CONNECTED 2007 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN EDUCATION 9 – 12 JULY 2007, UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA Knowledge and Identity in the Design Field Lucila Carvalho and Andy Dong Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Planning, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia ABSTRACT This research investigates knowledge and identity in design education by examining perceptions of achievement and membership within four design disciplines: engineering, architecture, digital media and fashion design. Drawing on concepts derived from sociology of education (Bernstein, 1977; Maton, 2004, 2006), we theorize how designers and those new to the field recognize and realize design practices, how “knowledge” and “knowers” are specialized, and its relation to the shaping of identity within these disciplines. In order to explore the application of this theory, we conducted in depth interviews with design professionals and a survey with Year 10 students. Preliminary findings discuss how engineering design tends to be perceived as knowledge driven, and is often associated with adjectives such as “scientific” and “technical”. Architecture, digital media and fashion design are described as “artistic” and “creative”. Strategies used within the practice of these disciplines tend to be associated with personal and/or social dispositions, such as “being sensitive” and “having a network of contacts”. Strategies used by engineers tend to emphasize seeking information on procedures and techniques (e.g. books, journals). INTRODUCTION Social structuring of knowledge refers to the arrangement of knowledge and knowers within intellectual and educational fields (Maton, 2006). This concept involves the idea that implicit agreements between members of a field will form the basis for achievement and membership within the group. As in other specialised areas, the practice of design professionals reflects and shapes how design knowledge and knowers are specialised. In the same way, such structuring also moulds the teaching and learning of design disciplines. On the learner’s perspective, this means one will need to learn these “unwritten rules” of the field, in addition to the procedures and skills necessary to do design. Therefore, learning design will also involve understanding what is considered interesting or original, what are the significant readings and which design professionals are worth attention. In other words, design learners need to learn how to recognize and realize legitimate design practices. For a design practitioner as well as a design educator, an additional factor must be taken into account. Within their practice these professionals are likely to be reproducing knowledge as established within the disciplinary group that they belong to. This paper presents the application of concepts derived from the sociology of education within four disciplinary areas of design: engineering, architecture, digital media and fashion design. We report on preliminary findings of a research investigating the perceptions of how knowledge and knowers are specialised within these disciplines, and which strategies designers are using in order to recognize and realize legitimate design practices. The next section of this paper presents the sociological theory and concepts used in the analysis. In section II, the research methods and instruments are discussed and section III and IV present the preliminary findings. The last section discusses the implications of these findings and concludes the paper reporting the future directions of our research. I. SOCIOLOGY OF DESIGN EDUCATION AND PRACTICE In the sociology of education, Basil Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourses looks at its various practices, focusing on analysing the underlying rules that shape their social construction (Bernstein, 1977). Bernstein’s ideas were first developed with his code theory, considering how the use of language reflects and shapes assumptions one has about groups. Within his theory, Bernstein conceptualised how, in order to produce legitimate forms of communication, one first needs to identify (or “recognize”) the relevant meanings to the context one is in to produce texts and communicate (or “realize”) according to what is expected within the context. In the 60’s and 70’s, Bernstein developed the concepts of classification and framing as codes to analyse relationships of power and control within a given context. Within Bernstein’s framework, classification refers to how knowledge is organised, expressing the power of a category in maintaining its knowledge. A curriculum in which disciplines are highly differentiated would be considered as having stronger classification (C+). An integrated curriculum in which disciplines are interconnected would demonstrate weaker classification (C-). Control relations establish legitimate communication between categories and are expressed by the concept of framing. Framing is related to how communication takes place between the transmitter and acquirer of knowledge. The control over the communication can be in relation to the selection of the communication, its sequencing, pacing, the criteria used for evaluation and over the base in which this interaction is taking place. Stronger framing (F+) is present if the transmitter is in control of the communication, and weaker framing (F-) if the acquirer is perceived as in apparent control. 1