See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263684590

Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

Article in Hospitality & Society · September 2013

DOI: 10.1386/hosp.3.3.239_1

CITATIONS READS

21 7,474

4 authors, including:

Richard Douglas Mitchell Adrian Woodhouse

Otago Polytechnic Otago Polytechnic
64 PUBLICATIONS 3,714 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tony Heptinstall
Otago Polytechnic
2 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Woodhouse on 17 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HOSP 3 (3) pp. 239–260 Intellect Limited 2013

Hospitality & Society

Volume 3 Number 3
© 2013 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/hosp.3.3.239_1

Richard Mitchell
Otago Polytechnic

Adrian Woodhouse
Otago Polytechnic

Tony Heptinstall
Otago Polytechnic

Justine Camp
Otago Polytechnic

Why use design methodology

in culinary arts education?

Abstract Keywords
Culinary arts education has remained largely unchanged for more than a century. culinary education
Since the time of Auguste Escoffier, students have been taught French classical pedagogy
cookery using a master-apprentice model of education that began in the Middle curriculum
Ages. While the vocational apprenticeship has been replaced in some instances by culinary design
education delivered by public and private institutes, rote learning from a master culinary-design model
continues. Contrast this with the fast pace of modern cookery and an outpouring of design thinking
culinary innovation not seen in at least 150 years and you have an education system
that simply cannot keep up. This article discusses the current culinary arts educa-
tion system in New Zealand and identifies several forces that are highlighting the
need for change. Food media’s popularizing of culinary design provides both inspi-
ration and aspiration for those wanting to learn culinary arts. Meanwhile, the New
Zealand Government promotes design through its technology curriculum and lauds
design-led business and creative industries as the way of the future. Surrounding
this is a growing global awareness of the challenges that we face in providing safe,

239
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

sustainable and ethical food to an increasing population. The article concludes by

briefly outlining how Otago Polytechnic’s Bachelor of Culinary Arts is attempting a
paradigm shift that has N. Cross’ ‘designerly thinking’ at its core.

Introduction
Over the last decade the pace of change has quickened in the culinary world.
This is as an outcome of a significant leap in consumer awareness of all things
food. As a result, there is a growing demand for culinary education that can
provide learning environments that meet the needs of an increasingly food-
savvy, ambitious, but skill-poor, student body and an industry hungry for
graduates who can think on their feet, adapt quickly and adjust to a consumer
with an insatiable appetite for food knowledge. In short, food industries and
culinary students are demanding culinary education that takes the gradu-
ate to a new level of understanding. To this end, D. Ferguson and F. Berger
(1985) suggest that creativity lies at the heart of effective hospitality education,
but that it is sadly lacking in its traditional form. Meanwhile, culinary arts /
cookery curriculum has tended to resist change, remaining focused on core
skills from ‘traditional’ cookery. So, while across the globe cutting-edge culi-
nary practitioners are driven by exploration, experience and experimentation
by producers and consumers of food, curriculum remains focused on tradi-
tion and homage to the French roots of western cookery. Chefs are trained
by ‘masters’ who emphasize practical skills and techniques over many of the
concepts of modern management and design-led thinking. As a result, this
master-apprentice model only imparts some of the skills necessary to survive
in the modern culinary world.
This article discusses why Otago Polytechnic’s Bachelor of Culinary Arts
has set out to break away from this traditional approach and to develop
‘designerly ways of knowing’ (Cross 1982) in its graduates. The article explores
the drivers behind the degree and briefly introduces how it intends to meet
new demands on culinary education. First, however, the article provides a
background to traditional cookery education and reasons why it will become
increasingly difficult for this model to provide for the needs of those in ­culinary
arts education.

Traditional culinary arts education

Culinary education has been delivered under a master-apprentice model
since the Middle Ages (Emms 2005; Miles 2007), but this way of imparting
skills and knowledge has been around at least since Socrates passed on his
wisdom in the Agora (Healy 2008). This system of learning a trade/craft origi-
nally saw the apprentice indentured to a master for a period of years, learn-
ing the skills by observation and undertaking an increasingly complex set of
tasks (Emms 2005; Healy 2008; Miles 2007). Over time, apprentices gained
enough skill to become ‘journeymen’ (from the French term journée meaning
day) who earned a daily wage (Emms 2005; Miles 2007). Eventually organiza-
tions known as guilds were developed that protected the rights of the jour-
neymen and later became the regulators of national apprenticeship systems
(Emms 2005; Miles 2007). The industrial revolution saw major labour reforms
that included changes to vocational training. In particular, industrialization
saw governments take more responsibility for delivering education and as
a result the guilds played a lesser role in apprenticeships (Miles 2007). The

240
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

master and apprentice relationship now became contractual and the working
conditions for apprentices improved (Miles 2007).
However, perhaps the most significant force behind the continuance (even
strengthening) of the culinary master-apprentice model came from Auguste
Escoffier, the man often cited as the father of modern cuisine. Escoffier, whose
culinary techniques are the basis for culinary education across the western
world, developed the ‘brigade de cuisine’ or ‘partie system’ for organizing the
workforce of large restaurant and hotel kitchens (Miles 2007). This follows a
strict military-styled hierarchy with the apprentice at the bottom and the Chef
de Cuisine (Head / Executive Chef) at the top, providing the ideal structure for
the master-apprentice environment of education and training.

The New Zealand situation

The formalization of vocational-based training started to emerge in New
Zealand around the turn of the twentieth century (Emms 2005). S. M. Emms
(2005) continues that early cookery training followed the traditional master-
apprentice model in much the same way as it had in Europe with the under-
study spending approximately five years under the guidance of a recognized
master. In addition to the practical mentoring that occurred within the work-
place, apprentices were also being supported by culinary tutors at the local
technical colleges. As New Zealand was still discovering its own sense of culi-
nary identity, the culinary profession followed the English (and much of the
rest of the western world) and taught culinary theory based upon the clas-
sical French repertoire of Escoffier and Carème (Emms 2005). This collabo-
rative approach to education continued as standard practice until the late
1970s/early 1980s when several changes to government policy eventually
led to the delivery of professional cookery training in the tertiary educa-
tion sector (Emms 2005). At this time the government also formed the
New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and New Zealand Industry
Training Organization (NZITO) to oversee New Zealand’s trade qualifications
and training (Emms 2005). The result was a shift from employer-led training
to institutionally taught programmes, but this did little to alter the master-
­apprentice mode of delivery.
In the two decades following these reforms, many of New Zealand’s voca-
tional tertiary providers (primarily the polytechnics) developed and delivered
a range of culinary programmes, delivered in various forms (full-time, part-
time, day-release and intensive block courses). While this was a time of great
change in terms of programme availability and delivery, students all learned
practice and theory from one classical, French cuisine-inspired book called
Practical Cookery (Ceserani and Kinton 1968; Ceserani et al. 1987, 1995).
In the early 1990s, the government also embarked on an era of compe-
tency-based assessment. Large components of culinary practical and theo-
retical knowledge were systematically broken down into smaller bite-sized
blocks of learning called unit standards. Under this format students are asked
to demonstrate competency in each of these units and only need do so on
two observable occasions. By default, most institutions focused on devel-
oping competency in each individual unit and then moving on to the next,
rarely exploring anything deeper than how to achieve the competency. This
method of assessment and delivery remains dominant in New Zealand (Chan
2011; Emms 2005), but this approach is not without its critics internationally
(Hegarty 2004, 2011; Müller et al. 2009). Indeed, J. A. Hegarty (2004) has called

241
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

for culinary education to move beyond this approach to vocational education

to an approach that has both vocational and liberal understandings to allow
for a greater level of critical thinking and more advanced problem solving. K.
F. Müller et al. (2009: 168) put it another way, suggesting that ‘a more holistic
approach’ that embraces Hegarty’s approach is important to survival in the
food industry today.
As part of this assessment and curriculum restructure, the government
established the Hospitality Standards Institute (HSI) to develop standard-
ized certificates and diplomas with core sets of ‘unit standards’ (and there-
fore competencies) to be attained by those entering professional cookery.
Unit standards are now developed by HSI, while public and private training
providers develop and deliver curriculum and assess students against these
standards. In response to the need for new curriculum, The New Zealand Chef
(Christensen-Yule and McRae 2002, 2007) was developed to directly align
with the unit standard framework. Its recipes are contemporary and begin
to reflect New Zealand’s emergent cuisine, extending the repertoire beyond
the overtly Francophile Practical Cookery (Ceserani and Kinton 1968; Ceserani
et al. 1987, 1995).
By 2011, New Zealand had 160 local and national hospitality (cookery)
qualifications being delivered by 41 providers (Hospitality Standards Institute
2011). Concerned at the proliferation of qualifications / programmes The
New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) introduced the New Zealand
Qualification Framework in July 2010 to review trade qualifications. The review’s
aim is to ensure that all qualifications are relevant and continue to meet the
needs of learners, industry and stakeholders. The number of hospitality quali-
fications will undoubtedly reduce but there is unlikely to be any significant
change in the model of education as the role of competency-based training is
not under scrutiny. In fact, there is potential for there to be a reduction of the
competencies assessed and a narrowing of the way that they are assessed.
New Zealand, like much of the western world, has a culinary educa-
tion system that is firmly grounded in the French culinary traditions of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (albeit with an emerging New Zealand
flavour) and a delivery model that has remained largely unchanged since at
least the turn of the twentieth century (Mandabach et al. 2002; Müller et al.
2009; Cheng 2012). This is reinforced by national, standardized competency-
based assessments that drive the curriculum, making it even more difficult for
culinary educators to let go of the master-apprentice apron strings. The New
Zealand situation mirrors the dominance of competency-based (mastery)
culinary education across more than 500 post-secondary programmes in the
United States (Cheng 2012). Indeed, there is some evidence that some sectors
desire the continuation of a focus on mastery of technical competencies at
the expense of the acquistion of creative skills (e.g. Zopiatis’ (2010) study of
Cypriot chefs). However, both M. S. Cheng (2012) and A. Zopiatis (2010)
acknowledge that research into culinary education and the chef profession
more broadly is sadly lacking and that we know very little about the demands
of the profession at this point.
According to Emms (2005: 95), the result of this master-apprentice approach
is that ‘questions arise about what knowledge [is] valued, who decide[s] and
how it [is] taught’ and, she continues, ‘knowledge ha[s] essentially been
dissected and commodified’ to the point that it was largely devoid of context.
Indeed, while research outside New Zealand by Cheng (2012), Müller et al.
(2009) and Zopiatis (2010) does not explicitly question the ­master-apprentice

242
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

model and competency-based approach, their research does highlight that

there is considerable debate over the validity of the competencies being deliv-
ered. Meanwhile Hegarty (2004) is much more explicit in his criticism of the
master-apprentice model of culinary education. Forces external to culinary
education are beginning to put pressure on this system and some educators
(both in New Zealand and around the world) are starting to call for innovative
teaching methods that provide an alternative to this approach (Hegarty 2004;
Hu 2010; Miles 2007).

A call for change

Hospitality education (including culinary arts) is currently experiencing a para-
digm shift (Mitchell and Scott 2012; Lugosi et al. 2009). This is part of what
P. Lugosi et al. (2009) describe as a critical turn in hospitality research and
a call for great depth of understanding in hospitality education. Indeed, C.
Lashley and A. J. Morrison (2000) suggest that there is a need to view hospi-
tality (including the provision of food) as a social act and not just a commer-
cial one. In order to conceive of the culinary arts in such a way, as Lugosi et al.
(2009) suggest, educational paradigms need to shift. A centuries’ old produc-
tion-focused, behaviourist pedagogy will always struggle to deal with a much
more liberal view of the hospitality world(s).
As far back as the mid-1980s there were criticisms of traditional hospital-
ity education. For example, Ferguson and Berger (1985) found that a cohort of
hospitality students were less likely to demonstrate a creative learning style at
graduation than when they entered their course. Interestingly, though, they
also found that those who had maintained a creative learning style through
to their final year achieved higher grades in that year, as their creative abili-
ties served them better when active problem-solving was required by assess-
ments. So, while higher levels of tertiary hospitality education require students
to utilize creative learning strategies in their assessments, the modus operandi
of previous years led creative learners to adopt less creative learning strategies
in order to achieve within a less creative system.
While Ferguson and Berger were not explicitly discussing traditional culi-
nary arts education, their findings and recommendations are echoed in Joseph
Hegarty’s calls for more critical reflection in culinary arts education (Hegarty
2004, 2011). Hegarty (2004: 27) is highly critical of the traditional master-ap-
prentice model, which he says is based on ‘behavioural or instructional objec-
tives delivered in a didactic form to demonstrate unspecified competence(s)’.
He continues that this ‘is concerned only with the performance outcomes,
and, most important, instead of encouraging critical reflection on alternative
perspectives it offers a monocultural view based on the satisfaction of narrow
performance criteria directed toward a fixed and predetermined outcome’
(Hegarty 2004: 27). In his later work, Hegarty suggests that the embedding of
critical reflection will result in culinary arts education that ‘engages the cultural
imagination and also engages students’ creativity’ (Hegarty 2011: 63).
It is worth noting that Müller et al.’s (2009) findings from Canada high-
light that all students, graduates and employers were satisfied with the level of
traditional skill acquisition and application from a (traditionally taught) culi-
nary arts programme. However, they also found that, while 78% of enrolled
students were satisfied with the problem-solving abilities being taught,
this dropped to just 21% amongst graduates of the programme and 48% of
employers of the graduates. This suggests that high levels of technical skill

243
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

alone were not providing students with what they needed once they were in
the industry and that problem-solving skills were at least as important.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the Department of Education, Science and
Training (DEST) National Industry Skills Report (DEST 2005) highlighted the
need for vocational training across all sectors to adapt to significant shifts in
the labour market. According to DEST (2005), these changes are driven by
globalization, an expansion of labour market (to be more international), a
more sophisticated level of service demanded from customers and consum-
ers and the need for businesses to be more competitive and productive. The
result is a labour market that needs to be adaptable and responsive to change.
One of DEST’s recommended strategies for registered training organizations
was the development of ‘high level technical skills, as well as skills such as
communication, business management, innovation and creativ[ity] and prob-
lem solving’ (DEST 2005: 11, emphasis added). R. Miles (2007) suggests that
such a strategy is particularly important for culinary education because, as C.
Chappell et al. (2000) conclude for all vocational training, there has tended to
be an over-emphasis of the technical skills at the expense of the more widely
applicable skills.
These calls for change are not limited to government agencies and
academics. In April 2013 students of the Culinary Institute of America (Hyde
Park) (CIA) protested over the perceived value that they received for their
fees (Moskin and Collins 2013). They highlighted ‘slipping standards’ and a
perceived bowing to corporate sponsors of foodstuffs. In response the CIA
provost, Mark Ericson, stated:

This is a profession and an institution in transition, […] the traditional

kitchen is an autocratic master-apprentice model, where all the students
say is ‘Oui, chef’. Now, creativity and improvization are also important,
and we are struggling with how to reconcile the two cultures.
(in Moskin and Collins 2013: n.p.)

Some argue that the answer to the problem of a lack of problem-solving

skills is to add business education to culinary curriculum (Müller et al. 2009;
Zopiatis 2010). However, a study by H. G. Parsa et al. (2005) suggests that
design principles are in fact more important than a clear business strategy
in the success of a restaurant. Indeed, Parsa et al. (2005: 314) ‘found few
differences in having a well-defined strategy between successful and failed
restaurant owners but considerable differences in clarity of concept’. Those
restaurants that failed were unable to articulate a definable concept beyond
a style of food and an articulation of quality. Conversely, successful restau-
rants all articulated a strong overarching concept that penetrated all aspects of
the business. So, while wider business skills can be an important addition to
culinary curricula, an ability to conceive of and implement strong concepts is
vital to a successful restaurant. This is the domain of a designerly approach to
problem solving (Roworth-Stokes 2011).
Indeed, M.-L. Hu (2010) has undertaken research that suggests that the
culinary industry also desires creativity as part of the suite of competencies
taught in culinary education. However, several of the ten items listed as crea-
tive competencies are far from what would normally be considered creative.
For example, ‘knowledge of basic culinary science’ or being ‘skilled at basic
culinary techniques’ (Hu 2010: 69) are not creative in themselves and while
the remaining items could be considered to be part of creativity, Hu does not

244
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

discuss the creative process that utilizes these items, nor does she provide a
framework for including them within the curriculum.
According to Miles (2007), in Australia there have been a number of incre-
mental changes in competency-based education that have led to improve-
ments in skills training that are of benefit to teachers and learners. However,
Miles (2007: 270) himself suggests that there is still a need for the ‘devel-
opment and implementation of innovative teaching techniques that include
reflective practices, new technologies to provide greater and more equitable
access to [vocational culinary] training’. Arguably, while Miles and Hu are
calling for a more innovative approach to culinary education, the entrenched
nature of current educational practice means that a solution is unlikely to lie
in incremental changes to a model that is struggling to keep up with current
demands. Indeed, the very fact that Miles talks of ‘innovative teaching tech-
niques’ and Hu of ‘competencies’ implies that they are not suggesting a shift
from a master-apprentice / competency-based model of culinary educa-
tion, but simply new ways of delivering that model. Meanwhile a number of
­environmental forces are at work that challenge this model.

Drivers of change in culinary arts education

The current culinary environment is characterized by rapid change driven by
several forces which, combined, have created the need to question the tradi-
tional model of culinary education in New Zealand. These forces include: food
design being popularized in the media; the introduction of design-thinking
into the high school curriculum and government policy, and; a range of wider
food movements and changes in New Zealand society that require the ­culinary
practitioners to be more agile.

Food design as popular culture

Design-led celebrity chefs such as Ferran Adrià (el Bulli), Heston Blumenthal
(Fat Duck) and David Chang (Momofuku) are perhaps the most visible and
popular protagonists of change in the culinary arts. Their work pushes the
boundaries of what we know as the culinary arts, using design methodolo-
gies, research and application to produce avant garde cuisine. Their (re)inven-
tion of cuisine is inspired by social movements, historical events or cuisines
and / or aspects of the environment that surrounds them. Using design prin-
ciples, they develop innovative cooking techniques and new ways of expe-
riencing food that involve all of the senses and stimulate our emotions. To
Blumenthal, Adrià and Chang (and their professional and amateur acolytes),
culinary art is now science, performance, entertainment, high art and social
commentary and this has reinvigorated, romanticized and popularized the
culinary arts.
Not only are these very public figures pushing the boundaries and leading
culinary change (Healy 2008; Stierand and Lynch 2008a, 2008b), they are also
changing consumers’ expectations of culinary experiences (Allen and Albala
2007; Lacey 2005), including the expectations of those looking for a formal
culinary arts education (Severson 2007; Müller et al. 2009; Zopiatis 2010;
Moskin and Collins 2013). These culinary pioneers are driven by design and
creativity and this is creating a new desire amongst consumers for more and
more creativity in the food that they purchase and consume (Severson 2007;
Müller et al. 2009; Zopiatis 2010; Moskin and Collins 2013). As such, celebrity
chefs are creating a demand for culinary education that has not been seen

245
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

before (Cheng 2012). Cheng (2012) describes this as the ‘Top Chef syndrome’,
where young people and career changers enter culinary education dreaming
of a spot on the Food Network and a better life: a culinary career built on crea-
tivity and performance. Sadly, according to Cheng (2012), culinary schools (in
America at least), have not been able to live up to these expectations, leading
to disquiet and public protest by students.
As Cheng (2012) has suggested, culinary schools have a new market of
career changers and young people with new expectations. This has resulted
in classrooms with a mix of cultural and social capital and a breadth of formal
education and life experience not previously seen in culinary education. In
New Zealand, for example, the 2012 and 2013 intakes for the Bachelor of
Culinary Arts at Otago Polytechnic has comprised approximately one-third
school leavers (the majority of whom did not study food at school, includ-
ing about one-third whose primary area of study at school was art), one-
third graduates from other tertiary programmes (including, amongst others:
law; English literature; nursing; and food science) and one-third with prior
(master-apprentice style) culinary training. This is in stark contrast to enrol-
ments in previous programmes that would typically only have one or two
enrolments from outside of the school-leaver market, most of whom had
undertaken some secondary cookery education.
It is important to recognize that creativity and innovation have always
been a part of culinary arts professions. Indeed, in 1921 Escoffier himself
talked of the differences in techniques and applications between the first
(1903) and second (1907) editions of his famous Le Guide Culinaire (Escoffier
1995). He advises readers to respect the work of past greats of the culinary
world, ‘but instead of copying them servilely, we ourselves should seek new
approaches so that we may leave behind us methods of working that have
been adapted to the customs and needs of our time’ (Escoffier 1995: n.p.).
Indeed, many who have followed Escoffier have innovated (albeit some time
after completing their formal education which largely followed Escoffier’s
teachings of more than a century ago), but there has never been a time
when leading culinary innovators have shared their innovation processes. In
the past, chefs have been more than willing to share their perfected recipes
and dishes, but not the process of perfecting the dish. For example, Ferran
Adrià and his creative partners published A Day at el Bulli, which describes
the six creative methodologies that he uses in the design of a dish and menu
(see Adrià et al. 2008). Meanwhile, Grant Achatz (of Chicago restaurants,
Next and Alinea) broadcasts his methodologies on YouTube, discussing such
concepts as flavour bouncing and menu design and Heston Blumenthal’s
television series In Search of Perfection (Strachan 2006; Robertson 2007) and
Heston’s Feasts (Taylor 2009/2010) explore what inspires his dishes and an
insight into the design thinking and developmental processes behind the
final dish being demonstrated. So for an industry where innovation was
the (secret) domain of the master, these innovators are stepping outside
the norm and providing insights into these processes for complete novices.
In doing so, these leading culinary thinkers are acknowledging that the
sharing of information is now the way forward for the industry and that,
by demystifying the culinary design process, further innovations should
be facilitated.
As a result of this popularization of culinary design and an opening up by
key high-profile innovators, the culinary arts are now more attractive to learn-
ers with diverse educational backgrounds, including those interested in:

246
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

• social science, i.e. those interested in food as culture, as also evidenced by

the growth in food studies and gastronomy programmes around the world
(see e.g. Murcott et al. 2013);
• science, i.e. those looking for a practical and creative outlet for their scien-
tific abilities, as is evident, for example, in the massive demand for Harvard
University’s food and science programme (Hammonds 2010; Mitchell and
Scott 2013), the growing discipline of culinology (Cheng 2012) and the
rapid growth of the Research Chefs Association which now has more than
2000 members (Research Chefs Association 2013);
• technology, i.e. those whose secondary education in food has a design
focus (see next section).

Design in schools and government policy

An important driver of tertiary vocational training in New Zealand is the
school technology curriculum (which includes food) published in the 2007
New Zealand Curriculum document for schools. Design is at the core of this
curriculum and the New Zealand Curriculum states that:

Technology is intervention by design: the use of practical and intellectual

resources to develop products and systems (technological outcomes)
that expand human possibilities by addressing needs and realising
opportunities. Adaptation and innovation are at the heart of technologi-
cal practice. Quality outcomes result from thinking and practices that
are informed, critical, and creative.
(Ministry of Education 2007: 32)

Food has traditionally been taught in the hospitality curriculum at secondary

school and this master-apprentice curriculum is explicitly directed to a career
in cookery and tertiary cookery education (usually taught at a technical insti-
tute) (Ministry of Education 2007). In 1999 the technology curriculum intro-
duced a new approach to food education (Turnbull 2002). The technology
curriculum spans Year 1 to Year 13 (in New Zealand Years 1–6 are considered
as primary and Years 7 to 13 secondary although Year 7 and 8 are often taught
at a separate ‘intermediate’ school) and food technology is taught as a separate
subject from Year 7 (Ministry of Education 2007). Throughout the technology
curriculum, including food technology, design is the core methodology intro-
duced to pupils (Ministry of Education 2007). Technology continues as a core
part of the curriculum to Year 10, but becomes an elective from Year 11. The
career pathway for food technology graduates is clearly differentiated from
the hospitality pathway. The New Zealand Government’s careers advisory
service explicitly directs food technology students towards university applied
science (food technology) and food science programmes (Careers NZ 2013).
These areas of tertiary study are clearly scientific in nature when the students’
learning has been dominated by design approaches to problem solving (which
may include some science, but which is cognizant of a wide range of design-
based solutions (Turnbull 2002)). So, while a scientific career may suit some
­graduates, it may not be what all had expected given the design focus of
secondary food technology.
New Zealand is not unique in this shift towards design pedagogy applied
across disciplines in secondary education. For example, the ‘Learning by
Design Project’ in the United States applies design thinking across all

247
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

c­ urricula as part of the ‘New Learning’ framework (Kalantzis and Cope 2004,
2008), which has also been influential in Australia (Kalantzis and Cope 2001;
Kalantzis et al. 2005). In the United Kingdom, the Design Council has been
active in promoting multi-disciplinarity in higher education as a result of the
2005 Cox Review of Creativity in Business (Design Council 2007a). The Design
Council (2007a) found that a multi-disciplinary approach to design education
was being applied in a variety of tertiary education contexts in Europe with
a focus on project-based learning, industry briefs and rapid prototyping. A
further report on the Asian context for multi-disciplinary design education
also found heavy government investment in this approach by South Korea
and China (Design Council 2010a). In 2010 the Design Council also published
a report on the UK’s Multi-Disciplinary Design Network, which, since 2006,
has promoted the development of higher education that combines a range of
traditional disciplines with design disciplines to develop the problem-solvers
of the future (Design Council 2010b). The report highlights the importance
of the McKinsey concept of ‘T-shaped people’, who have both a breadth of
understanding of concepts (horizontal) and a set of in-depth skills (vertical)
as the ideal graduates of these programmes (Design Council 2010b), while
others have postulated that a ‘designerly way of knowing’ is what results in
effective problem-solving (Roworth-Stokes 2011).
Outside of the educational context, innovation and design thinking are at
the core of the New Zealand Government’s business development policy and
this sends signals to students and educators that design is highly valued and an
important skill for business. For example, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
(a government department) is home to the specialist group called ‘Better By
Design’. This provides a service that connects companies with experts and
design practitioners who take growing export businesses through a Design
360 exercise as part of their ‘Design Integration Programme’ (see http://www.
betterbydesign.org.nz). Better By Design also facilitates design networks,
international study tours and an annual design leadership conference for
company CEOs and senior managers. Once again this follows international
trends towards design-led solutions to business and societal problems in the
developed economies of Europe and emerging economies in Asia (Design
Council 2010b).
This approach is reflected in global rankings for innovation and business
start-up. In 2011 New Zealand ranked fifteenth on the Global Innovation
Index (down from 9th in 2009/2010) and is third in the East Asia and Pacific
region (INSEAD eLab 2011). This puts it ahead of nations such as South Korea
(16), Norway (18), Japan (20), Australia (21) and France (22) and just behind
the likes of Israel, Ireland and Germany. As a result, in 2010 it was described
as ‘an entrepreneurial powerhouse’ by The Economist (New Zealand Trade and
Enterprise 2011) and was the ‘best place in the world to start a business’ for
2011 and 2012 (The World Bank 2012).
Successive New Zealand governments have also been very support-
ive of the creative sector, most notably the film industry. For example, since
1978 the New Zealand Film Commission has invested in 200 locally made
films and in 2011/2012 it will invest another $NZ18.4 million (New Zealand
Film Commission 2011). Thanks to this investment Peter Jackson, Andrew
Adamson and Weta Workshops are now household names around the world.
The importance of this to culinary arts education may not at first be appar-
ent, but this success is highlighting to young people that there are significant
rewards to be had from a career in the creative industries. This, combined

248
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

with the ­popularization of culinary design as a creative endeavour (discussed

above), means that students entering culinary arts education want to learn
creative processes rather than rote learn the outcome of that process.
So, New Zealand now has a policy environment that drives demand for
design-led / creative tertiary culinary education from above and below. From
below, secondary education is providing students with design skills at the
core of the technology curriculum. From above, it is promoting design think-
ing, creative endeavours and innovation as the way of the future for business
development and the economy as a whole. Despite this, tertiary culinary arts
education and policy surrounding it has largely resisted the need for a radical
shift to a paradigm that embraces design thinking.

Food-Awareness
As global pressures mount on the resources that maintain our standard of
living (food, water, oil, climate), the western world is finally becoming food-
aware. Food issues are at the top of global agendas, as some countries become
increasingly obese while others continue to struggle to find even the barest
of nutrition. Environmental factors such as climate change, a rapidly dimin-
ishing oil reserve, regional conflicts and ongoing uncertainty in global finan-
cial markets are all having an impact on food and consumers are becoming
increasingly aware that our current modes of production and consumption are
unsustainable. Culinary education must be able to adapt to these forces and
keep pace with consumer awareness.
This awareness includes a reaction to the globalization of our foodways
(Hall and Mitchell 2001) that has seen a return to local food systems (Hall
et al. 2008; Mitchell and Scott 2008). To this end, R. D. Mitchell and D. G. Scott
(2008: 287) suggest that:

Individuals are attempting to reconnect with the local through their

eating habits: seeking out locally produced foodstuffs; dining at restau-
rants that provide local dishes and used local products; demanding
labelling of foods that indicate its provenance, both at retail outlets and
sites of consumption.

Meanwhile, I. Cook and P. Crang (1996) point out that the consumers make
this connection between the local and food so as to ‘re-enchant’ food prod-
ucts and to impart meanings beyond that of a globalized commodity.
Alongside this reaction against global commodities is a wider move-
ment towards ethically and morally acceptable consumption, such that
‘consumers are increasingly demanding foods that are healthy, spray-free,
organic, biodynamic, non-genetically modified organisms (GMO), have low
food miles, are ethically produced, and /or fair-trade’ (Hall et al. 2008: 198).
Meanwhile, ‘consumer-citizens’ use alternative food distribution outlets such
as farmers’ markets as a political statement against food insecurities such as
concerns around genetically modified foods or the recent Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) outbreaks (Sassatelli and Scott 2001). R. Sassatelli and
A. Scott (2001) point out that farmers’ markets are increasingly important to
consumers as they have ‘embodied trust’ that provide consumers with the
security that they seek from their food.
Of course such movements are also supported by and reflected in the
media and food activism is on show on an almost daily basis. Celebrity chefs

249
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

such as Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall have championed

causes such as free-range farming, sustainable fisheries and preventing obes-
ity, while many programmes are now dedicated to local food and local food
producers or rediscovering local food heritage (e.g. Rick Stein’s Food Heroes
(Pritchard 2002–2011)). Consumers cannot help but be aware of the issues
surrounding what they consume.
In New Zealand, as in other postcolonial nations, another layer of food
awareness is related to its emergent food identity. Food is an important mate-
rial good in the discovery of postcolonial identities (Cook and Harrison 2003;
Turgeon and Pastinelli 2002) and New Zealand cuisine is no exception to
this. As New Zealand emerges from its colonial past, Maori (indigenous New
Zealanders), Pasifika (New Zealanders of Pacific Island descent) and Pakeha
(New Zealanders of European descent) are all using food to find their place in
the world. New Zealand’s food identity has been late to emerge, but is now a
source of pride for many, even if most would struggle to define it.
Chefs have to be aware of these meanings so that they may understand
how their guests perceive the ingredients and dishes that they wish to use
in the design of their menu. Culinary arts graduates taught under the tradi-
tional culinary arts model will be slower to adapt to these movements as their
education is almost entirely focused on the production of a core set of stand-
ardized dishes (Hegarty 2004). Hu (2010) found that head chefs desire gradu-
ates that show initiative, have a wide range of problem-solving skills and are
innovative. While no published studies exist for New Zealand, New Zealand
head chefs frequently lament the lack of initiative and adaptability shown by
recent culinary school graduates taught under the master-apprentice model.
High levels of consumer awareness mean that graduates need research skills
(Hegarty 2004) to allow them to stay abreast of the shifting marketplace and
design skills to allow them to develop dishes that address consumer concerns
over food security and reflect the identity of society.

Design-led thinking in culinary education

In recognition of the need for change, Otago Polytechnic has launched a bach-
elor’s degree programme that has design thinking at its core. The Bachelor of
Culinary Arts offers a balance between an engagement with ideas and mate-
rial from local and global, present and past contexts, a space for independent
learning and the discovery and practice of food-design processes. Over the
duration of the programme, students will encounter and be able to make use
of this mixture of learning styles, materials, ideas and values. The education
thus provided is holistic.
The Bachelor of Culinary Arts programme allows students to learn in a
creative, flexible and collaborative environment within a culture that promotes
and supports culinary-driven entrepreneurial opportunities. Specifically the
programme aims to equip students with the design tools, techniques and
competence required to work in their chosen career path within the extremely
broad field of professional culinary art. The whole model is cognisant of the
fact that the culinary business and industry is becoming more complex and
collaborative. For example, dietetics, which has traditionally focused entirely
on the science of nutrition rather than culinary production, is now driven
by a food-savvy market with ‘passion for food, taste, flavour, and diversity’
that will no longer simply accept nutrition for nutrition’s sake (Canter et al.
2007: 315). Chefs need to have a broad understanding of culinary practices

250
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

while having a good understanding of other related specializations. As such,

students are able to select from a range of electives outside of the culinary
arts that will allow them to lean towards a particular career pathway, includ-
ing (but not limited to): restaurant/hotel chef; artisan producer; management;
media; and technology / tertiary teacher. Many of the electives are delivered
by the School of Design and are intended to reinforce and supplement the
design learning that occurs in the core culinary arts papers / courses. Design
electives include: packaging and retail, presentation, digital photography, web
design, video and environmental design.
While traditional culinary education focuses on competency in the deliv-
ery of skills, the Bachelor of Culinary Arts is focused on students develop-
ing and understanding design as a tool for delivering outcomes. No longer
will students be expected to rote learn a dish; rather they learn core culinary
building blocks and use design methods to explore a wide range of possible
techniques for delivering the building blocks and multiple ways of combining
those building blocks to form a dish. For example, a mayonnaise is one form
of cold emulsion. If you know the building blocks of a cold emulsion you can
develop any number of cold emulsions. If you also understand how the proc-
ess of emulsification works, you can also explore a wide range of possibilities
for making those emulsions. Under the traditional culinary arts educational
system, you learn to make a mayonnaise and its derivatives and that is where
it ends.
An important part of the design process is an understanding of how ideas
and inspirations are turned into meaningful products for consumers. This
requires the learner to be self-aware and to have critical thinking skills so that
they may critique their own design processes and those of others. As such the
key skills, knowledge and competencies in core courses are as follows:

• The research process as demonstrated by enquiry. Students are taught

how to draw upon their own experiences, and how to reconcile this with
alternative knowledge claims.
• Application as the fusion of research and practical skills. This allows a high
practical element to be maintained. The process is repeated several times
so that the theoretical and research knowledge becomes a natural part of
the cooking.
• The evaluation stage introduces theories that explain the culinary world
and the theories that underpin culinary practice. These theories provide
students with tools to evaluate their context and demonstrate their under-
standings in an applied setting.
• Reflection is integral to learning and an important part of any practice and
complements evaluation. Once the context is analysed the student is able
to reflect and implement any change resulting from the reflection. This is a
necessary part of the culinary design process. Reflection is a skill that will
develop and become evident as the students progress through each year.
• It is important to note that this process of analysis and reflection is repeated
until the students can synthesize their learning to draw conclusions.

This follows the general tenet of the New London Group’s (2000) framework
(itself applying design principles to the pedagogy of a subject not traditionally
associated with design – literacy). This framework uses a melding of ‘situated
practice’ and ‘overt instruction’ in the ‘critical framing’ of real world prob-
lems where students ‘stand back’ from the problem and critically evaluate it

251
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

before developing a solution. This results in ‘transformed practice’ where the

students return to the start of the problem-solving exercise and the ‘situated
practice’, which is ‘now a re-practice, where theory becomes reflective prac-
tice’ (New London Group 2000: 35).
The approach at Otago Polytechnic is to invoke Archer who believed that:

[…] there exists a designerly way of thinking and communicating that

is both different from scientific and scholarly ways of thinking and
communicating, and as powerful as scientific and scholarly methods of
enquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems.
(Archer 1979: 17 in Roworth-Stokes 2011: 419)

‘Designerly ways of knowing’ have been described as the ‘third area’ of educa-
tion (Cross 1982 after Royal College of Art 1979), which, in contrast to the
sciences (objective, rational, neutral and concerned with ‘truth’) and humani-
ties (subjective, imagination, commitment and concerned with ‘justice’),
operates with core values of ‘practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and a concern
for “appropriateness”’ (Cross 1982: 222). These are the values of the Otago
Polytechnic’s Bachelor of Culinary Arts and they are operationalized through
the application of the design-led research, creativity and design resolution.

Design-led thinking for culinary education in practice

In 2005, the Design Council proposed a ‘double diamond’ model of design
processes, based on research into eleven major design companies around the
globe (Design Council 2007b). This model proposes four phases of design
(discover, define, develop and deliver) that relate to different parts of the
double diamond (Figure 1). The Design Council (2007b) suggests that, while
design processes vary from company to company, designer to designer, client
to client and between different problems and products, the double diamond
model is able to encompass all of the processes that they observed.
The application of design-led thinking to culinary education at Otago
Polytechnic follows a variation of the Design Council double diamond model.
The approach demonstrated in Figure 2 employs a student-centred project-
based learning approach that is beginning to be used at all levels of education
and across many disciplines (Bell 2010). Students are provided with a project
brief that outlines the problem to be solved, the requirements or constraints
(including fundamental techniques that must be demonstrated) and the inspi-
ration for the project. Students learn a range of fundamental techniques (both
cookery and design) in class and apply these in development of their projects.
Class time in the latter part of the project is devoted to prototyping and testing
of dishes or elements of dishes. The project ends with the students delivering the
dish to assessors and clients. The bulk of the marks available for the project are
received for students’ design workbooks, which record their design processes
(including research, idea generation, ideation, prototyping and resolution).
Figure 3 illustrates how first-year students studying patisserie are asked
to design a dessert inspired by a fairy tale of their choice and in doing so
they must demonstrate the application of three techniques (egg coagula-
tion, pastry and chocolate or sugar work) (Figure 3). Inspiration is designed
to be connected with the students’ own personal world (everyone is able to
relate to a fairy tale from their childhood), while constraints/requirements
(the ­techniques and a requirement to demonstrate some aspect of contemporary

252
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

Source: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-design/How-designers-work/The-design-process/

Figure 1: Design council double diamond model.

Figure 2: Double diamond design model for culinary education.

253
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

Figure 3: Patisserie example of the double diamond design model for culunary education.

practice) are used to help them engage with the professional world of cookery.
This connecting of the personal and professional worlds allows students to
take their own pathway in designing their dish while ­exploring technique and
content from both inside and outside the classroom. This requires a heavy
emphasis on research methods from the outset of the programme.
Like the master-apprentice approach, students are still introduced to
fundamental cookery techniques, but questioning (both of lecturers and
through experimentation by the students during the prototyping process) of
how and why these techniques work (or not) is vital to the design process
being applied. The master-apprentice model neither encourages such ques-
tioning, nor provides alternative applications of fundamentals or solutions to
problems. Students of the master are taught a repertoire of dishes that the
student must repeat using the same technique and to the same ‘level of qual-
ity’ expected of the master. For example, in patisserie one dish that is widely
used to demonstrate mastery is a lemon tart. This dish demonstrates mastery
of custard-making (a form of egg coagulation), production of a short crust
(pastry) and usually some form of sugar or chocolate garnish work. At the end
of such an assessment the student knows how to make a lemon tart and wider
application of the fundamentals learnt (egg coagulation, pastry and sugar or
chocolate work) only comes by making another dish that uses these skills.
The use of a design-led approach to the acquisition and application of these
fundamentals allows students to develop a wide range of problem-solving
skills based on these fundamentals (i.e. egg coagulation can result in many
forms of custard, ice creams, mousses, parfaits, etc.) and a deeper understand-
ing of how and why they work (i.e. there are many ways that egg coagulation
can be achieved).
The fact that each student’s project results in a completely new dish
allows students to witness first hand a multitude of possible outcomes as
they see their peers’ unique application of the fundamentals. This process

254
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

also encourages the sharing of knowledge, as the application of design and

cookery fundamentals is unique to the individual and therefore there is no
fear that a student’s work will be plagiarized. As a result, classes are rich in
informed conversation and critique of knowledge is frequent. Study groups
quickly form outside of the classroom where students share what they have
learnt, brainstorm ideas and test ideas and dishes on one another.
Another important element of this approach is that students are encouraged
to find their own design approach and philosophy. Like the Design Council’s
double diamond model (Design Council 2007b), while the students are intro-
duced to the elements of the culinary design double diamond, the dimensions
of the diamonds vary from student to student and project to project. Some
place more emphasis on the first diamond, others on the second, while others
still have more depth than breadth in one or other (or both) diamond. Over
the three years of the Bachelor of Culinary Arts, students are encouraged to
explore as many variations of the model as possible and even to propose and
argue for their own design models.

Conclusion
The forces outlined above drive student demands for tertiary education. Many
have been through an education system that imparts design thinking and
encourages creativity, while food media models a romanticized view of the
culinary arts that many aspire to. They are ethically and morally aware and
increasingly they want careers that will allow them to find solutions to many
of the crises that face our foodways. In recent years multi-disciplinary higher-
education courses have begun to marry design, entrepreneurship and creativ-
ity with more traditional courses that will have implications for the future of
food (e.g. the University of Nottingham’s taught master’s degree that includes
design alongside food production management (Design Council 2010b) and
the Bachelor of Culinary Arts at Otago Polytechnic will add to this growing
area of design-led pedagogy.
The restaurant and hotel industry is demanding graduates with a wider
range of critical thinking and an ability to adapt quickly and think on their
feet (Hu 2010). At the same time culinary arts graduates have an increasing
number of choices when they graduate, as there are many diverse professions
now in need of culinary arts knowledge. Traditional skills alone will not be
enough for graduates to survive in this new environment as almost all training
is geared towards a restaurant kitchen.
Design-led thinking provides a tool for the development of new skills,
new ideas and new possibilities for culinary arts graduates. By providing an
education that allows students to be inquisitive, creative and innovative – by
design – Otago Polytechnic’s Bachelor of Culinary Arts is proposing an alter-
native to the master-apprentice model of culinary education.

References
Adrià, F., Soler, J. and Adrià, A. (2008), A Day at El Bulli: An Insight into the
Ideas, Methods and Creativity of Ferran Adrià, New York: Phaidon Press
Limited.
Allen, G. and Albala, K. (2007), The Business of Food: Encyclopedia of the Food
and Drink Industries, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bell, S. (2010), ‘Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the
future’, Clearing House, 83: 2, pp. 39–43.

255
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

Canter, D. D., Moorachian, M. E. and Boyce, J. (2007), ‘The growing impor-

tance of food and culinary knowledge and skills in dietetics practice’,
Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 22: 4, pp. 313–22.
Careers NZ (2013), ‘Food technologist: How to enter the job’, http://www.
careers.govt.nz/jobs/science/food-technologist/how-to-enter-the-job.
Accessed 25 July 2013.
Ceserani, V. and Kinton, R. (1968), Practical Cookery, 2nd ed., London and
Baltimore, Md., USA: Edward Arnold.
Ceserani, V., Kinton, R. and Foskett, D. (1987), Practical Cookery, 6th edn,
London and Baltimore, Md., USA: Edward Arnold.
Ceserani, V., Kinton, R. and Foskett, D. (1995), Practical Cookery, 8th ed.,
London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Chan, S. Y.-L. (2011), Belonging, Becoming and Being a Baker: The Role and
Processes of Apprenticeship, Griffith University, Brisbane.
Chappell, C., Gonczi, A. and Hager, P. (2000), ‘Competency-based education’,
in G. Foley (ed.), Understanding Adult Education and Training, Sydney:
Allen and Unwin, pp. 191–205.
Cheng, M. S. (2012), ‘A competency model for Culinology® graduates:
Evaluation of the Research Chefs Association’s Bachelor of Science in
Culinology® core competencies’, Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate Theses and
Dissertations, Paper 12796, Iowa State University, Ames (Iowa, USA).
Christensen-Yule, L. and McRae, H. (2002), The New Zealand Chef, Auckland:
Hospitality Press.
—— (2007), The New Zealand Chef, 2nd ed., Auckland: Pearson Education
New Zealand Ltd.
Cook, I. and Crang, P. (1996), ‘The world on a plate: Culinary culture, displa-
cement and geographical knowledges’, Journal of Material Culture, 1: 2,
pp. 131–53.
Cook, I. and Harrison, M. (2003), ‘Cross over food: Re-materializing post-
colonial geographies’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
28: 3, pp. 296–317.
Cross, N. (1982), ‘Designerly ways of knowing’, Design Studies, 3: 4,
pp. 221–27.
Design Council (2007a), Lessons from Europe: Report on the Multi-Disciplinary
Design Education Fact-Finding Visit to The Netherlands, Denmark and Finland,
London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
—— (2007b), ‘Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global companies’,
Desk research report, Design Council, London.
____(2010a), Lessons from Asia: Report on the Multi-Disciplinary Design Education
Fact-Finding Visit to South Korea and China, London: Design Council/
Higher Education Funding Council for England / National Endowment for
Science, Technology and the Arts.
—— (2010b), Multi-Disciplinary Design Education in the UK: Report and
Recommendations from the Multi-Disciplinary Design Network, London:
Higher Education Funding Council for England / National Endowment for
Science, Technology and the Arts.
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (Australian
Government) (2005), National Industry Skills Report, Canberra: Department
of Education, Science and Training.
Emms, S. M. (2005), ‘The modern journeyman: influences and controls of
apprentice style learning in culinary education’, Unpublished Masters,
Auckland: Auckland University of Technology (AUT).

256
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

Escoffier, A. (1995), The Complete Guide to The Art of Modern Cookery, 2nd ed.,
UK: Mandarin Paperbacks.
Ferguson, D. and Berger, F. (1985), ‘Encouraging creativity in hospitality
education’, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 26: 2, pp. 74–76.
Hall, C. M. and Mitchell, R. D. (2001), ‘We are what we eat: Tourism, culture
and the globalisation and localisation of cuisine’, Tourism Culture and
Communication, 2: 1, pp. 29–37.
Hall, C. M., Mitchell, R. D., Scott, D. G. and Sharples, L. (2008), ‘The authentic
experience of farmers’ markets’, in C. M. Hall and L. Sharples (eds), Food
and Wine Festivals and Events Around the World: Development, Management
and Markets, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 197–231.
Hammonds, E. M. (2010), Opening Address: Science and Food: A Dialogue,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University School of Physics and Applied
Science, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9av8-lhJS8&feature=relmfu.
Accessed 17 January 2012.
Healy, A. H. (2008), ‘Expanding student capacities: Learning by design peda-
gogy’, in A. H. Healy (ed.), Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education: New
Pedagogies for Expanding Landscapes, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
Oxford University Press, pp. 2–29.
Hegarty, J. A. (2004), Standing in the Heat: Assuring Curriculum Quality in Culinary
Arts and Gastronomy, Binghamton, NY: Howarth Hospitality Press.
—— (2011), ‘Achieving excellence by means of critical reflection and cultural
imagination in culinary arts and gastronomy education’, Journal of Culinary
Science and Technology, 9: 2, pp. 55–65.
Hospitality Standards Institute (2011), Targeted Review of Qualifications (TRoQ)
Hospitality, Wellington: Hospitality Standards Institute.
Hu, M.-L. (2010), ‘Discovering culinary competency: An innovative approach’,
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9: 1, pp. 65–72.
INSEAD eLab (2011), The Global Innovation Index, 2011, Fontainebleau:
INSEAD.
Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B. (2001), New Learning: A Charter for Australian
Education, Canberra: Australian Council of Deans of Education.
—— (2004), ‘Designs for LEARNING’, e-Learning, 1: 1, pp. 38–92.
—— (2008), New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B. and Learning by Design Project Group (2005), Learning
by Design, Melbourne: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission.
Lacey, M. (2005), ‘The influence of a celebrity chef: A rhetorical analysis of
the “Emeril Live”, a television cooking show’, 1st Annual Symposium:
Graduate Research and Scholarly Projects, Witchita: Witchita State University,
pp. 9–10.
Lashley, C. and Morrison, A. J. (2000), ‘Introduction’, in C. Lashley and A. J.
Morrison (eds), In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates,
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. xv–xvi.
Lugosi, P., Lynch, P. and Morrison, A. J. (2009), ‘Critical hospitality manage-
ment research’, Service Industries Journal, 29: 10, pp. 1465–78.
Mandabach, K. H., Revalas, D. and Cole, R. P. (2002), ‘Pioneers of American
culinary education: lessons from the depression for culinary educa-
tion today’, PRAXIS, The Journal of Applied Hospitality Management, 5: 1,
pp. 68–85.
Miles, R. (2007), ‘Culinary education: Past, present practice and future
­direction’, in E. Christou and M. Sigala (eds), International CHRIE Annual

257
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

Conference, Dallas, Texas: Council of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional

Education, pp. 266–71.
Ministry of Education (2007), New Zealand Curriculum for English-Medium
Teaching and Learning in Years 1–13, Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Mitchell, R. D. and Scott, D. G. (2008), ‘Farmers’ markets as events for
local cultural consumption: The Otago Farmers’ Market (Dunedin, New
Zealand) explored’, in C. M. Hall and L. Sharples (eds), Food and Wine
Festivals and Events Around the World: Development, Management and
Markets, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 286–99.
—— (2013), ‘A critical turn in hospitality and tourism research?’, in A. Murcott,
W. Belasco and P. Jackson (eds), The Handbook of Food Research, London:
Bloomsbury, pp. 229–49.
Moskin, J. and Collins, G. (2013), ‘Students protest at culinary institute’, New
York Times [Online Edition], 23 April, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/
dining/student-chefs-protest-at-culinary-institute-of-america.html.
Accessed 30 June 2013.
Müller, K. F., Van Leeuwen, D., Mandabach, K. and Harrington, R. J. (2009),
‘The effectiveness of culinary curricula: A case study’, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21: 2, pp. 167–78.
Murcott, A., Belasco, W. and Jackson, P. (eds) (2013), The Handbook of Food
Research, London: Bloomsbury.
New London Group (2000), ‘A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
social futures’, in B. Cope, M. Kalantzis and New London Group (eds),
Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, London:
Routledge, pp. 9–37.
New Zealand Film Commission (2011), New Zealand Film Commission Fact
Sheet, Wellington: New Zealand Film Commission.
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (2011), New Zealand Emerges as an
Entrepreneurial Powerhouse (Media Release), Wellington: New Zealand
Trade and Enterprise.
Parsa, H. G., Self, J. T., Njite, D. and King, T. (2005), ‘Why restaurants fail’,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46: 3, pp. 304–22.
Pritchard, D. (2002–2011), Rick Stein’s Food Heroes, London: British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC2).
Research Chefs Association (2013), ‘About: Restaurant Chefs Assocation’,
http://www.culinology.com/about. Accessed 30 June 2013.
Robertson, P. (2007), In Search of Perfection, London: British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC2).
Roworth-Stokes, S. (2011), ‘The design research society and emerging themes
in design research’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28: 3,
pp. 419–24.
Sassatelli, R. and Scott, A. (2001), ‘Novel food, new markets and trust ­regimes:
Responses to the erosion of consumers’ confidence in Austria, Italy and
the UK’, European Societies, 3: 2, pp. 213–44.
Severson, K. (2007), ‘Top chef dreams crushed by student loan debt’, New
York Times, 8 May, pp. 1, 20.
Stierand, M. and Lynch, P. (2008a), ‘The art of creating culinary innovations’,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8: 4, pp. 337–50.
—— (2008b), ‘The art of creating culinary innovations’, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 8: 4, pp. 337–50.
Strachan, D. (2006), In Search of Perfection, London: British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC2).

258
 Why use design methodology in culinary arts education?

Taylor, J. (2009/2010), Heston’s Feasts, London: Optomen Television.

Turgeon, L. and Pastinelli, M. (2002), ‘“Eat The World”: Postcolonial encoun-
ters in Quebec city’s ethnic restaurants’, Journal of American Folklore,
115: 456, pp. 247–68.
Turnbull, W. (2002), ‘The place of authenticity in technology in the New
Zealand curriculum’, International Journal of Technology & Design Education,
12: 1, pp. 23–40.
The World Bank (2012), ‘Doing business’, http://www.doingbusiness.org/
rankings. Accessed 1 February 2012.
Zopiatis, A. (2010), ‘Is it art or science? Chef’s competencies for success’,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29: 3, pp. 459–67.

Suggested Citation
Mitchell, R., Woodhouse, A., Heptinstall, T. and Camp, J. (2013), ‘Why use
design methodology in culinary arts education?’, Hospitality & Society 3: 3,
pp. 239–260, doi: 10.1386/hosp.3.3.239_1

Contributor details
Dr Richard Mitchell is Associate Professor of Hospitality at Otago Polytechnic’s
(New Zealand) Food Design Institute. He has almost fifteen years of experi-
ence in food, wine and hospitality research.
Contact: Food Design Institute, Otago Polytechnic, Forth Street, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
E-mail: richard.mitchell@op.ac.nz

Adrian Woodhouse is an experienced chef and nationally recognized culinary

educator who teaches at Otago Polytechnic in Dunedin, New Zealand. In
2008 he was awarded a National Tertiary Teaching Excellence Award as well
as winning the Hospitality Standards Institute Supreme Excellence Award.
His works primarily focuses on the theme of innovation and creativity in culi-
nary arts education and has seen him present at numerous conferences and
symposiums both nationally and internationally.
Contact: Food Design Institute, Otago Polytechnic, Forth Street, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
E-mail: adrian.woodhouse@op.ac.nz

Tony Heptinstall has over 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry

and twenty years in culinary education. His work mainly focuses on building
innovative team and using food and food design for social change.
Contact: Food Design Institute, Otago Polytechnic, Forth Street, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
E-mail: tony.heptinstall@op.ac.nz

Justine Camp (Kai Tahu, Kāti Mamoe, and Waitaha) is the Kaipūtahi at Otago
Polytechnic. Her background in social work and community development
and Te Reo Mäori underpins her teaching in both health and Mäori-specific
areas. Justine’s role includes assisting heads of schools and departments in
aligning their curriculum with Mäori aspirations and the Treaty of Waitangi.

259
Mitchell | Woodhouse | Heptinstall | Camp

She is currently completing her Ph.D., which is developing a Mäori diabe-

tes programme that supports Mäori with Type 2 diabetes and their whänau,
especially in the area of dietary needs. This research follows her Masters,
which explored the emotional and social impact on whänau who care for a
member with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, using kaupapa Mäori research as her
methodology. She is a runaka-appointed ethics committee member of the
Otago Polytechnic Research Committee, and has supported non-Mäori staff
with research that is of benefit or interest to Mäori.
Contact: Kaitohutohu Office, Otago Polytechnic, Forth Street, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
E-mail: justine.camp@op.ac.nz

Richard Mitchell, Adrian Woodhouse, Tony Heptinstall and Justine Camp

have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988,
to be identified as the authors of this work in the format that was submitted
to Intellect Ltd.

260
 Copyright of Hospitality & Society is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

View publication stats