While critique is frequently studied in formal higher education contexts, often including investigation of classroom critique and high stakes design juries, relatively little is known about the qualities of informal critique and design talk that occurs organically between students in the design studio environment. A critical analysis of design education has revealed a lack of attention to the role of student experience and the power relations that often dominate critique as an evaluative activity. Previous studies conducted in this framing have revealed what Dutton (1991) terms the "hidden curriculum" of a design studio, including factors that affect the student experience of a design pedagogy. Utilizing Shaffer's (2003) framework to theorize the construction of this "hidden curriculum," an evaluation of features manifests on three levels: surface, pedagogical, and epistemological. This study investigates the occurrence of informal design talk between students in a shared studio workspace in a graduate Human-Computer Interaction design program. Data sources for this ethnographic investigation include: approximately 150 hours of participant observation of the studio space during a four month period, supporting audio recordings and photographs, and intensive interviews. Based on initial analysis of collected data, including field notes, photographs, and audio recordings, a preliminary taxonomy of informal instigating interactions can be arranged. A broad continuum of informal design talk was observed, with little critique or critical talk between students following a structure that corresponds with classroom or professor-led critique. Despite this lack of structural similarity, informal design talk frequently invokes elements of critical discourse, reflecting the growth of a personal design perspective, and the latent assumptions built into the surface, pedagogical, and epistemological structures of the studio environment.

1. Emergent Critique in
Informal Design Talk
Reflections of Surface, Pedagogical,
and Epistemological Features in an HCI Studio
Colin M. Gray
November 28, 2013

2. background
Understanding communication between
students in non-classroom spaces
Using this understanding of the studio
through enactment of critique to
conceptualize the hidden curriculum

3. research
questions
What informal interactions are taking place
between students in the design studio?
How are these interactions instigating critique?

4. review of
literature

5. literature
Existing research on conceptualizing critique activity
Process model (Oh, et al., 2012)
Development of understanding (Exter, et al., 2009)
Genres (Dannels & Martin, 2008)
Types of knowledge (Uluoglu, 2000)

6. literature
CLASSROOM CRITIQUE
Oh, et al. (2012) process model of critiquing

7. literature
Shaffer’s Theoretical Model of the Studio (Shaffer, 2003)
Surface Features
Pedagogical Structures
Epistemology

8. context

9. context
Human-Computer Interaction design (HCI/d) program in a
School of Informatics
Non-classroom studio with no dedicated space

12. data
Critical Ethnography (Spring 2013)
Participant Observation (150 hours)
- thick field notes
- audio recordings (45 hours/150 segments)
- photographs (n=745)
Critical Interview (n=14)
Artifact Analysis

13. analysis

14. analysis
Coding of emergent themes across audio segments
Situating these codes in the context of the studio based on
Shaffer’s theoretical model

15. findings

16. Instigating
Interaction
#
overheard/seen
16
Design talk or work is overseen or overheard
while working separately
39
Casual greetings; “what are you up to?”; “how
was your weekend?”; friendly talk
12
Displaying finished or in-progress work to others
without provocation
planned/scheduled
53
Request to discuss at some point in the future;
planned meeting
request for advice
30
Explicit request for guidance, opinion, or
interpretation
smalltalk/social talk
showing off
Example Interactions

17. OVERHEARD/OVERSEEN

18. SMALLTALK/SOCIAL TALK

19. SHOWING OFF

20. PLANNED/SCHEDULED

21. REQUEST FOR ADVICE

22. discussion
Shaffer’s Theoretical Model of the Studio (Shaffer, 2003)
Surface Features
Pedagogical Structures
Epistemology

23. discussion
Surface Features
Physicality of space indicates what kinds of interactions
can be supported
The space was designed for certain types of collaboration
Divide between physical and digital spaces

24. discussion
Pedagogical Structures
Group projects support collaboration and sharing
Shared pedagogical experience
Representations follow pedagogical structures

25. discussion
Epistemology
Surface and pedagogical elements of the studio indicate
underlying beliefs
Projection of identity as professional designers
A studio bridge (Brandt, et al., 2011) is co-constructed between
students and the formal pedagogy

26. next steps

27. next steps
Broader analysis of data across two semesters of data collection
Focus on instigating interactions, and how and when these
interactions emerge in the studio space
Analysis of how interactions span virtual and physical spaces

28. questions?