C O L I N M . G R A Y I O W A S TA T E U N I V E R S I T Y

S T R U G G L E O V E R R E P R E S E N TAT I O N

C R I T I C A L P E D A G O G Y I N D E S I G N E D U C A T I O N

I N T H E S T U D I O

I N T R O D U C T I O N

• Studio pedagogy is built on the apprenticeship or atelier model of education (Cuff, 1991)

• Elements of the studio pedagogy are being incorporated into disciplines without an established history as a design discipline (Brandt et al., 2011; Fallman, 2003; Winograd, 1990)

• It is vital to understand the patterns of hegemony built into the pedagogy (Anthony, 1991; Blythman, Orr, & Blair, 2007) before it becomes institutionalized and unquestioned, as in most art and design disciplines (Gray, 2014; Shaffer, 2003)

C R I T I C A L P E D A G O G Y

• Broadly applied within educational research, focusing on issues of institutionalized (and social) oppression (e.g., Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2003; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2011)

• Freire’s (1970) description of traditional education as operating on the “banking” model, calling for a shift to “problem-posing” which affirms all individuals in the process of becoming

• Accounts for power relations and norms communicated through the hidden curriculum (Freire, 1970)

C R I T I C A L [ D E S I G N ] P E D A G O G Y ?

• The studio model extends back into 18th century Europe (Cuff, 1991), and significant evidence of patriarchy and institutionalized oppression has been documented in this model of education (e.g., Anthony, 1991; Koch, 2002; Willenbrock, 1991)

• Common themes include socialization into design (Webster, 2008), harshness of critique (Anthony, 1991; Webster, 2006), and the often oppressive hidden curriculum of the studio (Dutton, 1991)

Critical framings of pedagogy have been rare in art and design education, & have not been documented

in emergent design disciplines

C L A S S R O O M S T U D I O

V YA S & N I J H O LT, 2 0 1 2 , P. 1 7 6

“Studio surfaces are not just the carriers of information but importantly they are sites of

methodic design practices, i.e. they indicate, to an extent, how design is being carried out.”

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N

OF IDENTITY OF PROCESS

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N

OF IDENTITY OF PROCESS

How am I able to represent my

design work in a public way

How am I able to perform my identity as a

proto-professional

T W O D I S C O U R S E S O F D E S I G NA C A S E

D ATA S O U R C E S

PRIMARY

• Participant Observation

• Photos, Audio, Video

• Critical Interview

SECONDARY

• Artifact Analysis

P R O T O -P R O F E S S I O N A L D I S C O U R S E

• Transience of physical design processes

P R O T O -P R O F E S S I O N A L D I S C O U R S E

• Transience of physical design processes

• Tensions over marking the space v. “showing off”

P R O T O -P R O F E S S I O N A L D I S C O U R S E

• Transience of physical design processes

• Tensions over marking the space v. “showing off”

• Rhythms of representation that paralleled class projects

• Prioritization of completed artifacts over process

• Reification of capstone poster as the students’ “best work”

FA C U LT Y /A C A D E M I C D I S C O U R S E

FA C U LT Y /A C A D E M I C D I S C O U R S E

• Prioritization of completed artifacts over process

• Reification of capstone poster as the students’ “best work”

• Tension between physical prototyping and keeping a “clean” space

L E G I T I M AT I N G A R E P R E S E N TAT I O NS T U D I O T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

M A R G I N A L I Z I N G A R E P R E S E N TAT I O NS T U D I O T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

P R O C E S S V. F I N A L P R O D U C T

W H AT D O E S T H I S C A S E T E L L U S A B O U T T H E S T R U G G L E F O R

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N ?

D I S C U S S I O N

S T U D E N T S T R I E D T O L E AV E T H E I R M A R K , E V E N W H E N T H E O D D S W E R E N O T I N T H E I R FAV O R

S T U D E N T S O R I E N T E D T O WA R D S P R A C T I C E , W H I L E A C A D E M I A T E N D E D T O G H E T T O I Z E T H E I R W O R K

Hegemony of media and format quite clearly communicates to students what a faculty

member or program at large values (e.g., Dineen & Collins, 2005)

The value of specific forms of representation were not shared, but

rather a point of contention

C O L I N G R AY. M E

T H A N K Y O U