C O L I N M . G R A Y
I O WA 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 N
A 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 N
S 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 N
S 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