Advertisement

From Crit to Social Critique

  • Stephen Petrina
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

This chapter addresses the problem of moving students from critical self-reflection to the critique of design and technology. How and why do students become skeptical or critical of the designed world or more specifically of practices and products created for unsustainable consumption or planned obsolescence? After reviewing the history of the crit in D&T classrooms and workshops, this chapter addresses how students transfer dispositions from the crit to social critique of design practices and products. Conceptually, Schön’s work, especially The Reflective Practitioner, provides key insights into this problem. This is a problem of transferring activity to activism, from school facilities to everyday life external to schools.

Keywords

Crit Critique Design History of Design education Schön 

References

  1. Adorno, T. W. (1945). A social critique of radio music. Kenyon Review, 7(2), 208–217.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, K. H. (1987). Private reactions to public criticism: Students, faculty, and practicing architects state their views on design juries in architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(3), 2–11.Google Scholar
  3. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial. The renaissance of the design studio. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  4. Barlex, D. (2015). Developing a technology curriculum. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 143–168). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, C., & Lunt, J. (Eds.). (2011). International handbook of primary technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years. Dordrecht: Sense.Google Scholar
  6. Braundy, M. (2012). Men & women and tools: Bridging the divide. Halifax: Fernwood.Google Scholar
  7. Bronowski, J. (1973/2011). The ascent of man. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, N. M. (1887). The Nääs seminary for teachers of manual training. Science, 10(251), 255–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coates, C. (1923). History of the manual training school of Washington University. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, P., & O’Riley, P. (2015). In(di)geneity in design and technology education. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 67–85). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Compton, V., & Harwood, C. (2005). Progression in technology education in New Zealand: components of practice as a way forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 253–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costanza, R. (2001). Visions, values, valuation, and the need for an ecological economics. Bioscience, 51(6), 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane, R., & Schweitzer, L. A. (2003). Transport and sustainability: The role of the built environment. Built Environment, 29(3), 238–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dakers, J. (Ed.). (2006). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Dakers, J. (Ed.). (2014). New frontiers in technological literacy: Breaking with the past. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. d’Anjou, P. (2010). Beyond duty and virtue in design ethics. Design Issues, 26(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. de Vries, M. J. (2017). Philosophy as critique. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 15–30). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Vries, M. J., & Mottier, I. (Eds.). (2006). International handbook of technology education. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  21. Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1904). Significance of the school of education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(7), 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dilnot, C. (1984). The state of design history, part I: Mapping the field. Design Issues, 1(1), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dopp, K. E. (1902). The place of industries in elementary education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Elshof, L. (2009). Toward sustainable practices in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flynn, P. (2005). Critting the crit in the education of architects: From Bauhaus to Bolton Street (Unpublished MA Thesis). Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.Google Scholar
  27. Goldstein, R. A. (2007). The perilous pitfalls of praxis: Critical pedagogy as “regime of truth.”. In R. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Useful theory: Making critical education practical (pp. 15–29). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Gregg, B. (1994). Possibility of social critique in an indeterminate world. Theory and Society, 23(3), 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gumbo, M. T. (2015). Indigenous technology in technology education curricula and teaching. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 57–76). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ham, C. H. (1886). Manual training: The solution of social and industrial problems. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  32. Haney, J. P. (1905). The teaching of applied design. The Elementary School Teacher, 6(4), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrison, N. E. (1998). Why science and technology require political guidance to sustain development. Politics and the Life Sciences, 17(2), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hervey, H. D. (1908). Manual training. Journal of Education, 67(12), 328–329.Google Scholar
  35. Hetzler, S. A. (1969/2002). Technological growth and social change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Horvath, J., & Cameron, R. (2015). The new shop class: Getting started with 3D printing, arduino, and wearable tech. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobson, A. (1888). Higher ground: Hints toward settling the labor troubles. New York: A. C. McClurg.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, A., & de Vries, M. J. (Eds.). (2009). International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  39. Keirl, S. (2015). ‘Seeing’ and ‘interpreting’ the human-technology phenomenon. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 13–34). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology: International trends in curriculum and assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2008). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Kranzberg, M. (1962). The technical act. Technology and Culture, 3(4), 519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacDowell, P. (2015). Empowering girls as change-makers in maker culture: Stories from a summer camp for girls in design, media, and technology (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  45. Martin, M., & Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Is design and technology about making or knowing? In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Debates in design and technology education (pp. 64–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Conceptual innovation and transfer. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 447–465). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Marx, K. (1867/1967). Capital (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.). New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. McKinney, J. (1919). The what and the why of manual training. Industrial Arts Magazine, 8(8), 293–297.Google Scholar
  49. McLaren, S. V. (2012). Considering some big issues and the role of technology education in transformational change. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 231–260). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, F. L. (2014). The iPad bouncy seat: ‘An embarrassment for humankind.’ Huffington Post, Retrieved http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/ipad-bouncy-seat_n_4374308.html.
  51. O’Riley, P. (2003). Technology, culture, and socioeconomics: A rhizoanalysis of educational discourses. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  52. Pavlova, M. (2009). Conceptualisation of technology education within the paradigm of sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petrina, S. (2000). The political ecology of design and technology education: An inquiry into methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 207–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petrina, S. (2014). Postliterate machineries. In J. Dakers (Ed.), New frontiers in technological literacy: Breaking with the past (pp. 29–43). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Petrina, S. (2017). Critique of technology. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pettifor, J. L. (2002). Preferred strategies for learning ethics in the practice of a discipline. Canadian Psychology, 43(4), 260–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rolston, H. (1991). Review of The justification of science and the rationality of religious belief. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 59(2), 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salomon, O. (1888). The Slöjd in the service of the school (W. H. Carpenter, Trans.). New York, NY: Industrial Education Association.Google Scholar
  59. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA.Google Scholar
  62. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  63. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schön, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schön, D. A. (1992a). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schön, D. A. (1992b). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Science Editors. (1887). Review of Higher ground: Hints toward settling the labor troubles. Science, 10(254), 296–298.Google Scholar
  68. Seeman, K. (2015). Designing for cultural groups and humanization. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Selfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy: A story about the perils of not paying attention. College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simmonds, R. P. (1978). Learning to learn and design: The development of effective strategies in a graduate school of architecture (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  71. Simmonds, R. P. (1981). A first year studio in a graduate school of architecture. In W. Porter & M. Kilbridge (Eds.), Architectural education study, Volume II: The cases (pp. 5–206). Cambridge, MA: Consortium of East Coast Schools of Architecture.Google Scholar
  72. Stables, K., & Keirl, S. (Eds.). (2015). Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Stevens, G. (1995). Struggle in the studio: A Bourdivin look at architectural pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 49(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Teachers in Training. (1888). Teachers [in crits]. Irish Monthly, 16(183), 517–525.Google Scholar
  75. Triggs, O. L. (1902). Chapters in the history of the arts and crafts movement. Chicago: Bohemia Guild of the Industrial Art League.Google Scholar
  76. Waks, L. J. (2001). Donald Schon’s philosophy of design and design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Warner, C. D. (1884). The demand of the industrial spirit. North American Review, 139(334), 209–223.Google Scholar
  78. Wicklein, R. (Ed.). (2001). Appropriate technology for sustainable living. New York: Glencoe.Google Scholar
  79. Williams, P. J., & Stables, K. (Eds.). (2017). Critique in design and technology education. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Wilson, E. (1941/1963). The historical interpretation of literature. In W. Sutton & R. Foster (Eds.), Modern literature: Theory and practice (pp. 234–242). New York: Odyssey.Google Scholar
  81. Woodruff, C. R. (1922). Wanted: Civic dramatists. National Municipal Review, 11(11), 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Woodward, C. M. (1882). The functions of an American manual training school. Popular Science Monthly, 21(37), 621–634.Google Scholar
  83. Woodward, C. M. (1903). The opportunity and function of the secondary school. Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association, 42, 60–71.Google Scholar
  84. Wright, C. D., Reed, W. A., & Golden, J. (Eds.). (1906). Report of the commission on industrial and technical education. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  85. Zuga, K. F. (1999). Addressing women’s ways of knowing to improve the technology education environment for all students. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations