Costa Ferreira da Silva, Gisele Crossed Paths · 2016-12-17 · Jane Osmond, Coventry University,...

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.

Costa Fereira da Silva, GiseleCrossed Paths

Published in:Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.2904.6880

Published: 01/01/2015

Please cite the original version:Costa Fereira da Silva, G. (2015). Crossed Paths: Education, Creativity and Economics. In Proceedings of the3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (pp. 1276-1286). Helsinki: Aalto UniversitySchool of Arts, Design and Architecture. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2904.6880

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2904.6880

/portal/gisele.silva.html

https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/crossed-paths(c472c18d-1709-4244-afb2-d51e1fb27203).html

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2904.6880

VOLUME III

CUMULUS Association / DRS SIG on Design Pedagogy /DESIGN-ED Coalition

Robin VandeZande Erik Bohemia Ingvild Digranes

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for

Design Education Researchers

28–30 June 2015, Chicago, Il, USA Volume 3

Editors

Robin Vande Zande Erik Bohemia

Ingvild Digranes

Proceedings compiled by Laura Santamaria Text review by Tiiu Poldma Editorial arrangements by Erik Bohemia, Ingvild Digranes and Robin Vande Zande ©2015 Aalto University, DRS, Cumulus, DESIGN-ED and the Authors. All rights reserved Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers ISBN 978-952-60-0069-5 (vol. 1–4) Volume 1 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1200.7520 Volume 2 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5001.8409 Volume 3 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2904.6880 Volume 4 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2642.5440 Published by Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture PO Box 31000, FI-00076 Aalto Finland Design Research Society DRS Secretariat email: [email protected] www.designresearchsociety.org CUMULUS the International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media Cumulus Secretariat Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture PL 31000, 00076 Aalto, Finland Secretary General Eija Salmi Tel: +358 505 927060 email: [email protected] www.cumulusassociation.org DESIGN-ED Coalition 344 Crescent Avenue Spotswood, NJ 08884 USA www.design-ed.org LEGAL NOTICE: The publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

This conference proceedings version was produced on 26 June 2015 The DRS//CUMULUS// DESIGN-ED 2015 Chicago: the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers was hosted by The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The conference was organised by: DRS PedSIG, CUMULUS, DESIGN-ED, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Kent State University, SAIC and Loughborough University. Patrons of the Conference Walter Massey, President of the School of the Art Institute Michael Tovey, DRS PedSIG Luisa Collina, Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media Conference Chair Robin Vande Zande, Kent State University, USA Conference co-Chairs Erik Bohemia, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Ingvild Digranes, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway International Scientific Review Committee Linda Keane, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA Drea Howenstein, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA Ingvild Digranes, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Alison Shreeve, Buckinghamshire New University, United Kingdom Robin VandeZande, Kent State University, USA Mike Tovey, Coventry University, United Kingdom Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Eddie Norman, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Janne Beate Reitan, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Ricardo Sosa, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Hilary Grierson, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Rande F Blank, University of the Arts, USA Delane Ingalls Vanada, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Doris Wells-Papanek, Design Learning Network, USA Yuan Lu, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Nithikul Nimkulrat, Estonian Academy of Arts, Estonia Linda Drew, Ravensbourne, United Kingdom Kay Stables, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom Jennifer Loy, Griffith University, Australia Mark Evans, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Ming Cheung, University of Adelaide, Australia

Nancy Vanderboom-Lausch, College for Creative Studies, USA Kevin Henry, Columbia College Chicago, USA Teri Giobbia, West Virginia University, USA David Spendlove, Manchester Institute of Education, United Kingdom Erik Bohemia, Loughborough University, United Kingdom International Review Board Trygve Ask, Scandinavian Business Seating AS, Norway Steen Ory Bendtzen, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Rande F Blank, University of the Arts, USA Erik Bohemia, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Elivio Bonollo, University of Canberra, Australia Kaisa Borg, University of Umeå, Sweden Susan Braccia, AIM Academy, USA Han Brezet, TU Delft, Netherlands Hernan Casakin, Ariel University Center, Israel Peter Childs, Imperial College London, United Kingdom Stefano Chinosi, The Office of Ingenuity – Newton Public Schools, USA Priscilla Chueng-Nainby, TU Delft, United Kingdom Amy Cline, AIM Academy, USA Alison Dale Crane, Blue Valley School District, USA Alma Culen, University of Oslo, Norway Nancy Alison de Freitas, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Christine De Lille, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Giovanni De Paoli, University of Montreal, Canada Gaurang Desai, American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Ingvild Digranes, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Linda Drew, Ravensbourne, United Kingdom Mark Evans, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Evren Akar, UTRLAB, Turkey Nusa Fain, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Laila Belinda Fauske, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Biljana C. Fredriksen, Vestfold University College, Norway Philippe Gauthier, University of Montreal, Canada Aysar Ghassan, Coventry University, United Kingdom Jacques Giard, Arizona State University, USA Teri Giobbia, West Virginia University, USA Carma R. Gorman, University of Texas at Austin, USA Mark Allen Graham, Brigham Young University, USA Colin M. Gray, Iowa State University, USA Hilary Grierson, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Anthony Guido, The University of the Arts, USA Tore Gulden, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Marte Sørebø Gulliksen, Telemark University College, Norway Robert Harland, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Oriana Haselwanter, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Garreth Heidt, Perkiomen Valley School District, USA Kevin Henry, Columbia College Chicago, USA Monika Hestad, Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, United Kingdom Jan Willem Hoftijzer, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Drea Howenstein, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA Berit Ingebrethsen, Telemark University College, Norway Konstantinos Ioannidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Bill Ion, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Derek Jones, The Open University, United Kingdom KwanMyung Kim, UNIST, Ulsan National Insitute of Sciences and Technology, South Korea Michael K. Kim, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Ahmed Kovacevic, City University London, United Kingdom Nicole Bieak Kreidler, La Roche College, USA June Krinsky-Rudder, Revere High School, USA Ksenija Kuzmina, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Teemu Leinonen, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Finland Gerry Leonidas, University of Reading, United Kingdom Fern Lerner, independent researcher, USA Andre Liem, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Viveca Lindberg, University of Stockholm, Sweden Peter Lloyd, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Jennifer Loy, Griffith University, Australia Yuan Lu, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Ole Lund, Gjøvik University College, Norway Eva Lutnæs, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Patricia Ann Maunder, University of Pennsylvania, USA Graeme Stewart McConchie, Unitec Institute of Technology, New Zealand Janet McDonnell, Central Saint Martins, United Kingdom C.Thomas Mitchell, Indiana University, USA Ravi Mokashi Punekar, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo and Akershus University College, Norway Nithikul Nimkulrat, Estonian Academy of Arts, Estonia Eddie Norman, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Jane Osmond, Coventry University, United Kingdom Carlos Peralta, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Tiiu R Poldma, University of Montreal, Canada Mia Porko-Hudd, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Janne Beate Reitan, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Mariana Rachel Roncoletta, Anhembi Morumbi University, Brazil Aidan Rowe, University of Alberta, Canada Bonnie Sadler Takach, University of Alberta, Canada Norun Christine Sanderson, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Mike Santolupo, John Paul II Catholic Secondary School, Canada Gaia Scagnetti, Pratt Institute, USA Nicole Lotz, Open University, United Kingdom

Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarinen, Helsinki University, Finland Hyunjae Shin, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Alison Shreeve, Buckinghamshire New University, United Kingdom Beata Sirowy, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway Astrid Skjerven, Oslo and Akershus University College, Norway Liliana Soares, Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Portugal Ricardo Sosa, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand David Spendlove, University of Manchester, United Kingdom Kay Stables, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom John Stevens, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Pim Sudhikam, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Kärt Summatavet, Aalto University, Finland-Estonia Barbara Suplee, University of the Arts, USA Yasuko Takayama, Shizuoka University of Art and Culture, Japan Nanci Takeyama, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Juthamas Tangsantikul, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Kevin Tavin, Aalto University, Finland Michael Tovey, Coventry University, United Kingdom Kurt Van Dexter, landscape architect/The Greene School, USA Delane Ingalls Vanada, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Robin Vande Zande, Kent State University, USA Nancy Vanderboom-Lausch, College for Creative Studies, USA Johan Verbeke, KU Leuven, Belgium and Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark Andrew D. Watson, Fairfax County Public Schools, USA Heidi Weber, Fachhochschule Vorarlberg - University of applied Science, Austria Fabiane Wolff, UniRitter - Laureate International Universities, Brazil Mithra Zahedi, University of Montreal, Canada Nigel Zanker, Loughborough University, United Kingdom

Table of Contents Editorial

LearnxDesign2015=Design in Kindergarten Through Higher Education Robin Vande Zande .............................................................................................................................. i

Introductions A Perspective on the Learn X Design Conference from the DRS Special Interest Group in Design Pedagogy

Michael Tovey ......................................................................................................................................v

Luisa Collina ........................................................................................................................................ ix

VOLUME 1 — CHAPTER 1. —

ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Prototyping Smart Devices: Teaching Interactive Electronics and Programming In Industrial Design

Silvan LINN .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Empathy, Diversity, and Disability in Design Education

Kelly GROSS....................................................................................................................................... 19 Designing the Discipline: the Role of the Curriculum in Shaping Students’ Conceptions of Graphic Design

James CORAZZO ................................................................................................................................ 32 Teaching Systems Thinking Through Food

Brooke CHORNYAK ........................................................................................................................... 45 Pedagogical Approaches to Illustration: From Replication to Spontaneity

Carolina ROJAS .................................................................................................................................. 57 Cooking Up Blended Learning for Kitchen Design

Alison SHREEVE and David GILLETT .................................................................................................. 80 Design Tasks Beyond the Studio

Alke GRÖPPEL-WEGENER ................................................................................................................. 93 Whose Job Is It Anyway?

Fiona GRIEVE and Kim MEEK .......................................................................................................... 109 Research Meets Practice in Master’s Theses

Marja SELIGER ................................................................................................................................. 131 The Confluence of Art and Design in Art and Education

Mark GRAHAM and Daniel BARNEY 142 Art or Math? Two Schools, One Profession: Two Pedagogical Schools in Industrial Design Education in Turkey

Ilgim EROGLU and Cigdem KAYA .................................................................................................... 156 Enhancing Material Experimentation In Design Education

Maarit MÄKELÄ and Teija LÖYTÖNEN ............................................................................................. 168

— CHAPTER 2. — DESIGN THINKING, MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN EDUCATION

Case Study: Design Thinking and New Product Development For School Age Children Aija FREIMANE ................................................................................................................................ 187

From Design Thinking to Art Thinking Jessica JACOBS ................................................................................................................................ 200

Table of Contents

Mutual Trigger Effects in Team-Based Ideation Ying HU, Yinman GUO and Renke HE ...............................................................................................214

Educating By Design Marcello MONTORE and Ana Lucia LUPINACCI ...............................................................................230

Designing Design Thinking Curriculum: A Framework For Shaping a Participatory, Human-Centered Design Course

Pamela NAPIER and Terri WADA .....................................................................................................246 Project Development Levels and Team Characteristics in Design Education

Naz A.G.Z. BÖREKÇİ .........................................................................................................................264 Dynamic Inquiry and Sense-Making in Design Thinking

Delane INGALLS VANADA ................................................................................................................278 Hidden Value - Towards an Understanding of the Full Value and Impact of Engaging Students in User-Led Research and Innovation Projects Between Universities and Companies

Mark BAILEY, Mersha AFTAB and Neil SMITH ..................................................................................290 What Problem Are We Solving? Encouraging Idea Generation and Effective Team Communication

Colin M. GRAY, Seda YILMAZ, Shanna R. DALY, Colleen M. SEIFERT and Richard GONZALEZ 308 Workspaces for Design Education and Practice

Katja THORING, Carmen LUIPPOLD , Roland M. MUELLER and Petra BADKE-SCHAUB ....................330 Architecture: Teaching the Future/Future of Teaching

Gemma BARTON .............................................................................................................................347 Design Challenges: Learning Between Pressure and Pleasure

Miguel NAVARRO-SANINT, Lina M. ANTOLINEZ-BENAVIDES, Carolina ROJAS-CESPEDES and Annelie FRANKE ............................................................................................................................................366

Design Thinking Stretching at the Nexus Philip REITSPERGER, Monika HESTAD and John O’REILLY ................................................................382

Structuring the Irrational: Tactics in Methods Philip D. PLOWRIGHT .......................................................................................................................397

The Potential of Technology-Enhanced Learning in Work-Based Design Management Education Caroline NORMAN 416

Getting to Know the Unknown: Shifts in Uncertainty Orientation in a Graduate Design Course Monica WALCH TRACEY and Alisa HUTCHINSON ............................................................................430

Once Upon a Time: Storytelling in the Design Process Andrew J. HUNSUCKER and Martin A. SIEGEL .................................................................................443

Time to Explore and Make Sense of Complexity? Nina BJØRNSTAD and Monika HESTAD............................................................................................455

Pedagogical Evaluation of the Design Thinking MOOCs Mana TAHERI and Christoph MEINEL ..............................................................................................469


DESIGN EDUCATION TO IMPROVE LIFE AND THE WORLD Design Thinking and the Internal: A Case Study

Meredith JAMES ..............................................................................................................................485 Empathy as Component of Brand Design

Nanci TAKEYAMA .............................................................................................................................500 From Engagement to Impact in Design Education

Cynthia LAWSON and Natacha POGGIO ..........................................................................................518 Teaching for Future Health Care Innovation

Kathrina DANKL ...............................................................................................................................535

Table of Contents

Bringing Holistic Design Education to Secondary Schools in Pakistan

Ayesha AHMED ............................................................................................................................... 548 Thoughtful Thinkers: Secondary Schoolers’ Learning about Design Thinking

Leila AFLATOONY and Ron WAKKARY ............................................................................................. 563 Getting in Touch With the Users

Laura ACKERMANN and Bernd STELZER ......................................................................................... 575 An Architecture of Experience

Joanna CROTCH .............................................................................................................................. 589 WonderBox: Storytelling and Emerging Technologies

Denielle EMANS and Basma HAMDY .............................................................................................. 604 Making Mindfulness Explicit in Design Education

Fernando ROJAS, Stuart ENGLISH, Robert YOUNG and Nick SPENCER ........................................... 623 No Sustainability Possible Without Emotion

Juan Albert ESTEVAN ...................................................................................................................... 638 Designing Financial Literacy: Research x Community

Aaron FRY, Carol OVERBY and Jennifer WILSON 655 Design as a New Futural Epistemology: Design Education Made Relevant for Climate Change and Development

Håkan EDEHOLT .............................................................................................................................. 673 Universal Design in Architectural Education

Beth TAUKE, Megan BASNAK and Sue WEIDEMANN ...................................................................... 683 Pedagogical Encounters: Typography and Emotion

Ana Filomena CURRALO and Liliana SOARES .................................................................................. 698 A Pedagogical Prototype Focused on Designing Value

Peter S. MARTIN and Dana EL AHDAB ............................................................................................ 715 Empowering Designers Through Critical Theory

Kristin CALLAHAN............................................................................................................................ 735 Pictographic Storytelling for Social Engagement

Lisa FONTAINE ................................................................................................................................ 748 Carbon Footprinting for Design Education

Vicky LOFTHOUSE, Alan MANLEY and Mark SHAYLER..................................................................... 774 Restoring Hope Tote by Tote

Kate SCHAEFER ............................................................................................................................... 790 Future Scenario Building and Youths’ Civic Insights

Tore Andre RINGVOLD and Ingvild DIGRANES ................................................................................ 800

— CHAPTER 4. — SYSTEMS THINKING AND ECOLOGICAL URBANISM

Integrating Fantasy Into the Creative Process Raffaella PERRONE .......................................................................................................................... 819

Understanding the Design Project Draft Through Motion Jose SILVA ....................................................................................................................................... 834

From Systems Thinking to Design Criteria: Synthesis Through Visualization Engin KAPKIN and Sharon JOINES ................................................................................................... 847

Deconstruction as a Structured Ideation Tool for Designers Daniel ECHEVERRI ........................................................................................................................... 870

Exploring Ecological Urbanism by Service Design – An Experimental Project of ‘Street Food’ Bo GAO ........................................................................................................................................... 882

Table of Contents

The Cityzens: A Serious Game for the Future

Stephan TRIMMEL ...........................................................................................................................897 Directions Towards Sustainability Through Higher Education

Theresa LOBO ..................................................................................................................................907


DESIGN INSPIRED BY NATURE (BIO-MIMICRY) Using Nature to Inspire Design Values, Issues & Ethics

Jacquelyn MALCOLM and David SANCHEZ RUANO .........................................................................923 Integrating Art and Science in Placed-based Education

Deborah N. MILLS ............................................................................................................................940 Challenges in Teaching Architectural Morphogenesis

Adeline STALS, Catherine ELSEN, Sylvie JANCART and Frédéric DELVAUX ......................................954 Exploring Biomimicry in the Students’ Design Process

Miray BOĞA-AKYOL and Şebnem TİMUR-ÖĞÜT ..............................................................................970

— CHAPTER 6. — DESIGN AS AN INTEGRATIVE TOOL FOR EDUCATION

Learning Through Design: Professional Development Wendy Kay FRIEDMEYER .................................................................................................................991

Impacting Student Attitudes Towards Teamwork Wendy HYNES ................................................................................................................................1002

Learning to Design Backwards Michael R. GIBSON ........................................................................................................................1016

Design THIS Place: Built Environment Education Linda KEANE and Mark KEANE .......................................................................................................1034

High-Performance Building Pedagogy Julia DAY ........................................................................................................................................1057

Can a Smartphone Be a HomeLab? Joël CHEVRIER, Laya MADANI and Ahmad BSIESY .........................................................................1072

Interpreting the Critique Through Visualization Kathryn WEINSTEIN .......................................................................................................................1084

STEAM by Design Linda KEANE and Mark KEANE .......................................................................................................1099

Creating Caribbean Stories Through Design Lesley-Ann NOEL 1118

Human Centered Design at the Service of Educational Research Patricia MANNS GANTZ and Alberto GONZÁLEZ RAMOS ..............................................................1132

— CHAPTER 7. — MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN EDUCATION

Grounded Theory in Art and Design Mike COMPTON and Sean BARRETT ..............................................................................................1149

A Project-Based Approach to Learning: Comparative Study of Two Disciplines Nuša FAIN, Beverly WAGNER and Nikola VUKAŠINOVIĆ................................................................1168

Table of Contents

The Affordances of Designing for the Learning Sciences Lisa GROCOTT and Mai KOBORI .................................................................................................... 1180

Interact: A Multi-Disciplinary Design Course David BOYCE, Joanna CROTCH and Rosa GODSMAN .................................................................... 1196

Social Creativity and Design Thinking in Transdisciplinary Design Education Hyun-Kyung LEE and Soojin JUN ................................................................................................... 1211

Of Dreams and Representations: Storytelling and Design Ozge MERZALI CELIKOGLU ............................................................................................................ 1227

An Initial Model for Generative Design Research: Bringing Together Generative Focus Group (GFG) and Experience Reflection Modelling (ERM)

Yekta BAKIRLIOĞLU, Dilruba OĞUR, Çağla DOĞAN and Senem TURHAN ..................................... 1236

— CHAPTER 8. — LOCAL AND GLOBAL CONNECTIONS TO DESIGN EDUCATION

Design Without Borders: A Multi-Everything Masters John Simon STEVENS, Katrin MUELLER-RUSSO, Megumi FUJIKAWA, Peter R. N. CHILDS, Miles PENNINGTON, Scott LUNDBERG, Steve DISKIN, Masa INAKAGE and Andrew BRAND ................. 1255

Dilemma and Countermeasures of Shenzhen Industrial Design Education Fangliang WANG and Xiaobao YU ................................................................................................. 1267

Crossed Paths: Education, Creativity and Economics Gisele Costa FERREIRA da SILVA ................................................................................................... 1276

Genius Loci and Design Concept Nada EL-KHOURY .......................................................................................................................... 1287

Experiential Elements of High-To-Low-Context Cultures Kelly M. MURDOCH-KITT and Denielle EMANS ............................................................................. 1301

Research Training in a DESign+MAnagement Network Andrew WHITCOMB and Andreas BENKER ................................................................................... 1319

Humanitarian Design For Refugee Camps: Solutions in Crisis Situations Tiiu R POLDMA and Claude YACOUB ............................................................................................. 1333


DESIGN THINKING AND ENGINEERING Fostering Creativity

Meaghan DEE ................................................................................................................................ 1349 Today’s Students, Tomorrow’s Practitioners

Chris HEAPE .................................................................................................................................. 1362 Technological and Project Competencies for Design Engineers Driven by Nearable and Wearable Systems

Marta GONZÁLEZ, Jessica FERNÁNDEZ and Javier PEÑA............................................................... 1381 Co-Designing Avatars for Children with Cancer

Ruth MATEUS-BERR, Barbara BRUNMAIR, Helmut HLAVACS, Fares KAYALI, Jens KUCZWARA, Anita LAWITSCHKA, Susanne LEHNER, Daniel MARTINEK, Michael NEBEL, Konrad PETERS, Andrea REITHOFER, Rebecca WÖLFLE, Marisa SILBERNAGL, Manuel SPRUNG ......................................... 1397

Table of Contents

— CHAPTER 10. — VISUAL LITERACIES AND DESIGN THINKING

Studio Teaching in the Low-Precedent Context of Instructional Design Elizabeth BOLING, Colin M. GRAY and Kennon M. SMITH .............................................................1417

Exploration of Rhetorical Appeals, Operations and Figures in UI/UX Design Omar SOSA-TZEC, Martin A. SIEGEL and Paul BROWN ..................................................................1432

Learning to Draw Through Digital Modelling Stephen TEMPLE ............................................................................................................................1454

Developing Visual Literacy in Design Students Ricardo LOPEZ-LEON ......................................................................................................................1465

— CHAPTER 11. — VISUALIZATION IN DESIGN EDUCATION

Visualization as Assessment in Design Studio Courses Eduardo HAMUY, Bruno PERELLI and Paola DE LA SOTTA .............................................................1481

Paying Attention to the Design Process: Critically Examining Personal Design Practice Janet McDONNELL and Cynthia ATMAN ........................................................................................1498

Processing Through Drawing: a Case Study of Ideation Julia K. DAY and Bryan D. ORTHEL .................................................................................................1518

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Curriculum Representation in Design Education Today Iain AITCHISON, Emma DEWBERRY and Nicole LOTZ .....................................................................1536

Teaching Business Concepts Using Visual Narrative Annabel SMITH, Robert A. YOUNG and Fiona RAESIDE-ELLIOT .....................................................1552

Time-Based Visual Narratives for Design Education Dalsu ÖZGEN KOÇYILDIRIM, Aykut COŞKUN and Yekta BAKIRLIOĞLU ...........................................1569

Education and Design: Integrator Project in Editorial Design Jan Raphael Reuter BRAUN, Davi Frederico do Amaral DENARDI and Elton Luiz GONÇALVES ......1585

— CHAPTER 12. — PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN EDUCATION

Reflection-in-Action and Motivated Reasoning Derek JONES ..................................................................................................................................1599

[Un]Learning x Design from the Ground, Up Zachary KAISER and Kiersten NASH ...............................................................................................1616

Social Comparison Theory and the Design Classroom Barbara E. MARTINSON and Sauman CHU ....................................................................................1628

Social Engagement in Online Design Pedagogies Nicole LOTZ, Georgy HOLDEN and Derek JONES ...........................................................................1645

Intuition as a Valid Form of Design Decision Making Ariel GUERSENZVAIG .....................................................................................................................1669

Dialogue and PhD Design Supervision Andrew MORRISON, Laurene VAUGHAN, Henry MAINSAH and Cheryl E. BALL ............................1701

Author Index – 1715

This page is intentionally left blank.

i

Editorial

LearnxDesign2015=Design in Kindergarten Through Higher Education

Welcome to the conference proceedings ‘LearnXDesign2015’ a comprehensive engagement of topics across themed design pedagogy and research. The papers delivered at the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, co-organized by DRS, CUMULUS, and DESIGN-ED, are the focus of these volumes.

The richness and variety of themes and subjects at the conference and the sheer number made it impossible for the delegates in attendance to take in the full range of presentations. The excellence of the presentations deserves to be shared, especially for those who have missed the opportunity to participate in all sessions. These volumes offer a chance for everyone to read the papers that capture the varied nature of the forums and presentations.

The conference was graciously hosted by the School of the Art Institute in Chicago. Highlighted at the heart of the conference were varied presentations and workshops. To prepare for the conference, we asked design researchers to submit their work for consideration. Scholars proposed 289 paper abstract, 31 workshop and 2 symposia submissions. The International Scientific Review Committee invited 243 paper abstract submissions to proceed into the next stage to submit as full papers. After double blind full paper review by the International Review Board, 106 full papers were accepted to be included in the conference proceedings with an additional 23 workshops and 1 symposia delivered at the conference.

The high quality of papers are due to the International Scientific Review Board members whose expertise and time was essential to the success of the conference paper review process. The board was co-chaired by Dr. Erik Bohemia of the Institute for Design Innovation, Loughborough University London, and Dr. Ingvild Digranes of the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. The significance of the papers from this conference foreshadow the fate of the field and show how design education has the potential to be an instrumental part of the larger marketplace of ideas.

Subject threads organized the schedule of presentations. The delegates were able to follow a single thread, attending sequential sessions or could mix sessions to suit. The papers covered topics for elementary, secondary, and higher education. The subject threads addressed the local and global multidimensional relations and interconnections of design education and design thinking with such diverse topics as nature, society, engineering, economics, media, and ecological urbanism. Academic and vocational curriculum development was presented in many sessions in reference to design as an integrative tool through a multidisciplinary philosophy to education. The most discussed aspect during the three days was that design should be used to improve life and the world.

ROBIN VANDE ZANDE

ii

As was emphasized at the 2nd conference in Oslo in 2013, this conference continued the focus of the teaching of design to elementary through higher education as an essential contributor in support for a better tomorrow. Every day we need to apply knowledge from a variety of sources to resolve problems, manage relationships, and establish a quality life. The interdisciplinary model of making connections within fields of study creates relevance and context, and assists students in understanding relationships among concepts. The goal of this conference was to contribute, on both theoretical and practical levels, to the analysis of the potential of multidimensional relationships and interactions of Education and Design to enlighten a citizenry that will strive to constructively problem solve to make a better life and world.

A prime motivation in our opening keynote session was to inspire a dialogue about design and the world. With representatives from 34 countries participating, a major theme of the conference debate was that the global community must change in a very fundamental way if it is to become stable. Why are these issues of concern for design educators worldwide? If we are to have a better world, the general populace has to build it, and if we are to be successful, everyone must take responsibility. Design thinking through the design process of problem solving is an approach to rethinking certain assumptions by looking at our everyday world with a new perspective, challenging what is possible, and reconsidering our relationship to things familiar. Design education is addressing the welfare of people and the environment, reflecting a renewed appreciation of and respect for nature. Sustainability is taught to show that a less consumptive lifestyle, respect for the environment and the interdependence of life, creating safe objects for long-term use, and concentrating on communities and economic systems will help improve our world. There is attention being given to designing for improving the physical and emotional quality of life for everyone, referred to as universal design. Socially responsible design reflects the growing awareness of our finite resources and factors that are damaging to the environment as well as the realization that designed objects should have flexibility in order to be accessible to all. Design education brings all of this to the consciousness of students in order to show them ways to be empowered to do something constructive to help.

I want to thank our scientific review members for their diligent work in reviewing a large number of paper submissions. Many of our reviewers read multiple papers and wrote comments to help guide the authors in revisions for improvement. This was time intensive and could never have been accomplished without a great deal of help. The reviewers’ names are listed before the Table of Contents.

Post- conference a few of these papers will be published in special issues of the following academic journals: Design and Technology Education, TRACEY, FORMakademisk, and Curriculum and Instruction. The role of journals as an arena for design education research is essential for the advancement of knowledge production within the field.

A heartfelt thanks to Joe Schwartz, trustee of DESIGN-ED, for putting so many of the conference pieces in place. Thanks are also due to leaders of the School of the Art Institute: Professor of Architecture and Environmental Design, Linda Keane; Dean of Continuing Studies, Rob Bondgen; assistants Brandon Labash and Zachary Thomas Sayers;, and Professor of Art, Design, and Education, Drea Howenstein, for their tremendous support in hosting this conference. Our gratitude also to SAIC students for their valuable contributions.

Editorial

iii

We are also grateful to our supporters and sponsors: Autodesk, Stratasys, Morgan Manufacturing, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, The Chicago Cruise Line, and The Public Society branding firm, as well as other supporting partners. The trustees of DESIGN- ED are pleased to have partnered with DRS and CUMULUS to have collaboratively provided this platform for a community of scholars and practitioners to join together in advancing design education. We look forward to a future of working together to create new conferences bi-annually.

Although we might be successful in providing the ‘flavor’ of the 2015 Conference in these volumes, we know that much evades us. We cannot, for instance, capture those enthusiastic conversations that followed presentations and spilled into the hallways and receptions. We are unable to produce the ‘community’ spirit where a group of individuals explored new ideas and cultivated collaboration during and after the event. We cannot invoke those unpredictable moments of sharing stories and asking questions; the chance to challenge and be challenged, and where learning together fueled motivation.

However, the foundation of the conference came from the papers that exist in the pages of these conference proceedings. The papers provide a major avenue to communicate research results and ideas to one another. The real success lies in the opportunity afforded design educators and researchers from all over the world, whether in attendance at the conference or not, to share topics of mutual interest, to learn from each other, and to collaborate in order to better prepare our students to contribute in a positive manner to this rapidly changing world.

Robin Vande Zande Associate Professor of Art Education, Kent State University Chair of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers

This page is intentionally left blank.

Copyright © 2015. Copyright of each paper in this conference proceedings is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses, including extended quotation, please contact the author(s).

Crossed Paths: Education, Creativity and Economics Gisele Costa FERREIRA da SILVA Aalto University – School of Art and Design [email protected]

Abstract: Since the 1990's, a fashionable term has been very constant when it comes to teaching art and design: creativity. However, what do we mean when we use the word 'creative' combined with other terms like industries, economy, enterprise, sector? This paper is about mapping the encounter between the economical point of view around creativity and education in design and art fields in higher education. At this moment, the research process is being designed by a bibliographical research that has been the bottom line of the investigation process. The analysis in course has already leaded to this question: what is the impact of the 'creative industries' concept in undergraduate schools in Art and Design fields? Amongst many different positions, for now, it is possible to identify two general tendencies: a great enthusiasm and a nagging suspicion. The outcome of this paper is the dialogue between different comprehensions about the attempts made to combine the discourses over the term creativity, its uses and contexts, the roles of education and the struggle brought by the contemporary economic interests.

Keywords: creativity; art /design education; neoliberal policies

Opening words A fashionable term related with the business world has circulated through papers,

magazines, journals and academic discussions within the last fifteen years: creativity. Associations between the adjective creative are also becoming increasingly common; for instance, creative economy, industries, sector, enterprises, activities, class, skills, etc... This is no surprise, after all a major feature of neoliberalism is the possibility of profit, including abstract concepts like creativity itself. Neoliberalism, as used in this paper is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best

Crossed Paths: Education, Creativity and Economic

1277

be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade. (Harvey 2005, p.2).

Economy and profit, in this scenario, goes beyond the immediate money idea and dialogues with a notion of productivity which is fairly familiar: contemporary artwork, design production, the proliferation of images and the impression of a global village. The familiarity with such productions/products becomes disturbing when they are brought to the educational scenario in the beginning of the twenty-first century. What is the meaning of the enthusiastic presence of the creative industries concept on the academic environment, as well as the easiness of its acceptance? This paper is about mapping the encounter between the economical point of view around creativity and education in design and art fields in higher education.

This paper is part of my dissertation research at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, in Helsinki, Finland. Based on my primary site of investigation and instigation for the research, the Brazilian context, it is necessary to begin with a panoramic view of the high education system in Brazil and its major references. Along with this contextualization, ideas concerning creative economy and creative industries are briefly reviewed. This leads to a predominance of the use of 'creative industries' at the expense of 'creative economy' that results from the utilization of this terminology by Brazilian institutions, placing the academic work as part of the industry which, in turn, belongs to the notion of economy (Brasília, 2011).

Borrowing Art Education reflections made by Chan (2013), Zimmerman (2013), Freedman (1989) and jagodzinski (2010), the flexibility of the use of the term creativity reinforces the risk of turning it into an empty word, which would serve permanently as a buzzword. The perspective from business books are far more exciting. In one direction, with an approach based on economical practices, Caves (2000) explains the connections between the 'creative industries' goods with economic interests based on the last century and illustrates the complexities of the world of art, design and entertainment. In another direction, Florida (2002, 2012) and Pink (2005) claim the emergence of a new era, Creative Age and Conceptual Age, respectively.

The enthusiasm regarding this new era, the way in which entrepreneurs have been calling the creativity emergence, is the cause of the concerns around the educational institutions and their social role. So far, in Brazil, only the feverish side of the expected economic boost arising from the creative euphoria has been registered and published in great amounts. It is not too late to analyse the other side of this fairy tale.

Where economics and education meet the need for being creative In line with the Brazilian philosopher and educator Dermeval Saviani (2005), the current

proposals on the expansion of higher education coincides with a productive conception of education. From the second half of the twenty-one century, the educational space takes on a different dimension, enhancing the formation of consumers for increased production of goods. Saviani reveals that the origins of this educational approach are on US production from 1950 with Theodore William Schultz's Theory of Human Capital, which highlights the issue of the economic value of education. In order 'to understand what is happening in higher education today, one needs to consider the ‘money-based world’ view promoted by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank' (Clegg, 2008, p. 221).

GISELE COSTA FERREIRA DA SILVA

1278

From this brief clarification, the factors to define a quality education are replaced for international and globalized parameters. Then, the Brazilian university follows towards climbing the rankings that measure the quality of these institutions through indices such as academic productivity, titles, publications, student exchanges, infrastructure and equipment. Thus, it became an increasingly and intense concern to align the numbers produced by Brazilian public education systems with institutions in countries like USA, England, France and Canada – which have been the role models for Brazilian educational development.

Over the past decade, the landscape of Brazilian federal universities has changed dramatically and there are two slogans: expansion and internationalization. If, on the one hand, in commercial terms, Brazil's strength still depends on an agro-export model and a possible future in the fuel market, on the other hand, in a blistering climb to development, the Brazilian economy is faced with a reality that aims to change. Since 2012, the implementation of the Department of Creative Economy, under the Ministry of Culture of the Federal Government agency, is the framework in which the creative industries discourses have been emphasized. According to the Policies, guidelines and actions – from 2011 to 2014 (published by the secretariat above) the role of educators is linked to 'training for the development of creative skills' (p. 36). In the same document, the gap between artists and other professionals in the creative chain is stated. While the first case is about lacking the knowledge of a market structure (or the will to be part of it), the second case is about the absence is about management to deal with the derivatives of creativity. Once the conflict is found and understood as a problem, the stage for the performance between economics interests and education is set.

Although the creative industries concept is not new, in Brazil it can be said that academic debates on the subject are relatively recent. Historically, during the first 60 years of the twentieth century, there was a positive outlook of cultural and artistic production, as well as what is now called creative industries. However, like much of Latin America, nearly two decades of dictatorship not only slowed down the cultural production, but the interests of those who had seized the power were very far from a critical and stimulating educational policy. In basic and elementary schools, in general, art education exercised the function of training the hands of workers to operate machinery and execute projects made by an elite not interested in a critical, questioning, as well as creative, population.

Since Brazil is a country of great geographical dimensions, it is natural that the regions have different economical foci and social demands. The same goes for the cultural and artistic fields. The Southeast states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais concentrates a great part of whatever is released by the media as the economic, cultural and artistic riches of the country. Until the 1960s, the development of a favourable environment to art, design, film making, music and architecture was possible and some of the names, like Waldemar Cordeiro, Alexandre Wolner, Paulo Mendes da Rocha, Glauber Rocha, Luiz Gonzaga, Lina Bo Bardi and Oscar Niemeyer, reinforce this affirmation. There were initiatives to create networks of communication, information, cultural and artistic production in parallel with the encouragement of Local Production Arrangements (LPA) for the strengthening of regional identities. The big dream was to forge a strong Brazilian national identity, in Mario de Andrade's conceptions discussed by Alfredo Bosi's work (1995).

In educational terms, the advanced ideas of educators such as Paulo Freire (1959) and Anísio Teixeira (1956) were replaced by two types of schools: one for the mass and another for the elite. The privileged ones that were able to go to school received a technical education


1279

focused on the labor market. The elite was educated to remain elite, and the museums and art spaces were their strongholds. As a consequence, objects tied to the creative industry were considered 'rich people thing'. In fact, in Brazilian lands this is still a very common thought until today.

The period that involved the 1980s and most of the 1990s was dedicated to what we know as re-democratization of the country and, economically, Brazil aligned itself with neoliberal economic policies, in David Harvey’s (2005) understanding of it as closer to a method then to an ideology. It took a new direction for education, and in 1996 was enacted the new Law nº. 9.394 from December 20th 1996 (Brasil), also known as the Law of Guidelines and Bases for Education. For art teaching the novelty was that it became a 'mandatory curriculum component at various levels of basic education in order to promote cultural development of pupils' (Brasil, 1996). The problem is that cultural development is a term somewhat diffuse. The concern is that the comprehension of the educational policies in light of this trend comes closer to a technical training which only aim is to indoctrinate workers. Henry Giroux (2003) claim 'that what was once part of the hidden curriculum of higher education – the creeping vocationalization and subordination of learning to the dictates of the market – has become an open, and defining, principle of education at all levels of learning' (p. 185).

The distance is huge between the conceptions and ideas disseminated by common sense concerning activities related to creativity and what is part of the curricula in Brazil. There have been many villains to blame for that distance: failures in the educational system, poor quality of materials available to work with art, the gap between the school and the current reality, the commodification of culture process and the industrialization of symbolic (Canclini, 2003). Searching for definitions and finding so many difficulties about a possible common place from where discussions could have a more solid ground is a disquieting process. For that, going back to education is required.

Janet Chan (2013) and Enid Zimmerman (2013) agree that there is no 'precise definition of the phenomenon' (Chan, p. 23), which has a long search for definitions in many fields – sociological, anthropological, psychological and historical (Zimmerman, 2013). The risk about multiple possible meanings of a term is that the connotation maybe suitable for varied agendas. And that was the initial motivation for this research.

Great enthusiasm and nagging suspicion The interfaces between the economic dimension and culture as a theme has become a

privileged object of attention in educational matters. The contemporary scene involves issues like the socio-technological convergence, the ubiquitous and complex chains of culture production in addition to a growing interrelationship between culture, entertainment and tourism. Therefore, in the midst of all of it, discussions punctuating the cultural markets, it’s public, marketing strategies and cultural industries are coming with some delay, but still an appropriate moment.

Paulo Miguez (2007) explains in a very clear manner that, in this arena, two powerful contemporary expressions – ‘creative industries’ and ‘creative economy’ – emerge from the link between culture and economy. The attempt to capture the production paradigm of contemporary society increases the debate and the amount of expressions around what has


1280

been called the Third Industrial Revolution35. Since the precise classification of a field of knowledge still in early development is not yet possible, it would be fair to say that creative industries and creative economy are a pre-paradigmatic phenomena.

The creative industries label was forged in the middle of the 1990's between the walls of government offices. Even though there are publications like Florida's (2002), Cave's (2000) and Howkins' (2001), that indicate practically simultaneous academic research publishing, the first documents in which the early systematizations came from Australia and the United Kingdom (U.K.). The common concern, according to Miguez (2007), was to reclassify the State's role in the cultural development of both countries. What is surprising, and it may look like a conspiracy theory, is that the initiative of the specific ‘creative industries’ movement comes from the top down. Looking back at art and design history, the uncountable cultural shifts happened through the opposite path, it was much more about breaking the frames then trying to fit one.

The enthusiasm of those involved in higher education in design and art fields around the creative industries concept is understandable. Ways of working, being and researching that were, for so long, considered eccentric and marginal are now sought as quite desired by professionals from various fields. Having mainly Richard Florida (2002) and Daniel Pink (2005) as gurus, one can easily get the impression, expressively in Brazil, that what the labour market wants and needs from now on coincides with the idealization of some kind of great character, like Leonardo da Vinci's figure, for whom everything seemed possible and has been explored from entertainment, stereotypes, cultural classifications and even by self-help authors, like Michael J. Gelb (2000).

In 2012, Richard Florida published a revisited edition of The Rise of the Creative Class, a best-seller from 2002 known for defending the existence of a quite diverse creative class. The main point in common amid the ones who would or could belong to this class is the use of creativity as a driver of its activity – the concept is broad and encompasses musicians, artists, designers, teachers, scientists, financial agents, managers or lawyers. What is most important in order to belong to such a class is not what one does for living, but values like: individuality, meritocracy, diversity and openness. This point of view reinforces that a lot of ´highly creative people, regardless of their ethnic background or sexual orientation, grew up feeling like outsiders, like they were different in some way from most of their schoolmates´ (p. 58), just like the stereotypes around the remarkable great geniuses who are the protagonists of many historical accounts and a lot of biograph-based narratives available within popular culture, in which the artist 'creates itself from the articulation animal/crazy/artist in opposition to human/normal/ rational' (D'angelo, 2006, p. 243).

Applauding creativity with a more targeted approach to the development of creative skills, Daniel Pink (2005) speaks more directly to the creative individual. What Florida (2002) calls Creative Age, Pink (2005) denominates Conceptual Age, affirming that

the keys to the kingdom are changing hands. The future belongs to a very different kind of person with a very different kind of mind – creators, empathizers, pattern recognizers, and meaning makers. These people – artists, inventors, designers, storytellers, caregivers,

35 One excellent example about the outstanding confusion when it comes to terms like Third Industrial Revolution is the constant association with other terms, such as post-industrial society, post-fordist society, knowledge society, information society or learning society. It is not part of this paper’s scope focusing on this conceptualization exercise, but it is an aim for the work in progress.


1281

consolers, big picture thinkers – will now reap society's richest rewards and share its greatest joys. (p. 1)

In this context, this new age requires supposed fresh modes of thinking and it would be the time to surpass the pure and analytical rationality and focus on context, emotional and synthetic expressions. While Florida's (2002) arguments are based mostly surrounding geographical and economic data that demonstrates the creative class as a global phenomenon, Pink's (2005) reasoning is closer to the sense that creativity is a common ground amongst all human kind: the secret to creative success are 'six specific high-concept and high-touch aptitudes that have become essential in this new era' (p. 61): design, story, symphony, empathy, play and meaning.

Another view arising from studies of economics is Richard Caves' (2000), which details 'the industries that mediates between the artist and the consumer of artistic creators' (p. 37). Each kind of creative activity – visual arts, literature, music, design, fashion, cinema, audio visual, architecture, etc... – demands are considerably specific regarding creation, production, storage, copyrights and distribution processes. In this context, there is no revolution, but a more faithful analysis about the intricate and diverse interests that inhabit the world of creative industries.

Even though it is encouraging to glimpse the emergence of a new class and a new mind, to radically change institutions requires more than motivational speaking. It would be quite naive to deny any relation between art, design and economic interests and that is not this essay's intention. In fact, it is the recognition of this undeniable bond that motivates this consideration. The big picture here is closer to the concern with whom is being left outside the discussions around creative industries then with celebrating the creativity as a human capacity – as well as all the possible meanings that could be awaken. Here is the place where art and design education are still on the margins.

The enthusiasm about the creative industries has not yet brought significant changes in terms of K-12 and high school education in Brazil – there are more fundamental questions being struggled with. However, when it comes to the university, especially in Art and Design undergraduate schools, it is possible to detect some modifications hidden behind such euphoria. So far, the most outstanding facts are about the increase in funding, corporate partnerships in public higher education, research development and relationship with the community.

Returning to the Brazilian context described on the first part of this paper, more specifically from a state located in the middle of the country, Goiás, the education in design is intrinsically connected with the Arts Institute, today called the Faculty of Visual Arts, and the Department of Architecture and Urbanism, belonging to the Federal University of Goiás and the Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás, respectively. Both were established in 1968, in Mark Kurlansky's (2004) words 'the year that rocked the world' (2005, p. 14), but it was only after 1995 that design activities began to form the body of distinguished schools. The association between the design education with art education fields in Brazil allows that the discussion around educational issues, on such circumstances, to find its origins in the very art education research.

jan jagodzinski (2010), with his Art Education background, has been a voice that circulates between two worlds: art and design. For the most attached to the traditional core of the Visual Arts, jagodzinkski's arguments may sound outrageous and critics are not hard to find. By


1282

permeating both fields, jagodzinski (2010) demonstrates that is possible to walk outside the mainstream and go further than a 'concept framing' exercise:

The ampersand between art & design conveys the complex relationship between autonomy and heteronomy—between freedom and the law. It indicates both a tension and an exchange with some ‘beyond,’ given that art was to be a form of free experimentation and autonomy whereas design was applied and practical. This fundamental antagonism between art & design in designer capitalism can be restated as simply a question of use- less art versus useful art (p. 53).

Realizing the difficulty about the conceptualization of fields of knowledge and work brings this reflection back to the complexity of the status quo regarding the actual situation of Design and Art schools. Despite all the differences, both have walked hand in hand, for a considerable time in most of Brazilian territory. In Goiás, the first sign of a possible status change in the framework of undergraduate schools in design area began with the funding increasing along the last decade. Financial incentives began timidly, initially through contests with awards to students. Subsequently, the encouragement for the establishment of business incubators and institutional agreements for the student's internships was significant. Then, the increasingly presence of teachers, lectures and professors that became doctors in the area allowed the creation of research projects with serious funding. Each and every one of those actions, financed and institutionalized, meant more productivity and visibility. For the last five years, all this productivity started to have an address and a label on the process of filling curricula and reports: Creative Industries.

However satisfying all the attention can be, it brings some suspicions. In Brazil, following the origins of the creative industries concept as government policies worldwide, the preparation process has been happening far from the public eyes. Since 2012, in order to maintain the financial structure from the last decade, administration issues have been less discussed and more imposed. As an immediate result, funding and the academic incentives are now attached to how many degree have been issued (for students and for faculty), association with corporations and number of publications linked to the university. At the end of the academic year, the sum of all this is organized and statistics are disclosed, forming the basis of what will come next year. The silence after this procedures is deafening because it means that there is no concern regarding which/where are the achievements and/or learning. The universities have been producing a lot, but what for? For whom is this positive? And, for what reasons?

Anticipating that 2014 would be the beginning of a period in which economic difficulties would erupt on the tropical horizon, at the end of 2013 the Ministry of Education made a statement that all federal university expansion projects of public higher education reached the end of its second cycle. Although the political plans about the universities shall continue, this would happen through future projects, on future opportunities. For those who minimally read news about the Brazilian political situation, this was expected. Unfortunately, this is not the case for a lot of people related in any way to creative activities, which insist on belonging to the stereotype of the creative genius alien to worldly matters. Facing the possibility of returning to moneyless conditions, where funding was a privilege for fields very distant of the art world, was unimaginable.

The financial nature concerns brought up a short academic debate whose main question was: what was done with the money received during these years? In Goiás, the answer is very


1283

concrete with brand new laboratories, buildings, equipment and the growth of faculty members. Faced with evidences that could not be more clear, the polemics were finished with a sad 'now what?'. In order to avoid mores losses, the alternative was mainly about finding a way to maintain the productivity standards. Dealing with such paradoxes is part of the job of keeping the wheel turning, nonetheless wouldn't it be the time to understand the rankings that are being so blindly pursued? The good thing about disrupting a rhythm – a production rhythm in this case – is to destabilize the structures, not to continue past behaviours and operating modes.

Instead of continuing to serve corporate partnerships, the lack of intellectual investment in research is troubling since most of designers within the academic environment have been acting more like technical and less as thinkers. So, all the excitement around the creative class, economy or industries, is very useful for business but not so much when it comes to strengthen design as a knowledge field. It looks a lot like the late 1800's, when art 'was to discipline the mind through a technical training which focused upon the perfection of drawing and design skills' (Freedman, 1989, p. 105). The concept to continue producing despite the adversities reinforces the idea that ''the individual' has been like a mythical hero' (p. 112) and while remaining occupied in attending previous obligations it is difficult to one create – really and meaningfully – after all, there is so much work still to be done.

With so many higher demands, another neglected point is on the relationship with the community. As a supposed class, Brazilian design researchers are not taking into account one of its own guru’s statements. Richard Florida's states, loud and clear, that 'place matters' (2012, p. 183) and he insists that diversity is a leverage. In that sense, where are the studies, research and publications with respect to the local? It is of great importance to be aware of literature and reports that relates with art and design in a global perspective, but one cannot take for granted the study of some communities and apply it to others as if being part of a global capital system would be enough. In a country with huge geographical proportions such as Brazil, the only Creative Industries Mapping that is easily accessed has been a work of Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro (FIRJAN), through a document published two times, every two years, since 2012. Other organization using the term is the Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises (SEBRAE). Both follows the British Council's (2010) guidelines by means of workshops publications in Brazilian Portuguese.

Other territory and territoriality notions arise in this context in which society is constituted by 'an invisible space of knowledge, wisdom, thought of powers in that sprout and become qualities of being' (Levy, 1999, p. 15). This hybrid and nomadic individual seeks information while seeking relationships, statements and sense of belonging. The relationship between virtual and real is established from a relationship in a space that is not physical, palpable, but that is vigilant and controlling. This is just one of the ambivalences experienced between local and global, authorship and anonymity, name and nickname, belonging and detachment and produce and consume. As cultural studies shows, 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts' (Kincheloe, 2007, p. 104) and the story is repeating itself right here and right now.

At this point, a couple of questions remain: Does being global equal to being similar? Is being creative more about improving then is it about novelty? Amid this productive frenzy, jan jagodzinski (2010) elaborates the term 'designer capitalism' claiming that this situations and contradictions have been treating 'difference as a possibility of sameness given as a choice' (p. 26). When one realizes that most of us are voluntarily choosing amongst all this aesthetic sameness, it is not exciting to read again Pink's (2005) advice about developing 'aptitudes that


1284

computers can't do better, faster or cheaper' (p. 47). When higher education is becoming just doing, producing and doing a little bit more, disregarding the intellectual investment in promoting the thinking act, soon enough there will be computers doing what well-trained designers/artists are now learning by just doing it. And then, maybe, some are going back to Marx (1985):

When the machine starts to handle the tool, the exchange value of labour power disappears when its use value fades. The worker is placed out of the market as money withdrawn from circulation. The part of the working class that the machinery turns into superfluous population, is not immediately required to the capital's self-expansion, follows one end of an immovable dilemma: either succumb in the unequal struggle of the old crafts and old manufacturing against mechanized production, or floods all the more available industries, crowding the labor market and making the workforce price falls below its value (pp. 492-493).

It seems like all the new minds, ages, classes have one thing in common: the human and the humanity are the last of their worries.

Final considerations A research paper, like this one, probably is of the most difficult kind of writing to indeed be

finished. Often it is a work in progress that belongs to a bigger picture. Right now, the main purpose is to step aside from the enthusiastic generalities and search for nagging particularities. One may be expecting a revolutionary proposal standing up against all the critics about the actual moment. Such a radical and ambitious proposition is not what brings this discussion to an end. The actual point, for now, is to reinforce the universities’ need for being part of the decision making process. This paper is about not quitting, at least, not yet.

It is not up to this work to forecast the future of design education or even art education. Far from that, the impossibility of guaranteeing a better path is the most stimulating challenge about research that regards education. For now, the exercise was finding places where economic interests meets educational ones through the 'creative discourse'. In the middle of the way, the multiple associations with fields of knowledge and work with the word creative shows that, in this context, it is more precise talk about 'creative industries' then 'creative economy', since the boundaries here are in relation with design and art.

The crossed paths were found when educational policies in Brazilian higher education are so intimately and obediently linked with neoliberal standards. This posture may be the reasonable one, but it is, at the same time, the easiest one. Possibly, it is the safe way to climb a few steps of the rankings stairs, but is not a ‘creative’ choice. As utopian as it may seem and however small are the potential changes that academic discussions can actually provide, the time has already passed for a more frequent and consistent debate when it comes to education for the a supposed new era propagated by the creativity gurus.

Florida (2002, 2012) has given signs that the new age needs 'to rebuild our education system from the ground up – and on the principles of creativity and the Creative Economy' (p. 391). He even claims that people should 'stop blaming teachers for problems created by an outmoded system' (p. 391). The suggestion is that teachers were not part of the construction of the current educational system entrapping the chain around this text. In this case, to


1285

comprehend the trap is the first step to avoid falling in the next one. There is still time, not much, but it still exists.

Acknowledgements: This paper is part of on-going doctoral research at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture – Helsinki, Finland. This research project is being supported by the Science without Borders programme, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), under the Ministry of Education – Brazil.

References Brasil. Congresso. Lei nº. 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996 [Law nº. 9.394 from December

20th 1996]. Brasília: Ministério da Educação. Brasil. Lei no 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação

Nacional. Diário Oficial da Uniao, Brasília, DF, 24 dez. 1996. Retrieved 28 jan 2015, from: http://portal.mec.gov.br/seed/arquivos/pdf/tvescola/leis/lein9394.pdf

Brasília. Ministério da Cultura. (2011). Plano da Secretaria da Economia Criativa: políticas, diretrizes e ações, 2011 – 2014. Retrieved 22 Feb, 2015, from: http://www2.cultura.gov.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/livro_web2edicao.pdf

Bosi, A. (1995). A Dialética da Colonização [The Dialectics of Colonization]. São Paulo: Cia das Letras.

British Council. (2010). Mapping the Creative Industries: a toolkit. London: British Council. Retrieved 27 dez 2014, from: http://creativeconomy.britishcouncil.org/media/uploads/files/English_mapping_the_creative_industries_a_toolkit_2-2.pdf

Canclini, N. G. (2003). Culturas híbridas [Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity]. São Paulo, Edusp.

Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art Education and Commerce. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press.

Clegg, P. (2008). Creativity and critical thinking in the globalised university. In Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 35, No. 3, August 2008 (pp. 219-226).

Chan, J. (2013). Researching creativity and creativity research. In K. Thomas & J. Chan. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Creativity (pp. 21-32). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.

D'angelo, M. (2006). A modernidade pelo olhar de Walter Benjamin. [Modernity by the look of Walter Benjamin]. In: Estudos Avançados. Sao Paulo, v. 20, n. 56, Apr. Retrieved 12 jan 2015 from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.phpscript=sci_arttext&pid=S010340142006000100016&lng=en&m=iso

Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

______. (2012). The Rise of the Creative Class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Freedman, K. (1989). Dilemmas of Equity in Art Education: ideologies of individualism and Cultural Capital. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Equity in Education (pp. 103-117). New York: Falmer Press.


1286

Freire, P. (1959). Educação e atualidade brasileira. [Education and brazilian reality]. Recife: Universidade Federal do Recife.

Gelb, M. J. (2000). How to think like Leonardo da Vinci: seven steps to genius everyday. New York: Bantam Dell.

Giroux, H. A. (2003). Selling out Higher Education. In Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 1, No. 1. (pp. 179-200).

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howkins, J. (2001). The Creative Economy: How people make money from ideas. Allen Lane:

The Penguin Press. Jagodzinski, j. (2010). Visual art and education in an era of designer capitalism: deconstructing

the oral eye. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kincheloe, J. (2007). Redefinindo e interpretando o objeto de estudo. [Redefining and

interpreting the study object]. In: J. Kincheloe & K.S. Berry (Eds.). Pesquisa em educaçao: conceituando a bricolagem. [Research in Education: conceptualizing the bricolage] (pp. 101-121).Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.

Kurlansky, M. (2004). 1968: the year that rocked the world. New York: Ballantine. Levy, P. (1999). Cibercultura. [Cyberculture].Sao Paulo: editora 34. Miguez, P. (2007). Economia criativa: uma discussao preliminar. [Creative Economy: a

preliminary discussion]. In: G.M. Nussbaumer (Ed.) Teorias e políticas da cultura: visoes multidisciplinares (pp. 95-113). [Theories and policies of culture: multidisciplinary visions]. Salvador: Edufba.

Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: moving from de information Age to the Conceptual Age. New York: Rivers Books.

Sebrae. (2015). O que é economia criativa. [What is creative economy]. Retrieved 18 jan 2015 from: http://www.sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/artigos/O-que-%C3%A9-Economia-Criativa

Sistema FIRJAN. (2012). Mapeamento da Indústria Criativa no Brasil. [Creative Industries Mapping in Brazil]. Retrieved 9 sep 2014 from: http://www.firjan.org.br/economiacriativa/download/Analise_completa.pdf

______. (2014). Mapeamento da Indústria Criativa no Brasil. [Creative Industries Mapping in Brazil]. Retrieved 23 jan 2015 from: http://www.firjan.org.br/economiacriativa/download/mapeamento-industria-criativa-2014.pdf

Teixeira, A. (1956). A educação e a crise brasileira [Education and the brazilian crisis]. São Paulo: Editora Nacional.

Zimmerman, E. (2013). Presences and absenses: a critical analysis of recent research about creativity in visual arts education. In K. Thomas & J. Chan. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Creativity (pp. 48-67). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.

Costa Ferreira da Silva, Gisele Crossed Paths · 2016-12-17 · Jane Osmond, Coventry University,...

Documents

Transcript of Costa Ferreira da Silva, Gisele Crossed Paths · 2016-12-17 · Jane Osmond, Coventry University,...