Figu re 1 What ever mode l of the desi gn proces s one adop ts, and whate verstage s it may be pro posed to consist of, movement thr oug h the process is always from the designer andtothe user. Nige l Cro ss Open University Tr ad iti on al ly , de sig n educa ti on ha s bee n ai me d at prep aring stud ents for a spec ialist role in one of the de si gn pr of es si on s. Bu t if d es ig n ed uc at io n is t o be ma de ava ila ble mo re wid ely , per ha ps to eve ryo ne, th en it must ha ve ver y di ff er en t ai ms. It will need to be a gen eral educ ation in desig n for layp eopl e, not a spe cialist education fo r de sig n pr ofessionals. In dis cus sin g des ign educ ati on for lay peo ple , the ref ore, I ass ume tha t we mu st mean someth ing oth er tha n me rel y a wid er pro vis ion of s pec ial ist ed uc ation. I as su me th at we mi gh t wa nt to qu es tio n the relevance of s pe cia list edu cat ion , tha t we mig ht wa nt to con sid eralternatives to speci alist educ ation , th at we mig ht wa nt to enable pe op le wh o are spe cif ica lly non-s pe cia lis ts to be com e involved in critical decision-ma king in t he desig n pr oce ss, an dth at we mi gh t even want to provi de so me form ofco un ter -courses that wil l e nab le these non- specialists to challenge de si gn er s (and thei r cl ient s) as to the va lid ity of thei r de cis ion s. Beyo nd thi s spe cia lis t vs. no n- spe cia list di ch ot omy, we ma y al so wa n t to ask if th ere ca nn ot be a new patte rn of edu cational prov ision that doe s no t per pe tu ate th is 'u s' and 't he m' fr ag me nt at io n ofso ci ety; pe rh ap s ra th er as th e 'b ar ef oo t do ct or s' an doth er social exp eri me nts in C hin a ha ve been aimedat brea kin g do wn cla ss and spe cia lis m bar rie rs. Th e layp ers on 's vie w of de sig n Th ro ug h tr yi ng to ex pl ai n wh at it i s I do whe n I 'te ac h de si gn ', I ha ve fou nd it is ve ry di ff icul t to talk wi th lay pe op le about 'd es ign' in the wa y th at my coll eag ue s in de sig n an d des ign rese arc h tal kab out it . Wha t is the layp er so n' s vi ew of de si gn, then? Fi rs tly , the layp er so n is awar e tha t the re is som eth ing kn own as 'go od-desi gn '. Bu t th is 'go od - de sig n' is ma nif est ed in ob jec ts tha t are ex pe nsi ve, di ff ic ul t to obt ai n, us ua lly no t to the laype rs on's tas te, inc on sis ten t wit h his or he r life -style , gene rally looke d-a t more tha n use d, and va lua ble - i.e. mo re th an ex pe ns iv e, bu t ac tual ly to be pr es er ve d rath erlik e works of ar t. Secon dly , the re is som eth ing tha t the lay pe rso n is o nl y part ly awar e of as bei ng ' bad-design' . Forinstance, sjhe is toldth at som e thi ng s are 'ba d- de sig n' (co nfu sin gly , the se same thi ng s wer e of ten 'g ood-de si gn ' in th e rece nt pa st, su ch as t owerbloc ks of flats) ; s jhe knows tha t so me th in gs ar e 'ba d- des ign ' bec ause the y are sel f-e vid en tly ba d- they are un co mf or ta bl e, un safe or in ju ri ou s; bu t th ere are man y ot he r ite ms of 'bad -d es ign' th at sjhe do es not kn ow a bo ut, alt ho ug h no ne the les s sjhe un wit tin gly exp eri enc es the ir h armful sid e-ef fe ct s orbasic inad equa cies. (Pap anek and Henn essy, 197 7) (I n pa re nt he ses it mig ht be ad de d th at, th ir dl y, ther e is a gr eat ma ss of art if acts an d sy st ems th at the layp ers on uses eve ry da y, bu t do es not th in k ofas bei ng 'des ig n' at al l - fr om beermats an d bo ot- lac es to tele vis ion an d typ e.) Fi na ll y, th e layp er so n an d th e de si gn er vi ew each other, da rk ly , fr om op po si te en ds of t he de si gn proc ess (Fig ure 1). Thu s one very impo rtan t aspe ct D e s i g n I d u c a l i o n f o r l a y p e o p l e of the layp er so n' s view of de si gn is th at sjhe is very mu ch on the en d of i t; sjhe rece iv es it, has to us e it, . ha s it imposed on he r or hi m. Sjhe mig ht be inv olv ed in making som e of i t, but sjhe doe s no t de cide wh at to make , nor ev en how to make it. Desig n in ge neral edu catio n Of cour se, there ha ve been , and conti nu e to be, ma ny attemp ts to bu ild edu ca tio na l br id ges across the gu lf that sepa ra tes th e views of d es ig n he ld by layp eo pl e an d by d es ig ne rs . Fo r in st an ce , ther e ar e nu merous nig ht-sch oo l an d simil ar ex tra-mura l co urs es in d esi gn for la yp eo ple wit h en ou gh int erest tim e an d co mmit me nt to spare. Th ese courses ge ner all y aim at rai sin g the ir stu de nts ' 'awareness' 0 'ap pr eciati on' of de si gn , pa rticul ar ly in terms ofhi sto ri ca l sty le s an d rela ted ae st he ti c aspe ct s ofdesign. But in recent year s a signi fican t new dev elop men t of des ign in ge ner al edu cat ion ha s bee n at seco nd ary - school lev el (B ayn es, 19 76 ; Eg gle sto n, 1976; Green, 19 74 ; Ha ra ha n, 19 78 ; Ar ch er an d Ba yn es , 19 77 ). In thi s cas e, des ign is be ing dev elo pe d as a gene ral sub jec t for sch oo l stu den ts; mu ch as, say, sc ien ce is tr ea te d as a ge ne ra l su bj ect in scho ol s. In s ome scho ols, it ma y be that li ttle mo re is in f act bein g do ne than to giv e a f ancy ne w na me to th e ol d craft an d ar t sub jec ts (tr aditio nal ly res erv ed esp eci all y fOJ the less -ac ade mic kid s); bu t r elaxi ng bou nda ries betw een subj ects is any way to be enco urag ed, andI'm sure th a t a lo t of fu nd amen tal go od wi ll als o be stimulated by the design-i n-ge neral-ed ucati on movement. My int erp ret ati on of th e aims of this mo vem ent is as follows: Fi rs tly , ther e is th e ai m of dev el op ing mo re 'd es ig n awar en es s' in th e ge ne ra l po pu la tio n. Th er e is a fee lin g, I thin k, that dev elo pin g a mo re 'de sig n literate' pop ula tio n wil l hav e th e resu lt of more 'sensible' de sig n dec isio ns be ing take n in th e co mmun it y. Th is co ul d be in terp reted by a cy ni c, I suppos e, as me an ing th at mo re de si gners wi ll ge t mo re wo rk to do , and th at co mm un ity de ci sio ns STAGE A STAGE B STAGE C
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Figure 1Whatever model of thedesign process oneadopts, and whatever stages it may be
pr o posed to consist of,movement through the
process is always from
the designer and to theuser.
Nigel Cross
Open University
Traditionally, design education has been aimed at
preparing students for a specialist role in one of the
design professions. But if design education is to be
made available more widely, perhaps to everyone,
then it must have very different aims. It will need to
be a general education in design for laypeople, not a
specialist education for design professionals.
In discussing design education for laypeople,
therefore, I assume that we must mean something
other than merely a wider provision of specialist
education. I assume that we might want to question
the relevance of specialist education, that we might
want to consider alternatives to specialist education,that we might want to enable people who are
specifically non-specialists to become involved in
critical decision-making in the design process, and
that we might even want to provide some form of
counter-courses that will enable these non-specialists
to challenge designers (and their clients) as to the
validity of their decisions.
Beyond this specialist vs. non-specialist
dichotomy, we may also wan t to ask if there cannot
be a new pattern of educational provision that does
not perpetuate this 'us' and 'them' fragmentation of
society; perhaps rather as the 'barefoot doctors' and
other social experiments in China have been aimed
at breaking down class and specialism barriers.
The layperson's view of design
Through trying to explain what it is I do when I
'teach design', I have found it is very difficult to
talk with lay people about 'design' in the way that
my colleagues in design and design research talk
about it. What is the layperson's view of design,
then?
Firstly, the layperson is aware tha t there is
something known as 'good -design'. But this 'good-
design' is manifested in objects that are expensive,
difficult to obtain, usually not to the layperson's
taste, inconsistent with his or her life-style, generally
looked-at more than used, and valuable - i.e. more
than expensive, but actually to be preserved rather
like works of art.
Secondly, there is something that the layperson
is only partly aware of as being ' bad -design'. For
instance, sjhe is told that some things are 'bad-
design' (confusingly, these same things were often
'good-design' in the recent past, such as tower
blocks of flats); s jhe knows that some things are
'bad-design' because they are self-evidently bad -
they are uncomfortable, unsafe or injurious; but
there are many other items of 'bad-design' that sjhedoes not know a bout, although nonetheless sjheunwittingly experiences their harmful side-effects or
basic inadequacies. (Papanek and Hennessy, 1977)
(In parentheses it might be added that, thirdly,
there is a great mass of artifacts and systems that
the layperson uses every day, but does not think of
as being 'design' at all - from beermats and boot-laces to television and type.)
Finally, the layperson and the designer view each
other , darkly, from opposite ends of the design
process (Figure 1). Thus one very important aspect
D e s i g nI d u c a l i o n
f o rl a y p e o p l eof the layperson's view of design is that sjhe is very
much on the end of it; sjhe receives it, has to use it,
. has it imposed on her or him. Sjhe might be
involved in making some of it, but sjhe does not
decide what to make, nor even how to make it.
Design in general education
Of course, there have been, and continue to be,
many attempts to build educational bridges across
the gulf that separates the views of design held by
laypeople and by designers. For instance, there are
numerous night-school and similar extra-mural
courses in design for laypeople with enough interest
time and commitment to spare. These courses
generally aim at raising their students' 'awareness' 0
'appreciation' of design, particularly in terms of
historical styles and related aesthetic aspects of
design.
But in recent years a significan t new development
of design in general education has been at secondary-
school level (Baynes, 1976; Eggleston, 1976; Green,
1974; Harahan, 1978; Archer and Baynes, 1977). In
this case, design is being developed as a general
subject for school students; much as, say, science istreated as a general subject in schools. In some
schools, it may be that little more is in fact being
done than to give a fancy new name to the old craft
and art subjects (traditionally reserved especially fOJ
the less-academic kids); bu t relaxing boundaries
between subjects is anyway to be encouraged , and
I'm sure tha t a lot of fundamen tal good will also be
stimulated by the design-in-general-education
movement.
My interpretation of the aims of this movement
is as follows:
Firstly, there is the aim of developing more 'design
awareness' in the general population. There is a
feeling, I think , that developing a more 'design
literate' population will have the r esult of more
'sensible' design decisions being taken in the
community. This could be in terpreted by a cynic, I
not regard such courses as 'design' ed ucation at all -
bu t I think it is the kind of design ed ucation for
laypeople that all of us need.
References
Ar cher , L.B. and K. Baynes (1977), The Future of Design
Education, in Bicknell, J. and L. McQuiston (eds.), Deisgn for Need, Pergamon, 126-132.Baynes, K. (1976), A boo t Design , Design Council.Cooley, M. (1977), Design for Social Need - The Lucas
Workers' initiatives, in Bicknell, J. and L. McQuiston (eds.), Design for Need , Pergamon, 95-101.Cross, N. (1972), Design Participat ion , Academy Ed itions.Cross, N. (1975), Design and Technology (Man-mad eFutures, Unit 9), Open University Press.Cross, N., D. Elliott, and R . Roy, (197 4),Man-madeFutures: Readings in society , technology and design ,Hu tchinson.de Bono, E. (1970), Lateral Thinking: a textbook of cr eativity , Ward Lock.Dickson, D. (1977), Technology - the language of socialaction, in Bicknell, J. and L. McQuiston (eds.), Design for
Need , Pergamon, 102-107.Eggleston, J. (1976), Developments in Design Education,Open Books.Elliott, D. (1975), Policy and Participation (Man-madeFutures, Unit 6), Open University Press. .Goodlad , S. (1977), Socio-T echnical Project s in Engineering
Education , GEE Pr o ject, University of Stirling.
Green, P. (1974), Design Education: problem-solving and visual exper ience, Batsford ,Harahan, J. (ed .) (1978), Design in General Educa tion ,Design Council.Jones, J.C. (1970), An Ex periment in Education for Planning and Design, in Moore, G. (ed.), Emerging Methodsin Environmental Design and Planning , MIT Press, 353-357.Jones, J.C. (1977), How My Thoughts About DesignMethods Have Changed During the Years, Design Methodsand Theories, II, 1,48-62.Marcuse, H. (1964), One Dimensional Man , R outledge and Kegan Paul.Papanek , V. and J. Hennessy (1977) , How Things Don't Work , Pantheon Books.Roszak , T. (1968), TheMakingof aCoon t er -Culture , Faber .R oy, R . and N. Cross, (1975), Technology and Society(Man-mad e Futures, Units 2/3), Open Univer sity Press.Thring, M.W. (1973), Man , Machines and Tomor r ow,R outledge and Kegan Paul.
Thring, M.W.and E.R. Laithwaite (1977), How to Invent ,Macmillan.