Microsoft Word - KethroCorrectionsJune3.docx

This research addresses the effect of pedagogical ways-of-knowing in higher education design programmes such as Graphic Design, Interior Design, Fashion, and Industrial Design. One problematic aspect of design studio pedagogy is communication between teachers and students about the aesthetic visual meaning of the students’ designed objects. This problematic issue involves ambiguous and divergent ways-of-knowing the design meaning of these objects. The research focus is on the design teacher role in design studio interactions, and regards pedagogical ways-of-knowing as the ways in which teachers expect students to know visual design meaning. This pedagogical issue is complicated by the fact that there is no agreed-upon corpus of domain knowledge in design, so visual meaning depends greatly on the social knowledge retained by students and teachers. The thesis pursues an explanation of pedagogical ways-of-knowing that is approached through the philosophy of critical realism. How it is that particular events and experiences come to occur in a particular way is the general focus of critical realist philosophy. A critical realist approach to explanation is the use of abductive inference, or inference as to how it is that puzzling empirical circumstances emerge. An abductive strategy aims to explain how such circumstances emerge by considering them in a new light. This is done in this study by applying Luhmann’s theory of the emergence of cognition in communication to teacher ways-of-knowing in the design studio. Through the substantive use of Luhmann’s theory, an abductive conjecture of pedagogical ways-of-knowing is mounted. This conjecture is brought to bear on an examination of research data, in order to explain how pedagogical waysof-knowing constrain or enable the emergence of shared visual design meaning in the design studio. The abductive analysis explains three design pedagogical ways-of-knowing: design inquiry, design representation and design intent. These operate as macro relational mechanisms that either enable or constrain the emergence of shared visual design meaning in the design studio. The mechanism of relation is between design inquiry, design representation and design intent as historical knowing structures, and ways-of-knowing in respect of each of these knowing structures. For example, design inquiry as an historical knowing structure has over time moved from ways-of-knowing such as rationalistic problem solving to direct social observation and later to interpretive cultural analysis. The antecedence of these ways-of-knowing is important because communication about visual meaning depends upon prior knowledge, and teachers may then reproduce past ways-of-knowing. The many ways-of-knowing that respectively relate to design inquiry, design representation and design intent are shown to be communicatively formed and recursive over time. From a Luhmannian perspective, these ways-of-knowing operate as variational distinctions that indicate or relate to the knowing structures of design inquiry, design representation and design intent. This is the micro-level operation of pedagogical ways-of-knowing as relational mechanisms in design studio communication. Design teachers’ own ways-of-knowing may then embrace implicit way-of-knowing distinctions that indicate the knowledge structures of design inquiry, design representation and design intent. This implicit indication by distinction is the relational mechanism that may bring design teachers’ expectation that this and not that visual design meaning should apply in communication about any student’s designed object. Such an expectation influences communication between teachers and students about the potential future meaning of students’ designs. Consequently, shared visual design meaning may or may not emerge. The research explanation brings the opportunity for design teachers to make explicit the often implicit way-of-knowing distinctions they use, and to relate these distinctions to the knowing structures thus indicated. The study then offers a new perspective on the old design pedagogical problem of design studio conflict over the meaning of students’ designs. Options for applying this research explanation in design studio interactions between students and teachers are therefore suggested