In a blog post just before Christmas (December 2016) David Barlex (along with Torben Steeg and Nick Givens) argued for the rebuilding of Design and Technology based upon the current situation where less than 30% of students now study D&T. In response to David’s proposal I would agree with the identified challenges as being:
- A lack of agreed epistemology
- Confusion about purpose
- Uncertainty about the nature of good practice
- Erroneous stakeholder perceptions
However whilst there is much that I agree with in the report I would argue that the proposed rebuilding plan is prone to failure. As such I would propose a more radical reclaiming, renaming and reframing agenda in the form of developing Design and (or) Technology 2.0.
Central to this proposal are two main points:
Firstly David’s proposal is looking to rebuild a subject in an environment that has already seen the perceived failure of Design and Technology. Rebuilding in this climate, using the identified infrastructure would see humpty dumpty put back together again only to continue to fall. As such Design and (or) Technology 2.0 will only survive and evolve in an environment that will allow it thrive. As ‘designers’ we know that the best ideas don’t always prosper – they have to adapt or be adapted to their environment. As such the recommendations on page 26 of the report are those that may have worked in the past but which I don’t believe will work in the future.
Most notably lacking in the report is the full acknowledgement for the need for continued political support. Design and Technology has both grown, thrived and then been completely neglected by various governments. It was a core, compulsory subject enjoying both government interest and resourcing but in the last eight years the subject has been abandoned and mistreated. The absolute shambles of the writing of the national curriculum by civil servants perhaps best illustrates just how badly Design and Technology has fared with recent governments.
Therefore Design and (or) Technology 2.0 has to be much more politically savvy and operate and adapt to a new form of political will.
Secondly I have suggested this isn’t a ‘rebuilding’ exercise, as this would suggest attempting to recreate something we have previously had. Instead I would propose the reclaiming, renaming and reframing of the subject in version 2.0. Hence this could be Design 2.0, Technology 2.0, Design or Technology 2.0, Design and Technology 2.0 or even more radically Design, Technology and Engineering (something I posited in a report for D&TA in 2011). Lets debate!
If we take the four challenges identified by David then it is clear that there remains a lack of agreement as to what the purpose and rationale for the subject is? A good illustration of this is by taking a look at the Design and Technology Association website where it is almost impossible to identify what the subject is or more significantly what the subject isn’t about. The reason for specifically referring to the Design and Technology association website is because in David’s report the association’s influence is clearly (and rightly) acknowledged yet I would argue the associations lack of a clear rationale and sense of purpose is clearly problematic.
Over the years the Design and Technology association has undergone several cosmetic transformations, however I would suggest that any organisation that has overseen (I am not however assigning blame) the decline on the scale that we have seen really does need to think more radically about ‘reclaiming, renaming and reframing’. Central to this is the use of ‘and’ in Design ‘and’ Technology as it remains problematic and misleading. The use of ‘and’ in Design and Technology may seem nuanced but remains significant and I will perhaps save the discussion for another occasion, but I believe the subject (whatever that is) and the association should consider reconceiving the identity to more accurately capture the future direction and ambition of the subject rather than the clinging to the past.
Finally there is much more I could say but I regard this response as the starting of a conversation. However the final point I want to pick up on is the notion of Initial Teacher Education in D&T. Perhaps more than any other subject Design and Technology ITE has taken the biggest hit in the last 8 years. It has been dismantled to such an extent that I don’t believe at present, specifically in the context of the UK, it has in its current form the capacity to rebuild either itself or to have the impact upon the subject that is needed. Perhaps therefore the biggest challenge (and genuine opportunity) is reconceiving a way of attracting, educating and training future teachers without the existing infrastructure. Without this being addressed there is no future for any version of the subject!
Rather than reflecting however upon any of the above in some unfortunate or negative way I genuinely believe there is now a genuine opportunity to be optimistic. David’s blog and report have opened the door to a complex and challenging debate, one that I hope the wider community will engage with!