95 3.6.2 Supporting Elements 100 101 3.7 Conclusion Chapter 4 Beyond the studio model: HfG to Sheila Levrant de Bretteville 103 4.1 Modernism in crisis 104 4.2 HfG Ulm 4.2.1 Overview 104 4.2.2 Founding of the HfG Ulm 105 4.2.3 Max Bill and the continuation of the Bauhaus 106 4.2.4 Transition to the HfG Model 107 4.2.5 The Ulm Model 108 4.2.6 The failure of the positivistic model 111 4.2.7 Beyond HfG 112 115 4.3 Emancipative design education: Sheila Levrant de Bretteville 4.3.1 Overview 115 4.3.2 Design and design education as emancipation 116 4.3.3 The teaching model 118 16 4.3.4 Summary 121 123 4.4 Comparison of the radical variations of design education represented by the Ulm Model and de Bretteville’s pedagogy Chapter 5