Teaching Beyond the Curriculum

Abstract

Design research has established several dichotomies around styles of knowing and thinking, such as ‘thinking vs. doing’ (e.g., Bagchi, 2020), ‘intuitive vs. deliberate” (e.g., Schaathun, 2022), or ‘rational problem solving vs. reflective practice’ (e.g., Dorst, 1997). In this paper, the authors explore and integrate these dichotomies using the ‘intimacy/integrity’ framework proposed by Kasulis (2002). The ‘intimacy’ and ‘integrity’ pair is presented as a heuristic device that can help us characterize two broad ways people develop and present arguments, generate knowledge, establish values, and even develop a metaphysics. An integrity orientation separates object and subject, and knowledge is objective and verifiable. In contrast, an intimacy orientation blurs the line between object and subject, and the self is relational. We argue that this heuristic device has profound implications for design education, which has traditionally functioned within an integrity framework, where the knower and the known (whether a thing or another being) have each an individual, well-delineated identity. Contrarily, in an intimacy orientation knower and known (the self and the other) are interdependent and intertwined with one another, and can’t be seen as separated units. The paper centrally argues, first, that his framework serves to underpin an alternative way of teaching anchored in “intimacy”, and, second, we contend that the conceptual apparatus itself proposes a useful lens to examine design theory and methodology. Bagchi, A. (2020). The 2 types of designers — thinkers and doers. UX Collective. Dorst, K. (1997). Describing Design: A comparison of paradigms. Doctoral thesis, Tecnische Universiteit Delft. Kasulis, T. (2002). Intimacy or Integrity: Philosophy and Cultural Difference. University of Hawai’i Press. Schaathun, H. G. (2022). Where Schön and Simon agree: The rationality of design. Design Studies, 79, 101090.