Upon reading The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy by Jason K. McDonald and Esther Michela I have come across the concept of “moral goods” in design studio pedagogy, focusing on how instructors use critiques within the studio setting. Moral goods are values or positive outcomes that people aim to achieve within a specific practice or activity. They are the qualities or benefits that make something feel worthwhile, meaningful, or “good” to those involved. In the context of studio pedagogy, moral goods help instructors and students determine what is valuable in their work and interactions. These goods are not just practical or external rewards (like money or grades) but are deeply tied to the ethics and culture of the practice itself. They shape how people judge their actions and guide their behaviors within a particular field. The paper is based on six in-depth interviews with instructors regarding critiques in the design studio environment.
THE POSTIVE
The study identifies moral goods as goals that are meaningful within the studio environment. These goods include:
For Students: Critiques develop students’ skills, confidence, and ability to think independently.
For Instructors: Critiques offer a sense of professional satisfaction and growth through unstructured, adaptive teaching and can provide self-confidence.
For Stakeholders (the professional environment or community): Critiques help maintain professional and industry standards, benefiting clients, future employers, and the design community.
THE NEGATIVE
1. Emotional Impact on Students
Public Nature: Critiques are often conducted publicly, which can create an atmosphere of fear, defensiveness, and anxiety.
Tone and Balance: Harsh critiques can make students feel judged or attacked, rather than supported, leading to stress and discouragement. If critiques are delivered insensitively, they can demotivate students or even cause them to disengage from the learning process. Instructors face difficulties balancing their feedback. Being overly harsh can discourage students, while being too lenient might fail to push students toward growth.
Unpredictability: The open-ended nature of critiques can make it hard for instructors to anticipate how students will react or what outcomes will emerge.
Example: An instructor described a situation where a student became frustrated and unmotivated after a critique, prompting the instructor to back off to avoid damaging the student’s enthusiasm.
Example: An instructor admitted struggling to strike the right balance, sometimes focusing too much on making students feel valued at the expense of pushing their work forward. Pushing a student too hard might harm their motivation, while being too lenient might not help them grow.
2. Power Dynamics
Authority Issues: Critiques sometimes reflect the instructor’s personal preferences or biases, rather than the student’s goals or broader design standards when presented as “absolute truths”. This can mislead students about the nature of the expertise and industry standards. Issues as such can discourage students from developing their own design identity or questioning authority.
Example: The paper mentions that some critiques might impose the instructor’s views, which could suppress students’ creative independence.
3. Misjudgment and misinterpretation
Misguided Feedback: Instructors might not fully grasp or understand the student’s idea and shut it down prematurely. If instructors misjudge what is “good” for students, their critiques can be counterproductive. Some instructors acknowledge that critiques can “do damage” if they misinterpret a student’s needs or focus too narrowly on one aspect of development.
Example: An instructor assumed a student was lazy and pushed them to redo a project. It later turned out the student didn’t understand the technique, and the extra pressure only increased their frustration.
4. Potential Overemphasis on Standards
Conflict with Creativity: Some instructors prioritize professional or academic standards during critiques, which might hinder their creativity.
Example: One instructor noted that their technical critiques were sometimes too complex for students to grasp, leaving them confused rather than inspired.
CONCLUSION
While critiques can be powerful tools for learning and growth, they also carry risks. Poorly conducted critiques may harm students emotionally, reinforce power imbalances, or fail to achieve their educational goals. Additionally, universities should take a more active role in overseeing how critique sessions are conducted, ensuring that they are structured and aligned with established learning outcomes and industry standards. Allowing instructors unrestricted freedom to critique without structure can lead to unfounded, subjective, and uncontrolled feedback, which may undermine the learning experience. Critiques should be guided by clear, measurable objectives and limited to a reasonable portion of studio time, ideally no more than 20%, to maintain a balanced and effective teaching environment.
Bibliography
McDonald, J.K. and Michela, E., 2019. The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy. Design Studies, 62, pp.1–35.