Creative Scholarship in Interior Design Education

FOCUS REPORTS

Creative Scholarship in Interior Design Education Denise A. Guerin, Ph.D., University of Minnesota; Craig Birdsong, M.S., Colorado State University

ISSUE

APPLICATION

GOAL

DESCRIPTION

CONCLUSION

An issue of increasing importance to interior design faculty is the evaluation of creative scholarship for retention, promotion, and tenure.

Administrators in higher education institutions could better support design educators if evaluation criteria, methods, and measures were better defined.

The goal was to develop evaluation materials for creative scholarship.

The authors reviewed and refined the results of a workshop in which over 30 Midwest Regional IDEC members developed or identified ( 1 ) a definition of creative scholarship, (2) evaluation criteria, (3) creative scholarship outcomes, (4) evaluation methods, and ( 5 ) measures of creative scholarship.

Use of these materials by educators and administrators will help establish the importance of creative scholarship to the interior design profession.

~~ ~

Introduction An issue of increasing importance is the evaluation of interior design faculty for retention, promotion, and tenure. At most institutions, faculty are evaluated on their teaching, service to the profession, and scholarship. Although more attention should be paid to effective criteria for studio teaching as well as to the significance of curriculum development, effective teaching criteria have been identified and analyzed by several prominent educational researchers (McKeachie, 1984; Boyer, 1990). Although more attention should be paid to the institution’s evaluation of the significance of service, institutions have generally defined appropriate service contributions. Evaluation of faculty based on their scholarship, however, remains an issue in need of serious discussion and development. Specifically, creative scholarship should be better defined with relevant evaluation criteria, outcomes, methods, and measures developed for use.

Developing the components of creative scholarship is necessary because there are a limited number of interior design educators who focus on traditional research. Few design educators follow this path for several reasons. First, the master’s degree is considered terminal in the field (Interior Design Educators Council [IDEC], 1993). While some master’s degrees are research-oriented, many are specialization degrees that provide comprehensive study of a specific population or area of design. Based on an informal review of organizational directories, it is estimated by the authors that fewer than 50 interior design educators have earned Ph.D.s and, therefore, traditional research is limited. Second, much of interior design education focuses on studio teaching, so faculty spend a significant number of hours in studio courses. Additional lecture courses also com- prise part of their assignments. With these heavy teaching loads, it is difficult to keep up a traditional research agenda.

Other design disciplines, such as architecture and fine arts, support private practice or creative activities. But discussions with faculty and administrators of those disciplines showed that the teaching load is generally lighter, i.e. one studio and one lecture course each term. With heavier teaching loads in interior design education, it is difficult to successfully engage in private practice and compete in the business world with full-time designers. Additionally, unlike fine artists, an interior designer usually needs a client for whom to design.

With limited research degrees and extensive teaching loads, many interior design educators have turned to other forms of scholarship that tend to bridge the more traditional forms of research and creative effort. The problem with this approach is that administrators and other decision-makers in institutions of higher learning do not understand or value this emerging form of scholarship.

0 Copyright 1995, Interior Design Educators Council, ]ourna/ of Interior Design 21(1), 44-49

I

44 Volume 2 1 Number 1 1995

FOCUS REPORTS

Background

What is needed is an appropriately broad and clear definition of creative scholarship; identification of scholarly outcomes; and development of evaluation criteria, methods, and measures. This paper reports the findings of a workshop conducted a t the 1993 Midwest Regional Conference of the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) where participants worked to develop these materials.

On-going efforts to establish creative work and its attendant background research or theory development as a legitimate form of scholarship have been made for some time. In 1989, a regional meeting of interior design educators adopted the term “creative scholarship” to help clar- ify and separate it from other creative activities that often occur in interior design practice (Birdsong, Stephenson, & Kucko, 1989). The term creative scholarship reflects a vocabulary aligned with the traditional, and more commonly understood, efforts of research. Birdsong et a]. identified several barriers to the evaluation of creative scholarship:

1. University policies that may not include reference to, or identification of, creative

2. Lack of defined criteria by which the work may be evaluated, and 3. Decision makers (administrators and faculty committee members) who may not thor-

oughly understand the types of efforts or outcomes that are termed creative scholarship.

scholarship,

Definition of Creative Scholarship

The participants in the 1989 workshop felt that these barriers may have arisen because creative scholarship was not clearly defined. In most promotion and tenure documents reviewed, several descriptors were given but no specific definition was found. In 1980, an analysis of issues related to tenure and promotion for interior design faculty had revealed that the creative aspect of interior design was often misunderstood by colleagues in other disciplines and by university administrators (Fowles, 1980). Fowles stated, “Creative work is central to the field of interior design” (p. 53), noting support for her statement through: (1) the Foundation of Interior Design Education Research (FIDER), which encouraged faculty involvement in professional creative activity such as interior design practice, and (2) the requirement or desirability of professional practice experience in most job announcements for university faculty positions. Nearly ten years later, interior design educators reaffirmed this lack of understanding as a continuing obstacle in the tenure and promotion process (Birdsong et al., 1989).

The term “creative scholarship” reflects the creativity inherent in interior design and recognizes that the outcomes of creativity can make a significant contribution to the discipline of interior design. Components of creativity were identified by FIDER (The challenge to, 1993) to assist vis- iting teams in evaluating student design work. These components, which are equally applicable to creative scholarship and represent concrete concepts, include: innovation (offering imagina- tive characteristics), elaboration (well-developed solutions, rich in detail), flexibility (different approaches or perspectives of an idea), aesthetic quality (well-developed and sensitive use of design elements and principles), and stylistic quality (recognizable coherence or integrity in presentation or commonality in approach). Scholarship is “characterized as dealing with important and significant intellectual content, exhibiting thorough and accurate knowledge, and acclaimed by one’s peers” (Warmbrod, 1991, p.4).

The Interior Design Educators Council defines creative scholarship as

original creative activity, including studio arts, product design, and interior design practice when the activity:

( 1 ) contributes to the expansion or application of the common body of knowledge o f interior design,

(2) is successful in meeting the rigors of peer review, indicating its significance to the discipline, and,

(3) is disseminated in a format that can be cited and retrieved (IDEC,1993, p.3.)

JOURNAL OF INTERIOR DESIGN I

45 Volume 21 Number 1 199s

FOCUS REPORTS

Evaluation Criteria, Outcomes, Methods, and Measures

Methodology

Findings and Discussion Definition of Creative Scholarship

Evaluation Criteria

In academia, the difficulty in evaluating the scholarly worthiness of creative efforts lies in the lack of methods and measures (Guerin, 1992). Academicians and institutional administrators often do not understand creative scholarship because they are traditional researchers. Creative scholarship is based on scholarly methods of inquiry as is traditional research; however, the methodology may be a design process. It is scholarship of a different nature that requires evaluation criteria to be defined in terms that are consistent with the criteria used for traditional research. Developing the methods and measures of these criteria would provide decision makers with a familiar vocabulary and would help break down barriers to the evaluation of creative scholarship in institutions. Developing criteria, methods, and measures of creative scholarship was the goal of this project.

Several methods of data gathering were used to identify evaluation criteria for creative scholarship. First, a systematic review of tenure and promotion documents from a representative sample of 18 institutions was completed. Second, a review of IDEC documents related to tenure and promotion revealed helpful information. Third, a review of literature on scholarship was necessary to identify problems associated with its evaluation. Finally, two workshops of interior design educators have been held to review, discuss, and revise these materials.

Discussion was first held at the 1989 Southwest Regional IDEC Conference. The resulting data from that conference were then compiled and presented in a workshop with over 30 participants at the 1993 Midwest Regional IDEC Conference. Background information presented included existing definitions of creative scholarship, criteria for evaluation of traditional scholarship, a table used to define creative efforts and evaluation methods, and a list of measures already used to evaluate various types of scholarship. Using these materials, the participants worked in six teams of six to eight persons to:

1. review and revise the definition of creative scholarship, 2. identify the outcomes or end results of creative scholarship, 3. identify methods to measure these outcomes, and 4. revise existing measures and develop new measures for creative scholarship.

Upon completion of the tasks, each team reported to the general session. The authors reviewed and revised these reports, and compiled them for the findings of this report.

The workshop participants worked with several pieces of information, including the IDEC Mission Statement which stated that interior design scholarship expands the body of knowedge of the discipline relative to the quality of life and human performance in the interior environment (IDEC, 1993/94) and the IDEC Appointment, Tenure, and Promotion Position Paper (1993) which further stated that creative scholarship is an original activity including studio arts, product design, and interior design practice that does the above. From these previous works, the participants and authors developed the following revised definition of creative scholarship:

An original activity in design and the arts that defines and expands the body of knowledge of the discipline in order to advance the qual- i ty of life and human performance in the designed environment.

A survey of promotion and tenure documents from a variety of institutions found that to achieve professional distinction in scholarship, creative scholarship should:

1. contribute to the expansion or application of knowledge of interior design, 2. meet the rigors of peer review indicating significance to the discipline, and 3. be able to be disseminated in a format that can be cited and retrieved.

These criteria parallel those already applied to traditional scholarship; therefore, the workshop participants and authors determined that these criteria were well accepted in academia and no further revision was done. All subsequent work reflected these criteria.

Volume 21 Number 1 1995 46

JOURNAL OF INTERIOR DESIGN

FOCUS REPORTS

Table 1

Outcomes of Creative Scholarship and Methods Used to Evaluate

Outcomes WthodS

outcome of a creative project Monographs

Theory development used for creative project Refereed presentation/publication

......................................................................................................... results of creative project or innovative

Application article for professional periodical ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Criticism of a designed environment Refereed presentation/publication

Identification of significant issues/creative needs .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Critical literature review resulting in refereed presentation/ publication

Post Occupancy Evaluation Reviewed/assessed by client/user Refereed presentation/ publication

Consultation report findings that are innovative or generalizable

Expert testimony Reviewed and assessed by peerdclient Refereed presentation/publicotion

Designed environmenl Juried show of process/product Exhibition of space with iurors Process/innovation documented and in refereed presentation/publication Published in professional periodical Published criticism by peer Client review/testimony/comrnission .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Hypothetical design Juried show of process Peer review of solution Invitational exhibit Process/innovation documented and in refereed presentation/pu blication Documentation of problem solution

Designed object Juried show of process/products Process documented and included in refereed presentation/pu blication Commission .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Design of on exhibition Review of design by peers

Presentation of others’ designs Exhibition catalog

Grants for creative effort Blind review .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Fellowships for production of creative scholarship Peer review Annotated results

Outcomes of Creative Scholarship

Evaluation Methods

Several types of creative scholarship and their outcomes, all of which meet the above criteria, were identified in a matrix prepared by the authors and reviewed and revised by the participants (see Table 1). Educators who practice creative scholarship must realize that visual outcomes alone generally are not enough to demonstrate scholarship. Some form of written documentation that supports the design and discusses how or what it adds to the body of knowledge is also required. Adding to the body of knowledge is essential to creative scholarship.

The participants identified various methods to evaluate the outcomes of creative scholarship (see Table 1). There was general agreement that peer review is the most acceptable method for evaluating the outcome. It also was agreed that the credentials and selection process of the peer reviewers were equally important. These findings do not differ from the established criteria or measures of traditional scholarship.


47 Volume 21 Number 1 1995

FOCUS REPORTS

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 1

Review Mearurer for Creative Scholarship

Institutions can select from the following measures those most appropriate to the evaluation of specific creative scholarship. Selected measures may be organized to fit the process used. The numbering does not indicate priority, but is only used for reference, These statements are to be used with a Likert scale ( Strongly agree, Agree, No opinion, Disagree, Strongly disagree).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. The process is adequately documented.

1 1 . The solution is justified and supports the design criteria.

12. The title reflects the problem statement.

13. The overall structure and organization of the presentation are clear

14. Any narrative moves along smoothly.

15. The ideas or solutions are developed to the extent feasible.

16. The solution provides for further inquiry on the topic studied.

17. The visual documentation is appropriate and supports the end results.

18. There is potential for this scholarship or its outcomes to be presented in a retrievable format

19. The format is appropriate to the problem or issue under investigation.

20. The graphics are of suitable visual quality.

2 1 . The process/phases/checkpoints are adequately discussed.

22. The scholorship demonstrates creative problem-solving or learning outcomes.

23. The scholarship is creative through innovation, elaboration, flexibility, aesthetic quality, and/or stylistic quality.

24. There is written documentation that supports the design solution or outcome.

The topic/content of the scholarship is related to the creation of the designed environment

The scholarship presents a new idea or synthesizes known information in a new way.

The scholarship makes a contribution to the discipline.

The intent of the design is clear.

There is a clear statement of justification, rationale, or background given.

Relevant literature is cited or there is documentation of prior work or the information is placed in an appropriate contextual framework.

The process of inquiry and implementation is clear.

The process of inquiry ond implementation is systematic.

The process is appropriate to the issue under investigation/review.

Recommendation 1 .

2.

Appropriate and acceptable creative scholarship

Inappropriate and unacceptable creative scholarship. ......... ............................................ ...........................................................................................................

Volume 21 Number 1 1995 JOURNAL OF INTERIOR DESIGN 48

FOCUS REPORTS

Identifying the procedures for peer review needs to be addressed, although some suggestions are inherent in the table. It will probably be the responsibility of the faculty to set up these evaluations and determine a review process consistent with the scholarship. For example, a hypothetical design solution could be developed with written documentation, all of which could be sent through a blind review process by the academic institution. A team of faculty and administrators from the institution could select the specific criteria or measures discussed in the next section.

A list of statements to be used as measures for written and visual scholarship was developed (see Figure 1). Institutions would select the specific measures from this list that most appropriately reflect the creative scholarship under review. Each guideline measures one of the three criteria and would be used with a Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, No Opinion, Disagree, Strongly Disagree).

Measures of Creative Scholarship

Conclusions The findings of this project are exploratory and descriptive in nature; they need to be tested and refined in real-life situations. Use of these findings by educators and administrators will help establish the importance of creative scholarship to the interior design profession.

Often academicians and administrators do not understand how to evaluate creative scholarship for retention, promotion, and tenure because these decision makers are traditional researchers or educated in disciplines in which creativity is not a common component of the research process. Once creative scholarship is defined and the evaluation criteria, methods, and measures are developed, tested, and refined, the decision makers’ task will be easier. “Evaluation of creative work should be based, like all other evaluations in the university, on the judgements of experts, either inside or outside of the university” (Fowles, 1980, p. 54). Once this process and its components are clarified, decision makers will be able to access qualified expert reviewers of creative scholarship (see Authors’ Note), will be able to interpret the reviewers’ evaluations, and will develop a deeper understanding of creative scholarship.

References Authors’ Note

Birdsong, C., Stephenson, M., & Kucko, J. ( 1 989). Creative scholar- A number of interior design educators are qualified to func- ship: A facilitated worksession. Proceedings of the Southwest Regional Interior Design Educators Council Conference. v a t CO: Interior Design Educators Council.

Boyer, E. ( 1 990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professo- ride. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation.

The challenge to define creativity ( 1 993). The Foundation for Interior Design Education Reseorch Newsleffer, 2. Grand Ropids, MI: Foundation for Interior Design Education Research.

Fowles, D. ( 1 980). An analysis of issues related to tenure and promotion of concern to interior design educators. Journal of Interior Design Education and Reseorch, 6(2), 53-55.

Guerin, D. 11992). Issues facing interior design education in the iwen- vfirst century. Journol of Interior Design Education and Research,

Interior Design Educators Council ( 1 993/94, Winter). lDfC strategic planning. Irvine, CA: Author.

Interior Design Educators Council ( 1993). Appointment, tenure, and pre motion: A position poper on criteria for evaluation of interior design foculty in postsecondary institutions. Irvine, CA: Author.

McKeachie, W. ( 1 984). Teaching tips. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Warmbrod, J. ( 1 991, October). Teaching, research, and service: Scholors ond scholarship. Gamma Sigma Delta Distinguished lecture, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

tion in a peer review capacity. The Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) provides, as one of its services, a forma],

their respective institutions. external peer review process for interior design educators and

1721, 9-16.


49 Volume 21 Number 1 1995

Documents

Creative Scholarship in Interior Design Education