Thursday 18 September 2014

What's in a name? or where's the 'and' in design technology?


Earlier in the week I took to Twitter to ask the provocative question: What is our subject called? This followed an innocent comment on a blog where design and technology was called ‘Design Technology’ and a journalist in the Guardian talking about their experiences in design technology. Both irritated me and by Monday afternoon I couldn’t keep my irritation to myself; but why should it irritate me? I want to cover two points in this post to help answer that question: firstly an explanation of the subject title, and secondly why getting it right is important.

At the inception of the National Curriculum, prior to 1990 (Wakefield and Owen-Jackson 2013), a working party defined the subject (DES1988) and called it design and technololgy.  So there it is: design AND technology. I could end there but its useful to consider why the ‘and’, why ‘design’ not just ‘technology’ and vice versa.

The ‘and’ exists for a purpose. As Tristram Shepard pointed out in a tweet  ‘design technology’ as a noun does not exist, but there is ‘design’ and there is ‘technology’; The ‘and’ brings together two existing nouns, ‘design’ and ‘technology’, as a compound noun and therefore a ‘unitary concept’ (DES1988, p.2). The explanation in the working in the report is so clear I will repeat it here:
‘…most, but not all, design activities will generally include technology and most technology activities will include design… our use of design and technology a unitary concept, to be spoken in one breath as it were, does not therefore embody redundancy. It is intended to emphasis the intimate connection between the two activities as well as to imply a concept, which is broader than either design or technology individual, and the whole of which we believe is educationally important. (Accordingly we use design and technology a compound noun taking the singular form of verbs…) (p.2)

It is not two parts ‘design’ and ‘technology’ as was suggested in the first, and atrocious, rewrite of the new National Curriculum (Department of Education 2013). For the sake of repetition to highlight the importance: it is a unitary concept represented as a compound noun ‘to be spoken in one breath’ (1988, p.2).

This name does have implications for the curriculum delivery, content and epistemology, which lead to my second point: the importance of getting the name right.

Wakefield and Owen-Jackson (2013) remind us that for a brief period design and technology was a subsidiary of a subject called technology; this included business studies and IT. The consequence here was a combination of mismatched subjects, with different types of knowledge and purposes. As a comparison in other countries the subject is called technology or a subsidiary of faculty of subjects (see Dugger Jr 2009, and Ginestié 2009). These scenarios come from or result in different approaches and purposes to (design and) technology* education (de Vries 2012). I think Ginestie (2009) thinks this arises from the ‘lack of clarity of a defined epistemology for (design and) technology*, which is the argument the Expert Panel (Design and Technology Association 2011) for removing D&T as a foundation subject. I am not going to explore the epistemology of our subject here that is for another blog post (once I have delved into work by Kurt Seeman).

I’ve touched on the name change but now I want to question the impact of the changing name. What was design and technology called when you were at school? My history in D&T is this:
·      Primary school: nothing
·      Secondary school:
o   First year (1981): woodwork, metalwork, domestic science, sewing, drawing, painting and pottery;
o   Second and third year (1982-84): all of the above, except woodwork and metalwork;
o   Fourth and fifth years (1984-86): O level Graphical Communication
o   A level (1986-88): Design, Craft and Technology (DCT)

D&T’s history is important; Martin (2013) proposes five design and technology eras. My ideas about these five eras, name/s related to the subject and the approximate years they took place in:

  • Era of making: Students in this period studied subjects such as craft, technical drawing and sewing between 1970 and 1986.
  • Era of personalizing: this was between 1985 & 1990; a very short period and I relate it to my own experiences when I did DCT (the Welsh version of CDT);
  •  Era of designing; during the first iteration of the National Curriculum between 1990 & 1996 with the focus from the four attainment targets ((Wakefield and Owen-Jackson 2013).
  • Era of manufacturing; 1995 to 2005 linked to the instigation and implementation of Tomlinson’s report (2004) resulting in Diplomas and GCSEs including Engineering and Manufacturing.
  • Era of valuing; 2000 to 2007 saw a greater focus in the whole National Curriculum on values, ethics and citizenship. No changes to the subject name were made but there was a shift in emphasis, which I think led to the ‘Importance Statements’ (2007).

My history in being a student of D&T straddles the eras of making and personalizing, and this probably had an effect on my naming and teaching of the subject. Consequently I probably projected an incorrect image of design and technology to my peers and stakeholders of the subject.

To summarise the name is the subject’s identity, calling it by any other name implies a different subject. The purpose and focus of design and technology is all in its name; call it by another name and it becomes a different subject with a different purpose.

I would welcome your thoughts on the name, how a name defines a subject and any other thoughts you have regarding the comments I have made here.

References

De Vries, M., 2012. Philosophy of Technology.  In: P.J. Williams, ed.,   Technology Education for Teachers. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2012, pp. 15-33.
Department of Education, 2013.  The National Curriculum in England Framework document (February 2013). London: Department of Education.
Design and Technology Association, 2011.  Report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review (DfE, December 2011) [online]. Design and Technology Association. Available at: http://bit.ly/14GHAZv [Accessed July 24 2013].
Dugger Jr, W.E., 2009. Developments in technology education in the United States of America. International Handbook of Research and Development in Technology Education, , 65-84.
Ginestié, J., 2009. Thinking about technology education in France. International Handbook of Research and Development in Technology Education, , 31-40.
Great Britain. Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1988.  
National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group Interim Report.
London: DES.

Great Britain. Department for Education and Skills, 2004.  Final Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform. Nottingham: DfES.
Martin, M., 2013. Five Eras of Making and Designing.  In: PATT27 Technology Education for the Future: A Play on Sustainability, Chirstchurch, New Zealand, 2-6 December 2013. pp. 318-324.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2007.  The National Curriculum : statutory requirements for key stages 3 and 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Wakefield, D., and Owen-Jackson, G., 2013. Government policies and design and technology education. Debates in Design and Technology Education, , 7.




*I would prefer to write design and technology here but the authors refer to technology education in their writing.

With thanks to David Barlex for pointing me in the direction of the Parkes report, and Tristram Shepard, Jo Hayes and Matt McLain for their views on the name, which helped clarify my thinking.