Subject Integrity: When Art & Design Meets Design & Technology

In this episode, I'm joined by Michele Gregson, General Secretary and Chief Executive of the National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD). With over 30 years of experience across education, Michele brings valuable insights into the relationship between art & design and design & technology education.

We explore the complex interplay between these two subjects, discussing both the common ground and distinctive characteristics that make each unique. Our conversation delves into how curriculum pressures and resource constraints are reshaping both subjects, sometimes leading to what Michele thoughtfully describes as 'blurring' rather than meaningful collaboration.

Two particularly fascinating threads emerge: firstly, the concept of a 'spectrum of practice' that spans from purely artistic self-expression to tightly constrained technical design, and secondly, the nature of creativity across both subjects. Michele challenges traditional assumptions about where creativity resides in the curriculum, prompting important questions about how we conceptualise and teach creative practices.

For D&T educators, this discussion offers fresh perspectives on curriculum planning and subject identity. Consider how you might articulate the distinctive value of D&T while acknowledging productive overlaps with art & design. What opportunities exist in your setting for meaningful collaboration that enhances rather than diminishes subject integrity?

This conversation comes at a crucial time as we shape the future of design education. How might we maintain subject distinctiveness while fostering genuine cross-disciplinary learning? Share your thoughts and experiences - let's continue this vital dialogue about preserving and evolving our subjects for today's learners.

Let me know what resonates with your experience - I'd love to hear your perspective on this ongoing conversation about subject identity and integrity.

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

Join my online workshop on 6 November at 4pm to prepare your response to the government's curriculum review. Get insights, discuss key issues, and learn how to submit your views effectively. Your expertise matters - make it count before the 22 November deadline!
Register NOW!

Chapters

• 0:54 Art and Design Education Challenges
• 8:52 Challenges in Art and Design Education
• 19:38 Navigating Challenges in Art Education
• 25:07 Common Ground and Differences in Education
• 31:31 Exploring Creativity in Education

Transcript

Alison Hardy: 0:55

you're listening to the talking dnt podcast. I'm dr allison hardy, a writer, researcher and advocate of design and technology education. In each episode, I share views, news and opinions about dnt. This is one of my final episodes I think I'm going to be doing for now in the shaping design and technology series, and I'm really pleased to have somebody from art and design, uh, joining me today. So I'm going to let michelle introduce herself fully in a moment. But yeah, this is a. This is somebody I've met once, but we've had lots of interactions at lots of different meetings online, and so it's been really great to get her to come on the podcast today. So, michelle, would you like to introduce yourself, say who you are, where you are and what you do?

Michele Gregson: 1:38

Hi, so yeah, oh, it's lovely to be here. Actually I am well. Where am I? I'm in East Kent because, like so many of us, a lot of my time is spent working remotely, as well as being out and about supporting and meeting members and stakeholders. I'm the General Secretary and Chief Executive of NSCAD, which is the National Society for Education in Art and Design, and we've been around since 1888. We are a kind of trio of learning society, subject association and specialist trade union, so we've got an interesting perspective, I think, on matters to do with curriculum, but also what that means for the workforce and how that triangulates with a research and evidence base.

Alison Hardy: 2:30

Yeah, I didn't realise that NSEad had those three sort of parts to it, so tell me again what are those? So another subject association bit, but the first one was learning, learned, society.

Michele Gregson: 2:42

So we, we publish our a journal and that whole kind of like research and evidence gathering is very much part of our mission. And then, yeah, specialist Trade Union, which we've been since 1984. So we've always worked to advocate for the subject but also professional interests of teachers who teach art and design. But yeah, that became a formal part of our work and actually that's our legal constitution is trade union. Oh right, okay, so are you down as a registered charity as well, then as part of our work?

Alison Hardy: 3:13

And actually that's our legal constitution, is trade union. Oh right, okay, so are you down as a registered charity as well, then, as part of that?

Michele Gregson: 3:18

No, we're not. That's something we're thinking about, though, just in terms of direction for the future, and what that might look like and what that might allow us to do. We have, at points in our history, been incorporated and unincorporated, and you kind of go backwards and forwards and it's, it is a it's very interesting territory, but I suppose for me it's the.

Michele Gregson: 3:39

it's that, as I say, that point of intersection, of looking after teachers and when we think in those broadest possible terms about their professional interests, uh, it is to make sure that their terms and conditions are such that you know they can thrive in the workplace. But actually we think that you're going to thrive in the workplace if you're a really confident professional in your subject, specialism, and we are determinedly subject specific. It is all about art and design, craft and design, and we think you get that professional confidence that you get from being a leader of your subject area from being a confident architect of curriculum um.

Alison Hardy: 4:28

It means that you can stand up for your subject and maybe do something to withstand um tide of job losses and and other things that have been our communities over the last yeah, sort of 10, 10 years or more yeah, that was just a geeky question because obviously I've I'm from the design and technology side, um, and I've been a trustee of the association. That's a charity, so I was kind of curious to see how, um, the two kind of compared. So it's just trying to understand that. But that's that's really interesting about, about the way you set up. So so how long have you been at NSEAD?

Michele Gregson: 5:04

So I joined NSEAD about a thousand years ago, when I was training to be a teacher myself, right back in 1991, um, and I've been a member ever since. I've done lots of things in in education, not not a kind of straight route, but starting as a secondary teacher and moving through to, you know, slt and being responsible for people smoking in the toilets and that kind of thing, but also through to local authority and consultancy and all kinds of things cultural education, cultural institutions. But I've been a member of NSCAD throughout and I took office NSCAD because mine is an elected post in 2019 and it felt lovely. It felt like a kind of coming full circle and coming back to get to give something back as well, um, to something that nurtured me over the years. But it is that notion of design technology. I've also got the same thing going with with data where you've got you've got a place, you've got a tribe, you've got a bunch of people working for the interest of the subject and you get this amazing. Well, we talk about hive mind sometimes, don't we?

Michele Gregson: 6:21

But it really is, because where you've got people working in that subject from early years through to HE, research, interest, adult education, secondary education, it all comes together and we get a much better, richer understanding yeah and I guess our subject associations that's the job is to try and not just um connect with teachers and and serve uh, but is to create a professional learning community, and sometimes that's quite difficult because teachers can be incredibly isolated. Yes, yes, have you?

Alison Hardy: 6:52

got a similar situation. That's been difficult because teachers can be incredibly isolated. Yes, yes, have you got a similar situation that's been growing in design and technology, where more and more schools, even big secondary schools particularly, might only have one specialist art design teacher? Are you finding that very much?

Michele Gregson: 7:06

so, yeah, yeah, when I started teaching allison I was in a kind of normal size secondary school, so a thousand plus pupils, so it's a big school, but you know, it's just not unusual. And we had a department of eight art and design specialists and the DT department had the same again. I mean, they might have had more because you know that you, you know when you get food in the mix, um, and now that's, the schools are the same size. You've got one, maybe a part-timer, and then a few people pulled in to teach because they might, they might make jewelry in their spare time. So they find that suddenly on a friday afternoon they're teaching year eight, art and design, and we know that dt colleagues have exactly the same experience. Yeah, yeah yeah.

Alison Hardy: 7:54

So what's what have you sort of seen have been the challenges for art and design, maybe in relationship to design and technology, over the last few years? Has that changed or is it? Well, challenges is negative. Okay, what's what's the? What's the? What's the? Um positive, symbiotic relationship and what's the challenge around the subject that maybe you see happening?

Michele Gregson: 8:17

Well, I mean, challenge is interesting, isn't it? Because, as designers, we rather like challenge, don't we? That's where we start, yes, so what? The challenge, frankly, has been the educational landscape over the last, to be precise, 14 years, which has and design have both, I think, felt the effects of that. It's been a massive challenge in terms of how much curriculum time we've been able to maintain, how much resource we've been able to be allocated, particularly as well and it's not just about value of subjects but just budgets. That has definitely moved and changed and become harder, I think, to navigate.

Michele Gregson: 9:40

And the landscape of crowded curriculum. We've got an awful lot to cram into there. There always has been, but just that sense of anxiety been, but just that sense of a sense of anxiety. Um, so those, those challenges for the two subjects sitting together have, in some weird ways, brought us together better. I think we've got more collaboration now and collective action going on than I've ever seen, actually, in my career. So there's a really positive vibe at the moment between DT and art and design teachers.

Michele Gregson: 10:17

But I would also say we've seen an awful lot of merging and integration and discussion and consideration about what overlap between the two subjects might be. I see that as, yes, yes, potentially an opportunity, because when you collaborate and you look at the things that you have in common and the ways that you can amplify different attributes and characteristics of our subjects, it's fantastic. But the reality is that that's often happening because it's driven by budget pressures, staffing, you know, loss of teachers in the workforce, and that's not so good, because the danger then is that we just kind of lose identity, we lose time, and I actually think it's really dangerous. Alison.

Alison Hardy: 11:10

Yes, yeah, I think I think that is. That is key. I mean, there's some, there's some pragmatism that has to take place, isn't there, um, whether you're a primary school or a secondary school, about you know, the bottom line is we need somebody to teach these children this, this, this subject, and who's who's going to be our best fit, as well as, sometimes, very pragmatically, who's got space on their timetable, um, which is why, a long time ago, I ended up teaching child care, um, which is somebody said, that's very strange, alison, because you're not the mothering type, but anyway, there you go.

Michele Gregson: 11:43

Maybe an advantage, who knows?

Alison Hardy: 11:44

yes, yes, possibly, possibly, um, but yeah, there's that pragmatism, but then there's also, yeah, what that leads to a loss of and a blurring, isn't it where? And also, it comes from the teacher. I think that's been a big thing that we've seen is that teachers trying to find their home. You know, when there's been changes to the curriculum, to the qualifications, it's like, well, where do I belong? I don't feel like I belong in what was design and technology before, or art and design. Do I now belong more on the other side? And there, and then that also leads to a blurring as well, doesn't it?

Michele Gregson: 12:20

yeah, and I think blurring is a really good word, because I don't believe in solid barriers, I don't believe in subject silos, I don't think that reflects real world practice, I think it is reductive and I think it's boring. But I don't also believe in just a kind of like kind of mushy free for all. I really do think that when we think about subject integrity, it's about getting to the heart of what we do more than anybody else. Yes, what we do, that's our natural space. And then we kind of invite each other into that space to work together and to think differently about what we do. So having porous boundaries is what I'd like to see.

Michele Gregson: 13:19

And I think back to the time of the new secondary national curriculum and McWaters and the big picture where we talked about how can we create compelling learning experiences that draw together subjects to work together, and we saw some fantastic work then. Uh, and I've got to say back then, uh, I was art and design advisor for kent schools, worked very closely with my, my colleagues in dt, my counterparts in dt, and we'd had some amazing departments that were working together just doing the most innovative, wonderful stuff. But the reason they could do it was because they felt really secure in their identity as art and design specialists and dnt specialists working together to be creative and innovative in the kind of learning experiences they designed. And I'm not convinced that that's really what's happening in that many schools now, where we're seeing blurring across the subjects. I think it's driven by resource restrictions, lack of teachers.

Michele Gregson: 14:26

I don't think I know. We've got plenty of evidence to back that up. We've got plenty of evidence to back that up. And you can't have curriculum development and innovation, you can't have innovation in terms of pedagogical approaches, if it's just driven always by the bottom line. So, yeah, I think there's opportunity, but we've also then got that being brought together, but that we've got to have space and time and respect as well for difference. Maybe difference isn't the right word, but yeah, distinctness, distinctness, distinctness you are good at words.

Alison Hardy: 15:04

I'm sat here making notes on these words that you're using and I'm thinking I really like, I really like this subject integrity blurring. I can't blurring.

Michele Gregson: 15:12

Oh, is that? Yes, okay, thank you.

Alison Hardy: 15:12

Thank you for making me feel a little bit part there. I'm integrity blurring. I can't blurring with yours. Oh, is that? Yes, okay, thank you. Thank you for making me feel a little bit part there. I'm using blurring, um, but what do you see that the children lose when there's that blurring? That's the key thing, isn't it?

Michele Gregson: 15:27

I suppose yeah, well, I think, if we go back to, why is the blurring happening? And if it's because it's cheaper to have classrooms that can be multi-purpose rather than workshops that have got fantastic equipment that are, you know, set up to rigorous health and safety standards that allow different styles of learning to take place. If we're not, if that's what we're losing, if we're doing it because of budget restrictions, let's go for what's cheapest. They lose breadth definitely. Uh, I think about just within art and design.

Michele Gregson: 16:10

You know, on the face of it, uh, art and design looks like it's not faring too badly out of the you know the sort of last 14 years of challenge. In some senses, you know, our GCSE entries are definitely incrementally down, likewise with A-level and in fact accelerating, but not as bad, not as extreme as other subject areas, d&t in particular. So on the surface it looks okay. But again, I think back to our subject. Like D&T, it encompasses such an enormous breadth of possibility and it's not fixed, it's ever-changing, it is enormous, it's huge. It's not fixed, it's ever-changing, it is enormous, it's huge, it's vast. If you take that down to what can we do cheaply and easily and in a small way, without having to invest and update and improve equipment if we don't have to actually employ people who really know what they're doing but they can be quite general and apply themselves flexibly Well, they lose possibility of experience.

Michele Gregson: 17:19

I feel that really strongly. Within art and design, you see far too many centres narrow down, narrow down, narrow down to what essentially becomes a painting and drawing, fine art focused curriculum and one that isn't particularly challenging or exciting at that, when actually the range of possibility you know takes in, just even within the gcse specification, photography and textiles and 3d design and graphics, and um and and and and, what, what might uh, what might come and what might be, be added to that, that range and I I see it's been exactly the same in DT so they just lose, they just lose. Everything becomes narrower, a bit less good, a bit skinnier, a bit less exciting.

Alison Hardy: 18:09

Yeah, yeah, it becomes much more surface than it does depth, yeah.

Michele Gregson: 18:14

And that's the other thing. Um, because ofsted talked in our research subjects research review about avoiding the um mile wide, inch deep approach where you try to do everything but you don't do anything very well and and I agree with that, uh, so I'm not, I'm certainly not advocating for try to do everything that's possible in the you know, the whole uh rich buffet of possibility across our subjects, that that's possible in the whole rich buffet of possibility across our subjects.

Michele Gregson: 18:41

That that's not what it's about, but it's certainly not about being limited because you can't do anything else and actually, schools ought to be free to explore and develop what's relevant for their students, because the other thing that gets lost is authenticity of learning experience. If you're only providing from this very narrow diet and you might go deep into it, but a very narrow diet, that's not necessarily going to be something that reflects the interest, the lived experience, the aspirations of the learners in front of you. So, yeah, I think I think there has already been a lot of loss actually, and I think we're gonna we've got quite a big job as a design community, design education community, because that's where the two subjects really intersect to, yeah, to to get back to, even to get back to where we were. But of course, that's not good enough, is it?

Alison Hardy: 19:41

because, um, you know, we want a future-facing curriculum, we want contemporary practice, we don't want to go back yeah, but I think you know there's such a tension, isn't there, between the resources that are available, the physical resources, a teacher having a strong understanding of what art and design is, or what design and technology is, and that's been hit because of changes to teacher training and the amount of subject time, and then so then they become for want of a better way of putting it weaker advocates for the uniqueness or the distinctness to use your language of the subject.

Alison Hardy: 20:28

And then when they've got support you know, if they're a single art designer, a single D&T teacher, they've got to support these inexperienced teachers coming in to teach art design or D&Tnt then it gets watered down even further. So it does become, as you say, potentially very superficial. And that's not because these teachers aren't doing their best. They're doing their best with several, several hands tied behind their backs, aren't they? You know both their hands and anybody else's sort of you might be able to help them, because they're just so, so restricted. Um, so it's, it's just, it's just not straightforward to try and resolve this, is it at all?

Michele Gregson: 21:13

no, it isn't. And you know, if you're a head teacher, uh looking at making some really hard choices uh around your budget and they all are. That's the truth.

Michele Gregson: 21:27

You don't have the luxury of uh producing an ideal educational diet and it's funny, I think there's a challenge for challenge actually for leaders in education of an ethical conflict, and it's not dissimilar to that that we hear about in medicine, where you have medical professionals feeling a terrible conflict of not being able to do what they know to be right, to feel that they're not doing quite a good enough job. I think educational leaders are at risk of that as well, because the choices they make, the pragmatic choices, are not the ones that they would make in an ideal world. I would suggest we don't need an ideal world, we just need one slightly more generous we don't need an ideal.

Michele Gregson: 22:22

Well, we just need one slightly more better, more generous, yeah you know, and one that's that's starts to privilege children, um, as they are right now. You know, it's not just about what they're going to be in the future, it's about it's about what they're contributing today, and the child that comes out of school zinging with ideas and possibilities is making a difference right now. So we're not even just losing down the line. I feel very strongly.

Michele Gregson: 22:46

We're losing today but yeah, you're that head teacher and you've got to make tough calls and it comes back to you know what? What are your drivers and what are you accountable for? And we've got a curriculum that I would suggest has become pretty unbalanced.

Michele Gregson: 23:04

anyway, we've got a curriculum review that let's hope we'll address that a little bit. But if you've got a directive that you have to there is a hierarchy of learning and subject experiences then actually you've got a responsibility to to basically do what you're told um to some extent, because to stand it and in the way of that is incredibly difficult. That said, you know there are, there are ways of doing it, because we know that there's amazing practice out there. It isn't all doom and gloom, is it? There's some really, really wonderful stuff happening and I do think that where there's a will to actually have really open professional conversations within schools and where you've got leadership that nurture those and encourage those rather than try and impose and say, well, you know, we're all doing it like this, yeah, then you. Then you've got a chance of doing something even in the face of dwindling resources yeah, yeah, it's about giving teachers some autonomy, yeah, isn't it in their professionalism?

Alison Hardy: 24:10

but yeah, and some space to think. So, okay, let's go straight back to those distinctives within art and design. We met in the summer, didn't we? Yeah, we talked about what's the what, the similarities and the differences, the distinctnesses of art and design, because there's, there's been um, I was going to use the word seepage, but that doesn't sound right it has a little unpleasant it does, doesn't it?

Alison Hardy: 24:36

and I don't think, I don't think it's oh dear. Yes, just even thinking that now, um, just that movement of you know, we know that textiles teachers from design and technology, you know, have migrated to art and design. Um, and and that then starts to lead to the question are they the same? You know we're having this conversation about teachers teaching in the two different subjects and they understand the difference and recognise the differences. So if we think back to that meeting back in August that we had, it was a really fascinating meeting, wasn't it? Talking about the subject, what's the common ground and where the two subjects are different. I've just dug my notes back out. So what do you see as the common ground and where the two subjects are different? I've just sort of dug my notes back out. So what, what do you say see as the the commonalities and um you know, put you on the spot, there, aren't I?

Michele Gregson: 25:32

well, no, it was. What was really interesting is that we we kind of came together to to just talk about our subjects and to be able to try and, between us, craft or or attempt to craft something that teachers could use to speak with confidence about the subjects and advocate. And what was interesting was we spent a lot of time talking about what we had in common, and that's really interesting, that we found it so easy to talk about what we shared and then when we started to try and dig into the differences, it became a lot harder, but also more complicated, I suppose. To start with, why do we even think we need to do it? I think because I do think it's really it's much more creative and interesting when we have a constant dialogue, you know, in and between different types of learning. But why do we have to do it?

Michele Gregson: 26:36

Well, we talked about curriculum integrity, because if you kind of, if you lose, it's like you know, like they talk on the shipping forecast, about a storm losing its integrity, and I kind of always imagine at the heart of it some sort of dwindling little force that's just sort of squeaking out and it's that, isn't it, keeping that core life force of what people gravitate to your corner as opposed to another, and kind of knowing what the core of that is is important. That's integrity. To me, it's also about political security, frankly, because I think if we were to have a world where there was a decision made to just make it one great big, happy subject, we wouldn't get double, double, triple the amount of time we've got now. We'd be condensing it down and I don't think we can afford to do that. So we have to be really confident to talk about what, what is brought that is essential by having the two subjects really strong within the curriculum, from primary through to secondary. Um, and, yeah, what? What does that? What does that mean in terms of, uh, same and difference?

Michele Gregson: 27:47

I I like to think of a spectrum of practice that we all sit upon and whether we're artists, craftspeople, designers, engineers, makers, wherever we might be that actually we dip in and out and we do bits and pieces of all of those things at different times, so we kind of run backwards and forwards along along that spectrum, but we tend to spend most of our time in one part of it and if we can, if we can create, uh, a sort of strong understanding of the different possibilities along that spectrum. That's the mission. I do think that if we went, what might be either end of it, I mean, I would say in my view, and lots of people would disagree or have other things to say but if you think about it, you're pure artists that answers to nobody but themselves. It really is about their own determinations and interests.

Michele Gregson: 28:54

And maybe an engineer or the other who's designing a bridge that a train has to go across, that has really got some things that are not negotiable, that that have to be, um, engaged with. Yeah, you know, but they've got so much in common, you know, and I guess, think about those two ends of the spectrum. You've got that difference between the tangible that you, you can see and feel, and it is a certain way and it needs to be that way in order to work. And then you've got the other sense, really intangible stuff that is more about ideas and thoughts and feelings, and we kind of it's not to say that at one end of the spectrum you don't deal with thoughts and feelings, and it's certainly not to say at the other end, people whose stock in trade, their stuff, is expression, don't also need to think about function and tangible matter.

Michele Gregson: 29:47

But not quite so much.

Alison Hardy: 29:50

And it's that really. It's how they're foregrounded, isn't?

Michele Gregson: 29:52

it yeah totally.

Alison Hardy: 29:55

I think I really like the idea of that spectrum and I've looked at my notes and we talked about that design and technology looks at the external the user and art design looks at the internal the artist and I've got the crossover is the interrelation between these, yeah and I remember thinking about that um, and and I think that is quite interesting I, as you say, that fine art end where it's driven solely by the self and the way the self is responding to whatever is external or internal, but is then constrained by the media that they might choose to express that in.

Alison Hardy: 30:35

But then they can still flex around with it because who it pleases when it's out there is actually not as important as it being a resolution for the self. But at the other end, for design and technology, there's the parameters of the materials, the processes that will directly impinge on the quality of the output, because other people will have to use it and it has to meet safety standards or expectations or requirements in a completely different way. But still this thing, whether it's a system or an actual thing that we can touch, still has a representation of the person or the people who were involved in designing and developing it. Yeah, absolutely so. It's still got. Their values are in it, but in a very different way to the artist, working very much on their own, in an introverted way, I suppose.

Michele Gregson: 31:31

Yeah, I think you put that so beautifully. Oh, thank you. And it's that sense of we have to. Wherever your focus is, you still have to draw on things from across the spectrum. So holistic nature of art. Art design is very holistic and if you're a student planning a fine art outcome, you're still designing as part of that planning. And if you're coming from a pure engineer side of things, what are you there for? You're there to enhance the lives of people and keep them from harm and it might not look lovely.

Michele Gregson: 32:11

So aesthetics may come into it or they may not, but you will draw upon that and you will draw upon to keep people from harm, thinking about about how those people feel, uh, and you know, social engagement. So we have all these things that they're. They're sort of like almost like cross-cutting themes, aren't they that we? We draw upon? I, I think for me that little um, obviously you've almost drawn a diagram for me there, actually thinking about that intersection, so I'm seeing it and the bit in the middle is curiosity.

Michele Gregson: 32:46

So, whatever it is you're doing, whether you're an artist, designer or moving between the two the thing you've definitely got in common is curiosity. How is this going to work? How will this be?

Alison Hardy: 33:00

what if? Yes, yes, and I'm trying out and taking risks, yeah, a long way and seeing that as part of the process. Yes, because the other thing that we talked about was them disposition, capacities and capabilities being different and we didn't quite get down to start digging down to what they, what we meant by those words, because they're lovely words sometimes, but you think, what do we mean by that? But the disposition, as you say, that curiosity is a disposition, isn't it in the middle? But then, as you maybe move out on the spectrums, that there's different dispositions that may be added in, yeah, and and um, I think it's, it's, you know it's.

Michele Gregson: 33:41

They're like ingredients, aren't they in the process? And sometimes you'll, you'll use just a pinch of that ingredient and in other contexts you'll use a great big sort of dollop of it and you're thinking about some of what are those dispositions? Well, we share critical thinking and problem finding and solving. Yes, meaning making culture, generating information gathering and research. These are things that you know. They are their particular behaviors, habits, skills, competencies, and they're not, they're not the territory of any, I mean even beyond art and design and dt of course that they sit elsewhere.

Michele Gregson: 34:23

Um, designers and artists, both model and prototype, but they're doing it with a slight, you know. They're doing it with different intention and the intention is actually quite a quite a big. So, whilst a lot of those behaviours and characteristics and dispositions, they're applicable across the different learning contexts, to me it's the intention that shapes how they're applied.

Michele Gregson: 34:51

Yes, and how wonderful to have those behaviours, those skills, how wonderful to have them developed in different ways at different times, how wonderful for young people to be able to sort of dip in and recognise that this is what I need now and I know that I'm actually going to have to change it a little bit. Isn't that the very essence of knowing what to do when you don't know what to do?

Alison Hardy: 35:20

Yes.

Michele Gregson: 35:26

Because you've been gifted this wonderful toolkit that you can pull from in different places.

Alison Hardy: 35:32

Yeah, and that's where it comes in, that again, there might be some knowledge crossover between you know, I'm using knowledge in a very general sense about the stuff that they know, but also that they stuff that they can, they do, and they learn how to do the processes. They learn how to do um, from design processes to communication to to craft in whichever form. It's how they draw on that and how they use that in different ways for those different parts of the spectrum.

Michele Gregson: 36:07

Again, yeah, I mean both subjects absolutely are immersed in materials and material qualities and processes, for sure, but the fine artist might have a different reason for investigating technical characteristics to somebody working with a design brief. That's got a constraint and a set of criteria attached to it, and and that's the thing, isn't it? I think there's, um, there is definitely a tension between curriculum content versus creativity. Um, yes, which feels like a bit of a. It can be quite an explosive thing to throw in, because who, in any subject area, wants to say we're not creative or creativity isn't part of what we do? It's everywhere, and it's interesting that we talk about the creative arts as if creativity belonged to and that was the natural home of it.

Michele Gregson: 37:20

And when we think about creative arts, we are thinking about the visual arts, we are thinking about dance, performance and so on. Music have a higher entitlement to claim creativity as part of their content and their knowledge and all the rest of it sitting within it. But it's just that we've got more freedom to lean into it, I suppose, because generally there is less constraint, and constraint's a very positive thing, but it just tends to be less present in the work of art and design as opposed to DT, and I suppose that then it can start to feel like that's creativity and it isn't necessarily.

Michele Gregson: 38:13

And I think those are things that really need to be. We need to have good conversations about those and we need to get that going again, because I feel like there's a bit of a a tussle to be creative, that that's a bit of a false, false narrative.

Alison Hardy: 38:30

It's not helpful. Yeah, and I think yeah, the conversations around creativity, you know, because I'm I kind of I can feel in my gut that I slightly disagree with what you're saying around design and technology and creativity.

Michele Gregson: 38:43

Yes, yeah.

Alison Hardy: 38:46

But I think it's partly because of how we talk about creativity. Creativity doesn't mean that the design that's produced is something outlandish, completely the way it looks. It can be just a slightly different way of thinking about a material. I remember a long time ago I was going to become an engineer and so I went on small peace, trust courses, wise courses. It was like in the days when, oh, there's a girl who's thinking about engineering, we'll send her on everything. And I went on this residential at brunel university. We had an engineer come and talk to us and he was I think he was in involved in part of the aircraft industry and he talked about that.

Alison Hardy: 39:28

There used to be these bolts that would. They would tighten different parts of an aircraft and and um and and the the torsion was was kind of quite crucial. Over tighten, you know, fall apart too loose, and so. So what they created was these bleeding bolts. So if they were over tightened they literally bled, like that's what humans do. If we're over-tightened, we bleed. Now, that's creativity, but it's still a bolt. Do you know what I mean? You're not going to learn. Yeah, it's still a bolt, but actually, you know, you can obviously say there's biomimicry in there. Can't you in that one, and I remember kind of being like I'd never thought about it like this. So yeah, so it's the way we think about. What does creativity?

Michele Gregson: 40:20

look like and it's, it's breaking out of, um, what are, just frankly, sort of stereotypes as well, which is really important. And you know, 10 years ago I felt like there was some great work going on around that actually, with creative partnerships and other things, yes, um, and we kind of retreated from that. But I mean, of course, there's been wonderful work, um, you know, during commission and so on since. But I think it's, it's um, it it feels like an area of tension and I so that's why I think it should, should be explored. I absolutely agree. Creativity, um, it's about a shift. It's about it's about a shift from what you could possibly be expected to know to something that didn't exist until you created it, found it, imagined it, and that can be vast and extremely expansive and visible, or it can be micro but absolutely explosive in its impact.

Michele Gregson: 41:19

That's what I'm trying to say really yeah but, I suppose in terms of um curriculum structure, it's kind of interesting where space is actually being made for creativity and if it's genuine creativity as well, because that's another issue, because I can tell you there are some very that. There are art and design classrooms that I've been in where there is no creativity whatsoever, despite it, you know, on the surface, being something that, um, we're supposed to be, it's supposed to be at the core of our being, yes, yes.

Alison Hardy: 41:52

And then at the other side of it, you see in dnt, some things that are being said that that's creative and you think I'm not. I'm not sure what I'm seeing, or are we trying to falsely put that in here? Where this is actually isn't actually the place in what the children are learning or developing at that moment as well. So you kind of and then that's where I have a problem with stem and steam as well, around it's that siloing, isn't it? It's like saying, well, over here we're creative and over here, we're doing stuff for industry and for the economy.

Alison Hardy: 42:21

You know, it's kind of that's the other, that's the other message that gets sent as well. Um, I, as I think by trying to create those clusters of subjects, it creates a falseness as well. That then implies particular things about those subjects and what their value is and what their contribution is. Well, that bit's all about making you feel good, and this is all about making you get a job you know, isn't it?

Michele Gregson: 42:45

it's you think, hang on, hang on.

Alison Hardy: 42:47

General education. All children are doing it and, as you say, it's about these children going out today. What they're gaining today? What are they bringing today? Not in the future, you know, but because some of these children won't as well go on and do careers in this book. So what are they getting from it today?

Michele Gregson: 43:05

and that's that, to me, is the key, and maybe that's it allison, that we've entered a space with education generally and this is a kind of global move towards education, but it's high-stakes assessment driving it and the idea of it's got to have utility. So if it's not contributing and making money at some point in the cycle, it has no value. And those, I think, going back to what you know, we need to get back to what is education for. And if we, if we can kind of do some new thing, new thinking, old thinking, come back to that.

Michele Gregson: 43:48

Um, I'm old, old thinking I've got a lot of it, but if we, you know, if we can really go back to that and put learners at the heart of it and a respect. I believe that our society doesn't respect children, young people that's our fundamental problem, and that we only think about them as little units of currency for the future. Yeah, I think, and that's the beautiful thing about art and design and design and technology, because between them and design and technology, because between them, what they do is they, they. They give children, young people, an opportunity to be in control, um, in in a way that they don't get that many opportunities elsewhere in the curriculum no, and on that note where we could keep talking, I'm going to have to bring this to a close, michelle, but thank you very much.

Alison Hardy: 44:40

That was a fabulous conversation. We've recorded this on a Friday afternoon and that's just another of these conversations that I have with people on the podcast that just make my head go all over the place and I now want to go and draw diagrams of what we've been talking about and share that. But yeah, I'm going to get you back on the podcast to talk in more depth and we can have more of a conversation about some of these different things around design. That'd be brilliant. But thank you very much for your time today in the conversation oh no, thanks, alison.

Michele Gregson: 45:06

It's always a treat to to talk to you and uh, yeah, let's keep keep the conversation going absolutely absolutely.

Alison Hardy: 45:16

I'm dr alison hardy and you've been listening to the Talking D&T podcast. If you enjoyed the podcast, then do subscribe, on whatever platform you use, and do consider leaving a review, as it does help others find the podcast. I do the podcast because I want to support the D&T community in developing their practice, so please do share the podcast with your D&T community. If you want to respond to something I've talked about or have an idea for a future episode, then either leave me a voice memo via Speakpipe or drop me an email. You can find details about me, the podcast and how to connect with me on my website, dralisonhardycom. Also, if you want to support the podcast financially, you can become a patron. Links to Speakpipe, patreon and my website are in the show notes. Thanks for listening.