WhatTheyThink - Printing Industry News, Commentary & Analysis

November 12, 2006

Dr. Joe's question about Graphic Communication Education.

The article moves in the right direction but I think it tends to miss the specific heart of the problem. For the most part, graphic art programs have been and will probably continue to be training programs and not so much educational programs. When one is taught how to use technologies, one is being trained but when one is being taught theory, then one is being educated.

Most likely, these institutions will not develop the people who will innovate new technologies but it still is very important for new graduates to be able to identify the validity of future technologies as they are developed. To be able to do this requires a theoretical understanding of how things physically work. So I agree with Dr. Joe on the need for more theoretical education but how can students be educated in this way, when even their instructors do not understand theory or the scientific method.

In the graphic arts field, there is much confusion about theory. Often observations are presented as theory. One might say that print density changes when there are changes in water setting on a press. That might lead one to think that density variation is related to water variation. This would be wrong because the first statement is not a theory but only an observation. If you don't know how water affects density on a typical press, then you don't theoretically understand the problem and therefore, you don't know specifically what to do to correct the problem.

As Dr. Joe stated, theoretical knowledge would give a student value for the long run. It would protect them from techological market hype because a particular concept's weaknesses can be seen. It gives one the ability to know what questions to ask and what knowledge is needed to get to the next level.

A theoretical view of processes is an attempt to understand what is true. Instead of trying to find truth, the graphics arts field tends to think in terms of myths and these myths have been around so long that even technical papers and new technologies are based on them. This then results in technologies that do not perform as desired and knowledge that is a confusing mess.

I truely believe that the educators in this field do not understand the scientific method. Experimentation and then reviewing the data is not the scientific method. You can do this your whole life but it will not result in obtaining a fundamental understanding of a process that will lead to much better performance. In the printing field, this approach has been done for over a hundred years and has not lead to an understanding of how the process fundamentally works.

The scientific method requires the development of hypotheses that then are tested with analysis or experimentation. This then can lead to a theory that can be tested in a more general way. Once you have a theory, it can then be used to innovate a predictable technology.

Graphic arts educators have little interest in theoretical issues but are more inclined to be interested in technologies. This is a shame because theoretical issues can be investigated and taught more inexpensively than new technology issues. And the student will get more long term benefits from it.

Dr. Joe talks about a system approach. This is good and he uses as an example the VistaPrint model. For sure VistaPrint has taken great advantage of the new technologies to get their orders in and processed but they still send those jobs to a press that is a refinement of 19th century thinking and with inaccurate presetting information and capability.

They and their supplier do not understand the theoretical issues related to having a very fast start up of the press and consistent run conditions and therefore they still have a weakness in their model. A lost economic opportunity.

The press technology should also be a part of the system approach. The importance of having some theoretical knowledge is the ability to specify how and what the technology should specifically do to get predictable performance.

If the educators missed the opportunity to understand the printing process at a theoretical level, how are they going to understand the best way to use other new technologies?

Better education is the goal but it is not so easy to reach when there are systemic problems in the theoretical knowledge base. I hope it will improve.

Thank You,
Erik Nikkanen
Fountech Inc.

Responding to: http://members.whattheythink.com/home/drjoe163.cfm

Back to Main Page

We want to know what YOU think! Do you have an opinion, comment, or additional information that you'd like to share with WhatTheyThink.com? Send a Letter to the Editor and have it posted here.