Disrupting Genius: A Dialogical Approach to Design Pedagogy

Design Incubation Colloquium 5.3, 2019: Merrimack College
by Rachael Paine and Bree McMahon

Abstract: We are interested in examining the theme of ego and idea hoarding in student studios and design culture, methods for disrupting the existing monological status quo approach to design pedagogy, and opportunities for future culture shifts. During a short presentation, we will examine these themes and the outcomes of a classroom workshop case study that employed disruptive making methods to teach collaboration, discourage individual bias, and support understanding and connection amongst design students.

Dr. Philip Plowright criticizes the culture of design which aims to keep design unknowable (Plowright, personal communication, October 24, 2018). The conceptual foundations of design practice claim to be “indescribable and personal” (Plowright, 2017), with designers clinging to assertions that methods are idiosyncratic, steeped in personal genius. A genius instructor, fearful of sharing knowable, repeatable methods, must surely produce students who further promote this broken culture. When a designer’s goal is to be the smartest person in the room, the ego runs wild, idea hoarding takes over, creativity dwindles, and conversation suffocates.

During a collaborative design charette, students responded to questions about design authorship, origination, and agency. Using rapid prototyping, iterative processes, design dialogue, and making methods, students created multiple compositions reflecting their insights. Disruptive prompts were introduced throughout the workshop. A formal discussion followed the charette and participants engaged in a conversation.

Students explored complex topics in design culture and also learned methods for collaboration, which allowed for free knowledge exchange, design critique, and creative innovation. Challenging the traditional studio model provides a learning space for addressing new challenges or “wicked problems” while also learning skills for reaching agreements, coordinating actions, discussing specific goals, and exploring new modes of discovery (Dubberly & Pangaro, 2017).

Adopting a pedagogical approach that disrupts the idiosyncratic design culture keeps the ego in check, generates collaboration, fosters creativity, and encourages conversation. In the case of this workshop, participants began to see themselves as a smaller part of the collective whole, rather than an individual genius seeking personal gratification and recognition. 

CITATIONS
Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2017). Distinguishing between control and collaboration—and communication and conversation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 2. 116-118. 10.1016/j.sheji.2016.12.002.

Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. “What is conversation? How can we design for effective conversation?” Dubberly Design Office, 1 May 2009, Retrieved from www.dubberly.com/articles/what-is-conversation.html.

Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA.

Plowright, P. (2017). Update - Project Goal. The cognitive structure of design methods (architecture). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-cognitive-structure-of-design-methods-architecture

Pecha Kucha 20x20

We are interested in examining the theme of ego and idea hoarding in student studios and design culture.

The traditional design practice that came from the Bauhaus shows the designer as the expert, all-knowing, personal genius, who must protect ideas from competitors. But, this is changing.

Design Futures, the AIGA briefing papers released at the end of 2018 delves into this changing nature of design. In particular, it calls for designers to solve complex problems with systems-level work across disciplines through rigorous collaboration. In short, the design process has become co-design activities involving a variety of people.

Design Futures also calls for educators to integrate this research into their curriculum. We have done this by devising methods for disrupting the existing monological status quo approach to pedagogy. Not only do we wish to encourage students to become reflective practitioners, but also discourage the “genius instructor” trope, the sage on the stage who is fearful of sharing knowable and repeatable methods.

When a designer’s goal is to be the smartest person in the room, the ego runs wild, idea hoarding takes over, creativity dwindles and conversation suffocates. By disrupting this pattern, one hopes to provide opportunities for future culture shifts.

Our dialogical approach for teaching design includes giving students opportunities to practice collaboration and conversation in a space where everybody brings their own ideas and perspectives, creating an environment where students listen, change each other’s minds, and find common ground.

Ideally, they become risk-takers with their egos and explore beyond their limits and what they know.

Good collaboration requires effective conversation. Hugh Dubberly and Paul Pangaro consider conversation a foundation for many design strategies. When students are involved in good conversation, they learn how to agree, coordinate plans, make goals, and explore methods of making.

Many students in design school have experienced high school art classes where you create a work, sign your name to it, hang it on the wall, and, if you’re lucky, get voted “Best Artist.” 

Our favorite example is Harvey Ball, the originator of the smiley face getting paid $45 for his work. He had no way of knowing it would become a universal culturally-owned symbol. When is it art and when is it design? And who owns it?

One way to break down preconceived notions about art and design ownership is through the fast-paced, iterative nature of design workshops or charrettes. The workshop eliminates that drive to create one refined masterpiece in favor of an exploratory process.

The initial concept for this series of workshops came from a masters-level course called Design as a Cultural Artifact at North Carolina State University. We developed a set of Rules of Play where participants would make selfishly and refine through collaboration.

This progressed into a weekend workshop with high school Juniors and Seniors at the NCSU Design Lab. Students sat in groups of four and created work as individuals towards a prompt. Without warning, the workshop was disrupted and students had to pass their compositions to the student at their left. Thus, forced collaboration ensued.

Based on these previous experiences, we devised a workshop for first-year Foundations BFA students at the University of Arkansas. First, students designed a 4-panel polyptych based on the legacy of Fay Jones, a local architect, while also examining the theme of art vs. design. After an initial critique, students “stole” panels from one another, which they used to design a poster or broadsheet. The workshop was disrupted a final time when students used scissors to physically cut bits and pieces from each other’s in-progress work to incorporate into their own final deliverable.

While students worked with stolen bits from one another they simultaneously carried one “solo” piece through until the end of the workshop using only two of their original panels.

Which piece do you think they preferred? Their solo or their “stolen” work?

When the process began, students were extremely uncomfortable with this idea of forced collaboration. They were fearful of not meeting the intended outcomes of classmates and apprehensive about having their own work confiscated and torn apart.

But what we found: Overall, students highly favored the work they created through the collaborative process compared to their solo compositions. They reported stepping outside of their comfort zone, seeing things with fresh eyes and new perspectives. Students experimented with unfamiliar ways of making, both analog and digital, to create work that surprised all of us.

In addition to introducing forced collaboration, we sought to encourage honest feedback and new techniques for critique. Because we’ve found students to be resistant to giving critical feedback to peers verbally, our final critique took place in a live Google Doc, in what we call a “silent critique.” Physically, we were all in the same space, but using a digital form of communication improved the quality of feedback.