Visible Language

The persistence of past traditions and the uncertainty of change can easily immobilize teachers who see the misfit of design education, but are reluctant to adapt and evolve new approaches to the teaching- learning paradigm. Using a recent statement by a former Harvard president, a few direct and unremarkable adaptations are suggested. This special issue is organized in three sections: Clarity in educational goals and student performance; Attention to dynamic change and interconnectedness; Differentiation and research in graduate programs. The invited authors are briefly introduced. They do not provide consensus, but offer different perspectives on change.

SITUATION Graphic design education is subject to substantial changes. Changes in professional practice and higher education aggravate insecurities about the contents and structure of courses, assessment criteria, relations between practice, research and theory and teaching methods.
ASSUMPTION Graphic design education (visual communication design education) needs to change to accommodate these changes.
APPROACH There are many possible starting points to tackle the ‘wicked problem’ of visual communication design education. The starting point for this article is professional practice. Through the observation of practice, and interviews with practicing graphic designers, a set of common activities and approaches was distilled. These commonalities—the things that all graphic designers seem to have in common—are visualized in two diagrams.
RESULTS The two diagrams can be used as a basis for a critical review of current education in visual communication design, and they indicate a motivated and testable development for the coming years.

This article begins by describing a desirable design approach that is only practiced by a few designers today. This design approach is desirable because it responds to a society that suffers from a number of illnesses due to communications and artifacts that do not satisfy the needs of people. The article then proposes the kind of design education that could lead to forming designers within the outlined approach, and defines necessary terms and conditions. Lastly, it proposes recommendations, and the need for a deep reflection on the nature of design and of design education.

Challenging the common grand vision of Design, this article considers ‘design’ as a humble re-forming process based on evidence to substantiate its results. The designer is likened to a tinker who respects previous iterations of a design and seeks to retain what is useful while improving its performance. A design process is offered, illustrated with a real project example. The author argues for a reframing of ‘design’ as a sustainable, evolutionary process.

Using typography as its exemplar with its lack of clear performance criteria, this article questions what is good design and how to measure a designer’s accountability. Evaluation criteria are teased out from various perspectives: credibility, ease of use, stakeholder inclusion in the design process, respect for cultural dimensions and whether it adds to humanity and/or the environment. The article concludes with steps to social change.

The current objective, object-oriented approach to design is questioned along with design education viewed as a job-oriented endeavor. Instead relational knowledge and experience in a holistic sense, both tacit and explicit, are valued along with an appreciation of the unique character of the student. A new paradigm for design education is proposed that embraces collaboration and focuses on integration of study, experience and reflection that translates beyond design into an intelligent life.

Based on a 19th century compositional trope popularized by Frédéric Chopin, the impromptus presented here are linked as a storytelling suite. The notion within the impromptu is to seek depth through lightness, as if improvised. The five stories provide metaphors for the conundrum of design education and practice. They engage the reader in interpretation; an open-ended hermeneutic pursuit.

Arguing that the 21st century context for design is significantly different from the previous century, a set of structural suggestions are posed that can leverage change. Administrative arrangements are questioned along with the lack of clear differentiation or performance expectation among design degrees. While widespread, confusing and contradictory ideas about research complicate the situation, the leverage point is identified in graduate education.

Education in design shares with other disciplines a number of perennial challenges, including the need to transfer human culture, the choice of what parts of human culture to transfer and the decision as to what approaches work best in accomplishing that transfer. Design education also faces particular challenges, which are shared with only a few other disciplines. These are a predisposition towards the future, the increasing necessity of interdisciplinary approaches and the value for students in participating early in the culture of research. I argue for curricular advancements to accommodate each of these factors, including in particular a design PhD modeled on the humanities. Finally, I emphasize the importance of providing students with sufficient time to reflect.

This article offers a large-scale view of how design fits in the world economy today, and the role of design education in preparing designers for their economic and professional role. The current context of design involves broad-based historical changes including a major redistribution of geopolitical and industrial power from the West to the East. A model of six global economies delineates the challenge and opportunity for design practice and education. While the six economies developed over time, all fit together now and design creates value in different ways across them. Understanding the economic context of design education gives clarity to the educational mission, differentiating it from other forms of education. The author argues that design professionals now require a broad range of analytical, conceptual and creative skills related to the social and economic context of design along with advanced skills in a design specialty. A taxonomic chart of design knowledge delineates the range of skills and knowledge domains involved.