An analytic philosophy of design and design education : major paradigms and implications for art & design education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is based on the premise that both the theoretical and practical work of curriculum development requires the support of generally understood and agreed concepts and terminology. The use of the term 'design' within the fields of design methodology, art & design education, and the design professions is analyzed for the purpose of distinguishing and correlating the various domains of attached meanings. This 'Analytic Philosophy' seeks to clarify to what extent the term 'design' is reliable when applied to the task of determining the purpose and content of design-related activities within art curricula. \nTwo major paradigms related to the notions of design as a 'problem-solving-process' and as a 'basic human capacity' are isolated and offered as dominant orientations towards design methodology and design curriculum development. Assumptions, beliefs, claims, and counter-claims seen to undergird these paradigms are mapped and analyzed along with the design-related content of Canadian provincial secondary art curriculum guides. \nIt is shown that the term 'design' commonly finds different meanings within different contexts and that agreement regarding the meaning of the term is difficult to establish both within and across the various design and art & design education domains. It is also evident that many of the claims which work to support the theoretical frameworks of the paradigms cannot be substantiated. It is concluded that the notion of 'design', as a result, remains conceptually and contextually vague and ambiguous. \nIt is further concluded that while such conceptual confusion might be of little consequence to the practical activities of the design professions, it can serve to complicate and inhibit communications and work particularly related to design education issues and curriculum development. Therefore the term 'design' is seen as unreliable when applied to the task of determining the purpose and content of design-related activities within art curricula.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".