BURCA TEKİN - 11535024 -

EA: I have one last question. What was the purpose in creating
these three personas? In our own examples, personas
are more tangible as they can also be found in our current
society. But for example, I envy this fashion designer
because she was very lucky. But what was the purpose and
objective in making this exercise? What did you expect
from us in return?
Cİ: In the second session, we tried to build the system. But
when we needed to communicate within this system, we
should first contextualise what we are proposing. To contextualise
and exemplify what is embedded in the system.
So in our third session our intention was to go from I, We
then They. In education, we do this for others. We first start
from our own experiences then we act as a group of people.
Then to test and exemplify these systems, we should first
define where we are and where are we going in making
projections for the future. Without these personas how can
we act and think realistically. But yeah the personas are
hypothetical.
DG: You said, if we do not have personas how can we test
the system. But you are assuming that these personas test
the system. That is an assumption. Personally I think that
it is an erroneous assumption. I think a persona can only
work in activities since the solution can be tested on individuals.
But in terms of credentials, they are not based on
individuals but they are based on a system. It is a collective
system that everybody has adopted in certain way.
Cİ: But since we are questioning the system, why should we
adopt and accept it as it is?
DG: No it is not the existing system. It is a new system.
Because lifetime activity does not exist sufficiently, we must
think it has to be much wider. It should have new activities
and descriptions that people have to adopt and believe
in that system. Academic system of design education is
accepted by ninety percent of the people. It can surely be
changed and improved but we agree on a certain system
since there is a degree, a curriculum, a teacher, a student
and a classroom. But the equal system for lifetime learning
does not exist yet. That is what we have been talking about
right?
Cİ: Yes that is what we have been trying to formalise it.
DG: Exactly but that system for credentials, is not based
on individuals. It is based on common understanding of
culture that has to be developed and adopted.
Cİ: What culture are we talking about here?
DG: A joint cultural understanding of lifetime learning.
Cİ: To give an example. In some countries, credentials do
not count but in some they do.
DG: We do not know what the credentials are because
every new system requires a new credential.
Cİ: Sure.
DG: But a credential system does not based on people, it is
based on common understandings and beliefs.
Cİ: But again, learning and education is for the people. we
cannot exclude but should include people’s personas into
the system.
DG: Credentials are not people. But they are some kind of
measurement and recognition.
AS: I think the credentials group tried to show that the credentials
can be based on people and I think this is a positive
perspective. Taking out the system and it becomes very
personal. The ship builder for instance. He is so competent
that he is already recognised by the people around him as
the guy who can fix things. That is enough of a credential
for him. The system that is required makes him a respected
person.
DG: Obviously. But what does it have to do with what we
have been talking about?
AS: Because, it is their way of giving him credit. These
people organise that credit. Look at Wikipedia on how this
can work. This is not about whether it is based on a system
of values or not.
HN: But when we speak of a system, there should be a designer
of the system right? So systems do not fall from sky.
In our group, knowing or unknowingly, we have envisioned
at least two of the individuals who are not in any sense
recognised by the existing systems. We were wondering
if a system could spring from those imagined personas.
So it was an exercise. For instance, the guy who has no
tag represents the doer or maker in cultivation who is not
recognised in any system at all in his lifetime. So we open
a parenthesis by a circle of initiatives like ico-D or Stanford
University then he could be incorporated in a system. In
Turkey for instance, the exact opposite is being done. Previously
the universities were able to hire instructors those who
have or not have a university diploma in some cases not
even a high school diploma. Now we cut that road and I
think that is important. I understand that the credentials are
not people but a system. But we have followed a path other
way around from an existing and unrecognised individuals
to imagine a system that might incorporate their value or
design ideas so on and so forth. Thinking on the existing
works, made me realise different aspects of the concepts
we have not yet considered.
Group Conclusion
The broad, ever-growing cloud of competences required by
professional designers is fairly easy to chart, as is the map
of the very diverse and multi-faceted spectrum of learning
opportunities.
The challenge is to infuse a ‘culture’ of Lifelong Learning in
the minds of designers as an accepted ‘professional/social
more’. This can only be achieved by a concerted effort
of the professional community, academic institutions, and
perhaps governments to engage in collaborations that span
the development of curricula, the coordination of certification
schemes, and the provision of working opportunities.
PLENUM REVIEW & DISCUSSION
Members: Andreas Schneider, Cihangir İstek, David Grosmann,
Halil Nalçaoğlu, Sebastien Shahmiri, Hande Akyıl, Aslı
Kıyak İngin, Harun Ekinoğlu, Cihan Çankaya, Ebru Erarslan,
Ayhan Fişekçi
Andreas Schneider (AS): We are aware that this workshop
might have been created some sort of a separation between
each of the three different tracks. We aimed to overreach
that through the presentations and the rotation of the groups
which injected thoughts to their new groups from the previous
discussions. But today, I think it is time to discuss about what
the moderators and participants experience of yesterday. We
will try to see how we can connect these three tracks in terms
of producing that document, which we regard as a starting
point or seed for the proposal that we talked about at the
beginning of the workshop for the submission to the World
Design Summit in Montreal. This proposal will be a manifesto
or an agenda of what the format and content of lifelong learning
could be. So, the purpose of today’s session is to extract
a conclusion from yesterday’s experience and insights.
Cihangir İstek (Cİ): For example, one of the questions raised
yesterday was why we had the third session where we asked
you to think of the three possible personas or users. What we
expect for you to produce is to create possible user-scenarios.
We even tried to diagram these scenarios in our previous
workshops because, using and configuring user-scenarios
always makes more sense when we try to explain our models
to the third parties. This is one of the methods of how we aim
to compile the proposal. As we all were experiencing during
yesterday’s workshop, it is always difficult when we are participating
in a very tightly scheduled event like this, and that
we might indeed easily lose the whole picture. But, once it is
finished and we look back on what was configured, hopefully
it will all make more sense.
AS: I do not know if this is relevant, but some people also
questioned why it is three in general. Why not four? Some
people might have thought that this is like a game or a
formalistic exercise. There is however a reason why we use
‘three’ as a core element or inspiration from the way we look
at if we think we have a sort of non-binary principle like a
yes-or-no issue. We use our factors on the issues that cannot
be captured by binary principle because, when we have more
than three, we will always have more elements which are not
in contact with other elements. Number three is used in order
to achieve any of the thoughts, issues or dimensions which are
connected or integrated with each other, which also makes
sure that every element has some connections with each other.
For example, the layout of our three core issues competences,
credentials and actions could well be perceived as a sequence
or even as a hierarchy. Such as competences coming first,
followed by credentials and actions. This is not how we think
and it is very difficult to communicate with a fixed two-dimensional
surface. So, I guess in this morning’s discussion we will
all have a chance and opportunity to reconnect what might
have been perceived as an isolated discussion and discuss it
together in one context.
That would be our expectation from today. I am guessing
that this will also be your own expectation because,
just by looking at our previous stuff some of you
might have felt that, we would need to be more connected.
I suggest to start with what did you take from
yesterday or what could be relevant for the next steps in
terms of lifelong learning.
Ayhan Fişekçi (AF): Firstly, I started to the workshop
within the credentials group but in fact, I believe that
the starting point should be the competences. These
credentials and competences need to be dealt as a
set. Because, credentials in particular are meant to be
upgrading competences to the next level(s). After that,
actions should be introduced to the lifelong learning
system. Secondly, I also think we should have defined
more clear competences for specific action plans. The
ones stated during the workshop are not so specific and
understandable to everyone, such as a clear competences-set
defined for specific learning actions. The
most important part is the beginning. The process we
experienced yesterday was, however, very creative and
brainstorming alike. Today, I hope we can use a more
specific approach, with which we will get to a better
output.
AS: You said that competences are not so clear and
maybe there should be more other competences. Can
you make some suggestions?
AF: Yesterday, I shared with my fellow team members
in the competences team an exemplar tool/set of 18
particular competences used in business leadership, including
‘Technical Skills’, ‘Interpersonal Skills’, ‘Self-confidence’,
‘This-is-it! Skill, ‘Logical Approach’, ‘Practical
Problem-Solving’. Additional competences could also
be added into this set to upgrade for any required performances,
and each skill or competence area would
be detailed into further strengths. For example, in order
to develop technical skills, it is said that one would
be requiring the strengths like ‘Technical Know-how’,
‘Understanding of Subject Matter’ and ‘Flair for Dealing
with Complex Technical Problems’. Another advantage
of having the similar kind of competence set is that if
someone has overplayed on some of the competences,
we could easily track that person as a specialist rather
than a manager, which means that someone lacking of
commercial perspective would be considered as being
one-dimensional, i.e. too technical-focussed, etc. I think,
if we could manage to define a specific competences set
for designers, it would be much more clear for everybody
to understand, as well as much easier to draw
credentials and action plans accordingly.
AS: I wonder if any of our moderator would pick something
from this and continue this discussion by telling
us their own experience of the workshop. Sebastian,
from your own point of view, how did you experience
yesterday? What did you take from the presentations as
a conclusion or insight, and how could that lead to the
content of the documentation?