IDT: Practical or Pie-in-the-Sky?

Designers-by-assignment pose a special, though not new, challenge to the field of Instructional Design. To understand the situation, designer-by-assignment must be understood. One the one hand, this is a job title, assigned to those who create instructional design products without necessarily having the training of an instructional designer. One the other hand, this entire matter is a reflection of an economic reality, and reveals the increasingly multitasking nature of the workplace. In that sense, people are often managers-by-assignment, negotiators-by-assignment and so on, as a strategy to alleviate the costs of using trained specialists.

One potential compromise in the approach of design-by-assignment is a loss of the value of research and theory. Without training, designers-by-assignment may not produce adequate materials. Merrill would like to see the tools of instructional design produced in such a way that they embody current and relevant theories, so that the products produced using those tools will have the essential qualities that traditionally came from the instructional designer on the job. Merrill would also like to see instructional designers receive more education in management.

Superficially, this sounds logical. Merrill has a strong bias towards the idealism of science and empirical results, so his proposal follows a methodology that looks good on paper. One must wonder, however, how a software tool can replace the brain of a trained designer. Even if one follows rigid scientific principles, there has to be creativity to work with those principles and arrive at useful solutions. Most scientists will attest to the need for creative thinking in solving problems of logic. So far, computers have not proven to be creative problem solvers.

On the other hand, Merrill’s suggestion to train designers to be good managers sounds like a very good idea. For one thing, learning management skills leads to better self-discipline and work habits. Large projects require both. It also seems inevitable that, as Merrill indicates with statistics, instructional designers with graduate degrees will increasingly be called on to manage designers-by-assignment and others as well.

Wilson actually rearranges the issue by indicating that designers-by-assignment is not necessarily inappropriate; often they have “extensive practical and content knowledge that empowers them to understand local cultures and processes…”. He points out that all designers have knowledge weaknesses, so the idea of a perfectly trained designer is not attainable in any event.

Wilson characterizes his approach as a broad way, and Merrill’s approach as a narrow way. Merrill takes this kindly, although he sticks to his points. The question remains: How do we, as instructional designer students, proceed? Do we take it upon ourselves to add management education? Do we learn an appropriate foreign language because, like so many other industries, the nuts and bolts of our jobs will be done overseas for relatively low wages? Will there be a decline, not only in quality, but also in the value of our hard won degrees?

It seems that since instructional design and technology is woven into the world of computers, constant change will be the order of the day. We must stay current not only in the technology, but also in our positions in the field. It seems reasonable to strongly suggest that work in education will remain strong, and some industries, like the military, just won’t function at all without the utmost attention to details. However, automated solutions seem inevitable for many industries, driven by economics and the ability to conform to widespread standards.

One example of that relates to custom software. Twenty years ago, I programmed a keyboard skills test for the Los Angeles Times in collaboration with an industrial psychologist. The test had to conform to the standards of affirmative action; therefore it required a qualified designer with a Ph.D. in industrial design. Since then, California has banned various forms of affirmative action. On that basis, an off-the-shelf program could be used today, in place of the custom solution. A Ph.D. level designer would not be required. The cost difference is significant. If our needs as a society become so trite as to make creative solutions extraneous, instructional products will be mere commodities to be produced as quickly and cheaply as possible. To prevent that, some of us need to move into research, others into theory development. In other words, we have the responsibility to keep our field fresh, relevant, and a land of opportunity for designers. Beyond that, we must be prepared to continue our education and enhance our value since, despite all of our reasoning about what we see now, the future is always unpredictable.