Output details

Writing Design

The chapter builds on comprehensive work (articles and conference presentations) to develop a coherent UK based and specifically design education focused contribution to international, multi-disciplinary work on theory and practice of ‘Writing in the Disciplines’ approaches.

Building on ‘Academic Literacies’ approaches (Lea and Street, Lea), ‘Writing in the Disciplines’ (Monroe, Street), and ‘Writing Across the Curriculum’ (Bean) movements (US, Australia), and challenging the work of ‘Writing PAD’ (UK) this co-authored chapter presents an action research case study on developing design history writing pedagogies for diverse undergraduate design students. It argues for a ‘Writing in the Disciplines’ approach as also enhancing inclusive pedagogies, which enable all students to access, understand and confidently deploy usually tacit epistemic praxis of disciplinary discourses and codes: in this case design history. The chapter discusses the suitability of action research to higher education contexts to embed innovation in pedagogical praxis with a clear focus on both tutors and learners.

The chapter provides an evaluation of these literatures - AL, WID, WAC, Writing PAD and Widening Participation in art and design HE - in order to situate the case study presented here. It also develops an argument for an object study based approach for design writing as a way to mitigate acculturation into a design history canon or the mere acquisition of canonical knowledge, for a contextual approach to objects might enable diverse students to be less concerned with the ownership of culture than to be able to participate in a discussion about how culture works.

As with output 4 this research was developed through papers presented at international conferences (see output 4).

Co author Peter O'Neil collaborated equitably, in research and writing.