Differences between Design and Engineering Courses in SPD Education

While it is true that many design areas can be arts/humanities based, it is too simplistic to define modern industrial design as being only interested in aesthetics. Rather, one should understand that an industrial designer / product designer is visually and emotionally aware, with a training and background which is a crossover of fine and applied arts combined with technology, and adopts a more ethnographic approach to design problems (Morris, Childs, & Hamilton, 2007). This can affect the definition of problems and their resulting solutions.

A review of the major differences in SPD tertiary education between design and engineering courses was made by educators in the UK (Morris et al., 2007). The authors are jointly from the Universities of Brighton and Sussex, which have joined together to become the UK Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Creativity (CETL in C). They found that creativity plays an integral part in contributing to sustainability, notably at the ‘innovative’ end of the spectrum, where leaps of imagination are required to achieve Brezet’s Level 4 of System Innovation, (previously in Figure 7). As the Universities of Brighton and Sussex offer courses in both design and engineering, as do many other UK universities, they were in an ideal situation to compare pedagogies of the two disciplines, as given below (Table 9):

72

The ‘analytical and logical route’ (Morris et al., 2007, p. 135) of mechanical engineering evolved with a scientific approach. By contrast, the industrial design profession was created to bring artistic and cultural meaning to the proliferation of products with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, as in 2.6. The divergence and separation of the artistic from the scientific has long been recognized: the authors cite the Fielden Report (Fielden, 1963), the Conway Report (Conway, 1969) and the Finniston Report (Finniston, 1980). This has been well documented in the UK. For the Universities of Brighton and Sussex “there appears a polarisation in the courses of staff, students and pedagogy that mirrors the traditional artistic/analytical divide” (Morris et al., 2007, p. 136).

The main differences in pedagogic approaches, as found by Morris et al, 2007, are summarized (Table 9). They found that design students received a shallow and broad education, which might include arts and humanities, architecture, as well as scientific elements from mechanical and electrical engineering, business, law, accounting and IT. This whole range of subjects can be taught from the onset, but the level of knowledge is progressively deepened. Morris et al, 2007, found that “sustainable design lends itself particularly to a phased approach as it has its own clearly recognisable phases; green design; eco design; sustainable design” (Morris et al., 2007, p. 136), see 1.2. Students can be taught to approach a design problem from an ever widening level, from the single issue of green design, considering all aspects of a product’s life cycle (LCM and LCA) of eco-design, through to including social considerations of sustainable design. This approach has been adopted for design- based degrees in the European Union (Socrates, 2005), cited in (Morris et al., 2007).

This holistic approach is often supported by problem-based learning (PBL) such as design projects, providing a “motivational and deep learning platform” which allow the students to integrate and practice their knowledge at an increasingly deeper level (Morris et al., 2007, p. 137). The authors claim that it can be effective to involve the students first with design knowledge and then to introduce environmental issues. As the design process is circular, it can be concluded that environmental knowledge will

73 result in a review of the initial problem definition, and should hone problem finding skills.

Student self-reflection as well as group critique sessions are a regular design practice in PBL, where design students are able to gain knowledge from peer review. However, SD/SPD knowledge has to be significantly embedded in student consciousness for critiquing of SPD to happen spontaneously. Group critique offers the opportunity to make students aware of environmental issues if previously not the case (Morris et al., 2007, p. 137).

By nature of the wide array of topics for design students, Morris et al, 2007, conclude that design students will have a greater exposure to:

.. a wider variety of specialists and this facilitates a cross-linking of cultures and perspectives. The conjoining of previously unrelated ideas, thoughts and concepts is well recognised as a feature of creative thinking and this is a major factor in the creative outputs arising from design students (Morris et al., 2007, p. 138).

For engineering students, the teaching approach is more likely to be theoretical, with a science base. Topics are taught with a narrow focus, in a logical, linear and in-depth manner. A final-year project usually offers the main opportunity of practical application, with any further practice reserved for industrial experience after graduation. As reported by the authors, the limitations of this approach have been recognized by the engineering profession, with various moves for improvement. These include consideration of learning spaces and PBL (Molina & al, 2003), team working, multidisciplinarity and ICT (information and communications technologies) (Dutson, Todd, Magleby, & Sorenson, 1997; Kulacki & Krueger, 1998), as cited by (Morris et al., 2007, p. 139).

The authors claim that according to a Forum on Creativity ("Forum on Creativity in Engineering Education," 2006), the integration of creativity for engineers is marginal and met with scepticism in many cases. Morris et al, 2007, note that:

74

As a result, engineers are less likely than designers to be “fashioned” as creative thinkers, outside of being taught basic creativity tools. In comparative studies, postgraduate engineering students and undergraduate design students are set the task of redefining the purpose of a product. The purpose of a product is obviously known so the exercise involves an abandoning of norms and undertaking leaps of imagination. Students must also present their findings to the cohort which magnifies the desire to conform among logical thinkers, rather than to express openly among creative thinkers. Whilst almost all of the design students are usually successful at this exercise, it is rare that the majority of engineering students are successful (Morris, 2001-2004; Morris et al., 2007, p. 139).

Within the context of sustainable design, creativity is essential for achieving levels of radical innovation, rather than the lesser levels of green or eco design, see 1.2. Therefore achieving Factors 10 - 20 improvements (E. L. Dewberry & Monteiro de Barros, 2009), see also 1.1, demand that innovative problem solving be the norm, rather than the exception: radical changes are necessary and can be facilitated through creativity. Morris et al, 2007, see this as the strength of design courses where students must redefine problems using creativity, and not analytical thought.

The authors conclude that currently this is an area “where design students excel” whereas “the move to take up creativity has been apparently slow in engineering courses” (Morris et al., 2007, p. 140). However, the authors warn of mutual disdain of the other profession, as global sustainability issues require both professions, which:

makes irrelevant the petty groupings and divides of designers, some of whom by practice, ignorance, snobbery or a lack of ability ignore the power of analysis, and engineers, some of whom by practice, ignorance, snobbery or a lack of ability ignore the principles of form and industrial design (Morris et al., 2007, p. 141).

They conclude optimistically that the creation of the Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in Creativity project at the Universities of Brighton and Sussex, in 2005, will promote and support future collaboration and improvement. It is based on design pedagogy, promotes strategic creativity and the improvement of teaching creativity for engineering. This is enabled through a laboratory for using and “playing with” new technologies, amongst other practices (www.sussex.ac.uk).

75