Design Education and Institutional Transformation

Background

In the last decade the digital revolution has changed the characterization of design from a relatively narrow discipline-based study to a study of a range of design related interdisciplinary concerns. Julka Almquist and Julia Lupton state, “Design research has no single definition. It is an interdisciplinary form of inquiry categorized in multiple ways, including: Research with a focus on theory, practice, and/or production, as design epistemology, design praxiology, and design phenomenology, and humanities-based design studies” (Almquist and Lupton 2009). As Nigel Cross and others document how design theorists have been searching for ways to expand the understanding and incorporation of design into other programs of study (Cross 2001). In 2007, the OECD reported that 34% of Australians aged 25-64 years had a tertiary education, ranking it the seventh highest (equal with Norway) amongst the 30 OECD member countries, and six percentage points above the OECD average (28%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Canada, Japan, New Zealand and USA respectively outranked Australia. Is tertiary education today adequate for the design challenges of global crisis?

In 1996 a significant review of design education at a two day workshop called Design@2006 recommended that the then design education of tomorrow should have a content focus on new thinking, research projects, and other activities that inform the education of new breed of designer and that a symposium on Design Education was to be held annually. Distance learning and interactive technology are key growth areas. Krippendorf in a 1997 report called ‘Design in the Age of Information’ (Krippendorf 2008) noted four topics surfaced: Rising technological opportunities, new design principles, design education, and a list of key research issues. Both Cross and Krippendorf include Herbert Simon’s definition of design: “The natural sciences are concerned with how things are...design on the other hand is concerned with how things ought to be” (Simon 1969). New design principles were boldly announced: “Design principles are propositions whose truth does not lie in the past but in their ability to guide actions towards desirable futures” (p27). Change fronts for design education at that time (1997) were in sum:

• •

  Academia needs more collaboration

• •

  Change in thinking of companies and institutions and grant programs

• •

  Human-centered design – “that departs from our traditional objectivism” (Krippendorf 2008, p30)

• •

  Collaborative environments (real and virtual)

• •

  Interdisciplinary team work

• •

  Reflective practice

• •

  New boundaries exploration