Design Activism & Design Education: Seeds for Responsive Design Education
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Fine Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Kelly C. O’Gorman DeVore, Bachelor of Architecture Graduate Program in Industrial, Interior, and Visual Communication Design
****
The Ohio State University 2012
Master’s Examination Committee: Susan Melsop, Advisor Dr. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders Paul J. Nini
Copyright by Kelly C. O’Gorman DeVore © 2012 All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
This thesis is a descriptive and qualitative study of collaborative and community-based design activism in the United States. The research posits that our current curricular models do not accurately reflect our social and global conditions, but are rather based on professionally driven and outmoded pedagogical models. The main goal is to provide an educational framework in order to understand current needs and future goals of design.
In 2009, participants in the Designers Accord, a global coalition of designers, educators, and business leaders, met and established that designers will need to engage in “deeper personal, social, and cultural connections” in their work in the future (Accord, 2009, para. 2).
Indeed, within the past two decades, we have seen an increase in the number of socially responsible thinkers and design teams doing this
“good” work. (Berman, 2008).
ii
Current curricula in the United States have started to offer singular courses on social change and design responsibility. However, full integration of social responsibility into design curricula at the university level has been slow to respond to current social challenges present today (E. Jones, 2002). It is now being recognized that,
“Design pedagogy has the responsibility to respond to the shifting landscape of design practice” in order to prepare students to confront the challenges we face as a global community concerning the environment, economics, and social responsibility (Melsop, Gill, &
Chan, 2010, pg. 5).
This thesis reviews the current state of socially conscious design activism for design education in the United States today. Case studies of applicable design activism projects are examined through a framework of typical methods and tools used, to understand the characteristics that exemplify design activism today. The framework leads to a model that shows how these key characteristics can be incorporated into design education without disrupting design curricula already in place.
iii
Dedicated to: Momma, Daddio, Timmy, and Jay I love you all very much – thank you.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to make special mention and give thanks to the following people for their contributions to making my graduate school experience wonderful, and this thesis possible:
Immense thanks go to my advisor, Susan Melsop. You have not only taken me under your wing; on your travels, and to conferences, but you’ve also been a great support and confidant during my time at Ohio State. Thank you is just not enough to say how grateful I am for your constant encouragement and advice. This thesis was created and developed together, through site visits, your Transit Arts course, and countless hours of talks. These ideas would not have been here without your influence and guidance. Thank you.
Thank you to my committee members, Liz Sanders and Paul Nini:
To Liz, for guiding me through the research and writing process during this thesis, thank you. You were always able to provide the links and sketches necessary to help me articulate what I was actually doing here. Thank you for your patience, the hours of mark-ups and editions you read through, your guidance, and your knowledge.
To Paul, thank you for your motivation, support, and guidance in this thesis process, and also in my professional development. Thank you for always keeping your door open.
v
I would also like to thank my brother, Tim O’Gorman, my father, Thomas O’Gorman, my friend Elise Woolley, my faithful writing companion, Molly Bryant, and my husband, Jay specifically for your help. I’m grateful for your assistance through the writing process of my thesis. Your support was invaluable and much needed.
I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Department of Design. The community we built together was inspiring and once-in-a-lifetime. I always knew I could count on your honesty, humor, critique, and support.
To my parents: I am so grateful to have been raised in an environment that placed an importance on education. Thank you for providing this great example to me and for always encouraging me to pursue higher education. Thank you to my supportive and loving in-laws for always believing in me and wrapping me in a cocoon of warmth whenever I see you. I couldn’t ask for a better extended family.
Finally, a special thanks to my husband, Jay, thank you for supporting me during my graduate studies. I literally could not have done this without your encouragement, never-ending love, and patience. Your drive and ability to dream-big always push me to do good work. Thank you.
vi
!
VITA
April 10, 1983…………… Born - Iowa City, Iowa
2000………………………. Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design Summer Pre-College Program, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
2001…………...... DeKalb High School, DeKalb, Illinois
2006……………………… Bach. of Architecture Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
2006-2007………………. Architectural Intern Mithun, Architects, Designers, and Planners Seattle, Washington
2007-2009………………. Architectural and Graphic Designer Boxwood, Integrative Design Studio Seattle, Washington
2009 - 2011……………… Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Design The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
2009 - 2011……………… Graduate Associate Wexner Center for the Arts, Education Dept. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Industrial, Interior, and Visual Communication Design Graduate Interdisciplinary Minor in College and University Teaching
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
! ABSTRACT ...... ii!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v!
VITA ...... vii!
LIST OF FIGURES ...... x!
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Context ...... 1!
CHAPTER 2:!Key Terms...... 11! 2.1 Defining Design Thinking and Activism...... 11! 2.2 Defining Design/build ...... 18! 2.3 Defining Service-learning ...... 21! 2.4 Defining Participatory Methods ...... 26! 2.4.1 Co-Design ...... 27! 2.4.2 Participatory Design ...... 28! 2.4.3 Participatory Action Research...... 29! 2.4.4 Clarifying Participatory Terms ...... 31! 2.5 Summary ...... 32!
CHAPTER 3: The Rise of Design Activism" ...... 34! 3.1 Introduction ...... 34! 3.2 Design Activism ...... 35! 3.3 Responsible vs. Responsive ...... 40! 3.4 Mindset ...... 44! 3.5 Framework Overview...... 49! 3.6 Summary ...... 50!
viii
CHAPTER 4: Framework and Case Studies ...... 52! 4.1 Introduction ...... 52! 4.2 The Framework...... 54! 4.3 Rural Studio: Then and Now ...... 61! 4.3.1 Rural Studio: Learning Outcomes ...... 69! 4.4 Design Matters at The Ohio State University...... 72! 4.4.1 Design Matters: Learning Outcomes ...... 76! 4.5 The Projects of Project M...... 79! 4.5.1 Project M: Learning Outcomes...... 81! 4.6 Design Corps ...... 84! 4.6.1 Design Corps: Learning Outcomes ...... 87!
CHAPTER 5: Planting Seeds ...... 95! 5.1 Introduction...... 95! 5.2 Applications for Curricula...... 97! 5.3 Themes from the Framework ...... 98! 5.4 Seeds for Responsive Design Education...... 99! 5.5 Seed Examples for Curricula...... 121! 5.6 Summary ...... 126!
CHAPTER 6: Future Work ...... 129! 6.1 Overview ...... 129! 6.2 Next Steps ...... 130! 6.3 Summary and Conclusion...... 135!
Bibliography...... 137! Appendix A: Design Feast Design Activism List...... 142! Appendix B: Timeline of Events ...... 148! Appendix C: Architectural Record, “The Good List”...... 151! Appendix D: Interdisciplinary Service-Learning Models ...... 153! Appendix G: Proposed Steps to “Good” Design, According to Shea.....165!
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Thesis Roadmap on Design Activism and Design Education...... 10!
Figure 2: Visualization of Design-build/Design-make ...... 20!
Figure 3: Visualization of Service-Learning ...... 23!
Figure 4: Visualization of Co-design...... 27!
Figure 5: Visualization of Participatory Action Research ...... 30!
Figure 6: Frequency of Social and Community-based Design Projects, over time ...... 36!
Figure 7: Chronological List of Social and Community-based Design Projects, by decade ...... 37!
Figure 8: Description of Framework Categories and Descriptors ...... 44!
Figure 9: Sanders' Design Research Map, 2006 ...... 48!
Figure 10: Snapshot of Framework Headings...... 50!
Figure 11: Framework of Design Activism (Continued) ...... 56!
Figure 12: Framework of Design Activism (Continued) ...... 57!
Figure 13: Site Visit Photos of Typical Student Housing, 2010 ...... 62!
Figure 14: Mason's Bend Community Center, 2000...... 66!
Figure 15: Mason's Bend Community Center, 2010...... 66!
Figure 16: Rural Studio Framework Data...... 69!
Figure 17: Key Characteristics from Rural Studio ...... 71!
Figure 18: Design Matters Framework Data ...... 75!
Figure 19: Key Characteristics from Design Matters ...... 78!
x
Figure 20: Key Characteristics from Project M...... 83!
Figure 21: Key Characteristics from Design Corps...... 89!
Figure 22: Introduction to Characteristics and Themes ...... 91!
Figure 23: Bloom's Taxonomy ...... 100!
Figure 24: Design Education Process, Seeds for Responsive Design Education...... 101!
Figure 25: Seeds for Responsive Design Education ...... 105!
Figure 26: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Self-Assessment [Seed 1] ...... 107!
Figure 27: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Contextual Inquiry [Seed 2]...... 109!
Figure 28: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Exposure and Empathy [Seed 3] ...... 112!
Figure 29: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Co-Design [Seed 4] ...... 116!
Figure 30: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Adaptation [Seed 5] ...... 118!
Figure 31: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Reflection [Seed 6] ...... 120!
Figure 32: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Diagram...... 127!
xi
CHAPTER 1:
Introduction and Context
!“Design directly expresses the cultural, social, political and economic complexion of a society, and it thus provides a snapshot of that society’s condition. In so doing it reveals a great deal about a society’s priorities and values. Design matters: it is too important just to celebrate, collect or historicize. The world situation demands that we develop a greater awareness of design’s explicit and implicit values and their implications, and exercise a greater control of design in our societies.” -- Nigel Whiteley, Design for Society
Social responsibility, social equity, social change, doing good, designing for good, design for the 90%, design with the 90%, and a variety of other terms have been circulating through the design world at an increasing rate throughout the past decade. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of socially responsible thinkers and design teams doing this new “good” work (Berman, 2008; Thorpe, 2010) not only in practice, but also in professional publications. This rise in
1
design activism calls designers to action in order to address the challenges we face environmentally, economically, and socially
(Tanzer and Longoria, 2007) which require a holistic response to the complexities of an ever-changing world.
The rapid increase of design activism has prompted this thesis. This thesis research focuses on the rise of social concerns and design activism in design practice as they relate to design education in the undergraduate college classroom. It is admirable for designers to do this work – yet it is also understood that not every designer or student can engage in this work. The large number of projects conducted within the past decade appears to necessitate this more socially oriented work to be included as a part of design education.
Through an examination of a variety of these new projects and approaches, this thesis provides relevant definitions and a clear understanding of social and community-based projects in the United
States. It is the intent of the thesis to try to understand what this increase in socially-oriented projects indicates through evaluating current methods, processes, tools, outcomes, and even the mindset of teams doing this new ‘good’ work – both for the profession and for
2
design education curricula.
We have seen this shift toward social and “responsible” work in the past. For example, in 1970, Victor Papanek published his controversial and critically acclaimed work, Design for the Real
World. Papanek incorporated terms and phrases meant to spark emotion and feeling toward designers to do more “responsible” work, by stating:
“The cancerous growth of the creative individual expressing himself egocentrically at the expense of spectator and/or consumer has spread from the arts, overrun most of the crafts, and finally reached even into design” (Papanek, 1971, pg. 32).
This was an early call to designers to face the reality, as Papanek saw it, of a world drawn to consumerism and objects, rather than humanitarian efforts and social concerns. Years later, in 1993, Nigel
Whiteley published Design for Society, in which he supports
Papanek, saying that the world was not ready for his drastic tone and altruistic writing. Whiteley states:
“Design for the Real World is a very moral book in tone and expression and the author’s fundamental tenet that ‘it is wrong to make money from the needs of others’ does underlie the text. This basic premise is
3
liable to make the reader anxious, if not guilty, about the almost inevitable compromises between earning a living in a consumerist society, and designing for Papanek’s ‘real’ world.”…”it was probably the holier-than-thou moral tone…that most offended many designers and readers.” (Whiteley, 1993, pg. 104)
Whiteley goes on to say,
“Design directly expresses the cultural, social, political and economic complexion of a society, and it thus provides a snapshot of that society’s condition. In so doing it reveals a great deal about a society’s priorities and values. Design matters: it is too important just to celebrate, collect or historicize. The world situation demands that we develop a greater awareness of design’s explicit and implicit values and their implications, and exercise a greater control of design in our societies” (Whiteley, 1993, pg. 158). !
Perhaps this cycle of responsible action is always evolving, but it still remains to be seen whether or not change has really been made to include these values currently in design practice and education.
Responsible design and social change, the trending terms today, lean toward an inclusive and collaborative process to design.
“[Europe] (particularly northern Europe) has embraced a participatory attitude for a long time. The participatory way of thinking is antithetical to the US-centric mode of manufacturers pushing products at ‘consumers’ through marketing and advertising.
4
New design research tools and methods are being explored and used across all the design domains but they are being integrated at different rates. (Sanders, 2006.)
As Sanders notes above, European designers currently work in a more participatory and collaborative manner, however the United
States has some ground to make up. And, the change must come not only from professional design practice, but also, as this thesis argues, change must be initiated in design education, thereby re-socializing younger generations for real change to occur.
In 2009, participants in the Designers Accord, a global coalition of designers, educators, and business leaders, met and established that,
“the next generation of designers [and graduates] will require a deeper personal, social, and cultural connection to their work.
...Education will need to structure opportunities for students to develop deep, firsthand experience, engage empathetically, and cultivate broad understanding” (Accord, 2009)."
Thomas Fisher, Dean of the College of Design at the University of
Minnesota, notes that “responsible” design courses have typically
5
emerged as more of a “grassroots phenomenon” with only a few faculty involved in each area (Architectural Record, 2012). Thus, full integration of social responsibility into design curricula at the university level [in the United States] has been slow to respond to current social challenges present today (Jones, 2002). It is now being recognized that, “design pedagogy does not only have a responsibility to respond to the shifting landscape of design practice, but warrants a progressive approach in preparing students to address current and challenging issues concerning the environment, economics, and social responsibility” (Melsop, Gill, & Chan, 2010, pg. 5). These issues prompt questions such as: "What can we learn from the growing number of social and community designers and design teams doing this new work? What characteristics of these new socially inclusive projects could be integrated into design curricula?
The socially based design project examples shown in this thesis do not imply that all courses should adopt community-based or activist approaches. They do show, however, that the approach of the designer is shifting toward collaboration and community-based design integration (Thackara, 2005; Melsop et al., 2010). Design
6
educators must understand what the impacts of this change might indicate in order to properly and accurately educate design students for the future. Former Director of Research at the Royal College of
Art, John Thackara echoes the desire for this shift in roles by stating:
“The days of the celebrity solo designer are over. Complex systems are shaped by all the people who use them, and in this new era of collaborative innovation, designers are having to evolve from being the individual authors of objects, or buildings, to being the facilitators of change among large groups of people” (Thackara, 2005).!
This thesis offers design educators and design practitioners a place to start taking steps toward active change in design education. Through an analysis of social and community-based design projects, themes become clear. Chapter 2 will begin by contextualizing the thesis through a series of definitions and descriptions of the approaches that are found to be commonly associated with this activist work.
These approaches (i.e., design/build, service-learning, participatory action research, and co-design) will be expanded in Chapter 3 and will additionally serve to outline the framework proposed for Chapter
4. Throughout Chapters 4 and 5, the proposed framework will be used to analyze socially and community-based projects (both
7
professional and academic), to describe their methods and tools, and to discover specific components that educators and designers can learn from and apply. In the end, seeds (small characteristics that could be planted into an existing curricular structure) will be proposed. These “seeds” can then grow into rhizomes within a broader design program and/or generate a perennial condition within a broader design curricular structure. It is intended that instructors will be able to implement these seeds in order to shift their own programs or courses toward a more socially responsive approach.
As such, it is not the intent of this thesis to completely change how design curricula in the United States have been (or are) built. Instead, the ambition is to further support existing curricula by providing a framework for the educator that can be utilized, adapted, and used to address the changes our discipline faces today and in the future.
The following roadmap (see Figure 1) will situate the reader in the context of this thesis: first, defining key terms (Chapter 2), further describing the background and state of social responsibility today
8
(Chapter 3), then, describing a framework and through the examination of effective case studies (Chapter 4), leading to identifiable key characteristics and themes (Chapter 5) in order to propose seeds which could be planted within an existing design curriculum.
9
on Design Activism and Design Education Roadmap Thesis A : 1 Figure
10
CHAPTER 2:!!
Key Terms
“Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.” ! Richard Buckminster Fuller, 1895-1983
2.1 Defining Design Thinking and Activism To begin with, the meaning of the word “design” is ambiguous.
Design can be a noun or a verb. It can mean, “to create or construct something according to a plan, to have as a purpose” or “to draw, layout or mark.” A student can also design a diagram, or chair, or an idea. Or, design can be a scheme or a plan, or a purpose or intent to do something.
Additionally, the particular definition each designer chooses to
11
identify with changes depending upon their background. “[Not] surprisingly, it seems that no generally accepted and precise definition of design as a concept is available” (Ralph et al., 2009). As
Buckminster Fuller points out, the more we begin to know, the more of what we’ve learned becomes “less and less obvious.” Because the term “design” is so imprecise, providing parameters for its definition and establishing a common language when discussing the following research is vital. "One of the more common definitions of design today references the specific disciplines of architecture, visual communication design, industrial design, landscape, and interiors
(Websters, 2012). However design takes on different meanings in a manufacturing or business capacity. For the purposes of this thesis, design will be viewed from the design-arts perspective to include: architecture, interiors, visual communication, and industrial design.
Furthering the complexity of the term “design,” the word may often be confused with “art.” During the Bauhaus era, fields such as industrial, graphic, and fashion design were referred to as “applied arts” even though the word “art” has been adjusted today and now is associated with more personal and subjective work such as painting
12
or sculpture (Webster’s, 2012). For the purposes of this thesis however, we will not be referring to art, but instead to design in the more “service-oriented” disciplines of architecture, interiors, industrial, and visual communication.
While design on its own is difficult to understand, so too is a new term called “design thinking” that is used mostly among corporate and business practitioners. From a business perspective, design traditionally has been used as a “late-stage add-on” making an already developed idea more desirable for customers or clients. This is particularly true in more industrial practices such as consumer electronics or automotive design. On the other hand, design thinking changes design from being an after-thought to being an integrated way to conceptualize and to think critically within the process or development of a design proposal. Design thinking brings together the users or participants of the product or experience in order to create in a more human-centered way to design (Brown, 2009). And, while participants come together in design-thinking processes, the degree to which these individuals work together is connected more directly through participatory approaches.
13
It should be noted that a tangential relationship exists between design thinking and design activism. In 2009 Alastair Fuad-Luke outlined a definition of the term, design activism; the definition of which is essential to laying the foundation for discussing this thesis work. Fuad-Luke acknowledges how difficult the terms are to define separately – both ‘design’ and ‘activism’ – and become even more complex when combined (Fuad-Luke, 2009). He states:
“Design embodies diverse historical and contemporary styles, invokes a wide range of disciplines…crosses a diverse range of subject fields and disciplinary borders, giving design a unique reach among the creative disciplines, while simultaneously adding more complexity and blurring the discursive space….!Design is executed by designers that are trained, professional and offer expertise. Yet it is also engaged by designers that are unknown (anonymous, non-intentional) and who gain their expertise from outside the design professionals’ world. This dualism would seem to be equally apt for ‘activism’. A working definition is therefore proposed:"Design is the act of deliberately moving from an existing situation to a preferred one by professional designers or others applying design knowingly or unknowingly.” (Fuad-Luke, 2009)
Fuad-Luke goes on to rework this definition of design to describe design activism as “design thinking, imagination and practice applied
14
knowingly or unknowingly to create a counter-narrative aimed at generating and balancing positive social, institutional, environmental and/or economic change” (Fuad-Luke, 2009 pg. 27). He notes the importance of the ‘counter-narrative’ as it is imperative to understand that design activism goes against common societal beliefs, mainstream culture, and/or the status quo.
“The implication is that design activism voices other possibilities than those that already exist with a view to eliciting societal change and transformation. While those who unknowingly apply design thinking, imagination or practice in the cause of design activism are important – the unknown, non-intentional designers – it is those who knowingly use design, i.e. the design-led activists who are most interesting” (Fuad-Luke, 2009).
There has been a growing interest in design activism since the 1970’s when Papenek introduced the concept of ‘design for social good; additionally, another spike occurred in the 1990’s when Whiteley published his research and writings. As many of the projects cited here are noted as ‘socially good,’ it is important to note that not all
‘collaborative’ or ‘social’ design is necessarily for a good cause or makes a positive contribution to society. This will be elaborated on in more detail in Chapter 3; yet the increase in these service-oriented
15
projects is notable. Many participatory approaches in design are becoming increasingly popular as design shifts from a consumer- oriented discipline to a service-oriented discipline, more fully engaged with social, cultural, economic and environmental concerns
(Sanders, 2006; Tanzer and Longoria, 2007; Guellerin, 2011).
What distinguishes these social projects (and all projects for that matter) from being ‘good’ or not? A project that is noted as
“participatory” is not necessarily ‘good’ nor appropriately vetted through the design or consumer community. A project which is ‘good’ or touted as design activism may use processes that do not incite community participation. As such, Thorpe states that the definition of
‘good design’ isn’t usually considered in regard to activity from the
“excluded or neglected:”
“Although “good” design does typically work to bring about change, in its dominant forms, good design (usable, profitable, beautiful, meaningful) doesn’t usually constitute activism on behalf of excluded or neglected groups. Rather, it constitutes general improvements to daily life that are most often gained through private consumption, accessed according to the consumer’s ability to pay, whether the consumer is an individual, company, or other entity” (Thorpe, 2011).
16
In order to establish change, designers and educators will need to stay conscious of the subtlety that terms have surrounding the issues of ‘social good’ and activism. Additionally, several of the terms used in the context of “design activism” can be also associated with responsibility or designing for ‘good’ such as:
Participatory design Social design Socially responsible design Design for Social Change Sustainability Design for Good Community-based design Service design Participatory action research Service-Learning Design-build Activist Architecture
The above terms can be used in a different context in a variety of different projects. This thesis proposes a starting point to identify specific project approaches and characteristics that exemplify the work of “design activism.” With the underlying assumption that education can provide a structure to produce more activist designers, this thesis proceeds further to discover, “what can we learn from these projects in order to identify tangible characteristics to support a socially-oriented and responsive design education?”
This thesis will consider four specific community-based design
17
approaches that exemplify design activism and demonstrate projects with distinct characteristics or seeds that can be embedded in current design education practice. It will be shown that design/build, service- learning, co-design, and participatory action research are all approaches of design which are shown to be more community- focused, and less as an afterthought to manufactured goods as noted previously or to promote the solo work of the designer.
An overview of how these approaches and associated projects are reviewed is outlined in Chapter 3, and then a framework is described in Chapter 4. As these approaches (design/build, service-learning, co-design, and participatory action research) are also quite complex, they will be articulated in further detail in the following section to establish a common language for readers. "
2.2 Defining Design/build The first community-based design approach this thesis will focus on is design/build. A number of design/build projects will be reviewed to further understand what makes them successful, and to find
18
commonalities between the projects. Since these projects are often construction-based projects, they are often associated with the design fields of architecture and interior design. Industrial Design can also function in a capacity of design/build as many projects (with corporate clients in particular) utilize prototypes built after or during the design process.
The key element in many design/build projects is the delivery of a product or service to a group or individual. A common relationship in the architecture world of design/build projects is that the designer is the builder (or contractor), delivering a product to a client. Since the designer is fully engaged and in charge of the construction process, there typically is no structure present for the client (or community) to be involved in this process. Thus, critics of design/build are often weary of the expert mindset that can potentially accompany a design/build project (Monson, 2005). This expert mindset is something that will be investigated in the framework in Chapter 4, in order to understand the relationship between the approach of a project and the mindset that the designer may possess. For the purposes of this thesis, if the said projects reviewed adhere to the
19
characteristics of designing, producing, and delivering a product or structure to a community group of people, the project is defined as design/build.
It has also been found that many non-architecture projects follow a similar process as they deliver a product or project to a community group. For example, the group PieLab, a design-for-good collective from Alabama designed and built a café space, design offices, and opportunities for the community to participate in a community design experience. The project was not just a physical building. They planned an experience for the community, made handouts, flyers, and held events. They made their project to serve a particular
community group (Project M,
2003; Edge, 2010). The project
followed the same processes as
a traditional design/build. I
have labeled this and other
Figure 2: Visualization of Design- similar projects design/make to build/Design-make emphasize their similarity to
20
design/build projects.
All of the design/build or design/make projects described in the research framework in Chapter 4 provide examples of design in a service capacity for a particular social group. The simple graphic,
Figure 2, symbolizes the process of a typical design/build or design/make and will be referenced throughout the research.
2.3 Defining Service-learning The second approach reviewed is service-learning. In broad terms, service-learning is a community-based educational learning experience (Cress et al., 2005). Typically, these experiences are done in the structure of a University-level course. This new kind of pedagogy (Cress et al., 2005) is more active and involved in a shared experience with a community group, as compared to listening to lectures. As such, this model of education is a great place to start when reviewing design projects that address community or social causes.
The goal in a design service-learning project is to collaborate with a
21
group of people being served by the project. Service-learning is not always associated with design. However, there are an increasing number of service-learning courses that utilize the design process as a part of the engagement.
Service-learning courses often benefit a group of people or community outside the confines of the University structure; so it takes time for faculty and students to see the benefit of venturing outside the academic walls. More administrative and logistical efforts, course structure, and coordination on the part of the instructor are involved to develop a project or activity outside of the typical academic structure. Currently, however, a number of
Universities are seeing the benefits to providing their students with service-learning opportunities. (Connors, et. al, 2005).
At The Ohio State University, for example, there are more than 70 courses offered which are categorized under the “S-L” distinction.
The Ohio State University defines service-learning (S-L) as: “a form of experiential education characterized by student participation in an organized service activity that: !is connected to specific learning
22
outcomes, meets identified community needs, and provides structured time for student reflection and connection of the service experience to learning” "(The Ohio State University, Service-
Learning Initiative, 2011). This definition
“…highlights the academic, curricular nature of service-learning; the importance of community voice in the development, implementation, and assessment of the impact of a service-learning course; the key role that reflection activities play in intentionally connecting the community service activity to reach targeted educational outcomes; and the importance of expanding educational objectives to include civic education. In service-learning, students are not only “serving to learn,” which occurs in other forms of curricular engagement and applied learning such as clinical, fieldwork, internship, and practicum, but also “learning to serve,” the unique civic dimension of the pedagogy” (Bringle and Hatcher, 2009).
In 2005, the non-profit organization Learn and Serve conducted a
national review on service-
learning projects around the
country, highlighting
“Interdisciplinary Models of
Service-Learning in Higher
Education”. The organization Figure 3: Visualization of Service-Learning
23
profiled 14 universities with examples of how they are working in a service-learning capacity and engaging with communities. Of those 14 universities and programs noted in the report, only one was in a field related to design. Many service-learning programs and courses are directed toward medical or applied medicine (i.e.: Doctors Without
Borders, etc.) while the lone design-related course was in collaboration with the engineering department and the architecture department at Penn State University (See Appendix D).
Unfortunately, service-learning can sometimes create a clear set of hierarchical roles or an unwanted ‘expert driven mindset’ separating the designer or server from the served (Hooks, 2003; Friere, 2001).
The relationship between the community and university is in constant flux and is characterized by the visual diagram shown on page 23. For example, a typical service-learning project hopes to fulfill the desires and needs of the community, but also those of the university. Because of this, each group brings their own goals, objectives, and agendas. Sometimes those goals align, yet more often there needs to be a working relationship and back-and-forth communication system to work toward joint project goals. This
24
example is detailed further in Chapter 4 through a description of the
Design Matters service-learning course taught by Assistant Professor,
Susan Melsop from The Ohio State University’s Department of
Design.
It takes work and the support of the university, consistent engagement, and shared experiences to develop a successful service- learning experience. (Jones, 2001, pg. 213) The service-learning non- profit, Learn and Serve, mentioned previously, describes the importance of these engagements not just to our well-being as a society, but to the community, faculty, and students surrounding of
Universities. The document emphasizes the importance of these types of projects through the description below:
“A number of converging trends have led to a growing acceptance of interdisciplinary learning in general and interdisciplinary service- learning in particular. The issues facing communities today are changing rapidly and in some ways are more complex than in the past. These issues demand approaches to problem-solving that draw on the skills and perspectives of diverse disciplines and professions. The endurance of poverty, joblessness and homelessness…place greater stress on social service infrastructures designed to support individuals and families…These broader societal and systemic influences require individuals with collaborative problem solving, shared goals, flexible
25
decision making, appreciation of disciplinary roles and skill sets, and effective communication skills.” (Learn and Serve Fact Sheet, 2005).
Often, service-learning projects have difficulty in establishing “voice” equality between the community and the university. Community participants typically know their needs best -- and students and facilitators of service-learning projects must learn the “value of listening to diverse community voices” (Jones, 2001, pg. 214) if they expect to build the relationships needed in a service-learning engagement. Community-based, service-learning initiatives should come from a deep relationship and understanding of a community to work truly together on a project (Stringer, 2007).
2.4 Defining Participatory Methods Finally, the last approaches that the thesis focuses on are co-design, participatory design, and participatory action research. All of these approaches overlap in definition. At first, co-design will be defined in relation to participatory design (or PD). Then, the approach of participatory action research will be described in order to show the relationship it has with both co-design and participatory design.
26
2.4.1 Co-Design Co-design, or collaborative design, is often a “catch-all term to embrace participatory design, metadesign, social design and other design approaches that encourage participation.” (Fuad-Land, 2009;
Fuad-Luke, 2007). Fuad-Luke goes on to note that the premise behind co-design is an approach or opportunity for multiple stakeholders or participants to come together and collectively define the context and problem, “and in doing so improve the chances of a design outcome being effective” (Fuad-Luke, 2009).
It is important to keep in mind
that in many instances co-design
and co-creation are often used in
business settings, while Figure 4: Visualization of Co-design participatory design and participatory action research are more commonly used in academic settings. Co-design can be visualized in the diagram shown here. This cyclical relationship shows the collective experience of a few groups, working in tandem to approach an issue or a set of challenges in a
27
new way the individuals would not have thought of on their own. The realization of new ideas or methods is the goal of co-design.
2.4.2 Participatory Design Participatory design can also be confused with co-design or even co- creation. There are a wide variety of different processes to each approach, and the mindsets of each are quite similar. These mindsets will be elaborated upon in Chapter 5, yet Manzini and Rizzo (2011) attempt to define the term participatory design, noting that it is a
“constellation of design initiatives aiming at the construction of socio-material assemblies for and with the participants in the projects.”
Dr. Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, a design researcher and Associate
Professor of Design at The Ohio State University, echoes how important the mindset and engagement component is to all of these approaches by noting: “…participatory design is ‘a mindset and attitude about people and a belief that everyone has something to offer the design process…” and that:
“There is a shift in the attitude of designers who have been introduced to participatory design. This shift shows a new level of respect for the
28
people we serve with new products (designs) and services. The role of the designer is changing, and designers are welcoming the new responsibilities” (Sanders, 2006, p. 3).
Participatory design is also more specifically “applied to artifacts and built environments generated by architectural and other design practice” (Fuad-Luke, 2009; Bell, 2004). Yet, participatory design today is just as much about the people, as it is the project or service developed by the group involved in the project. This more inclusive and engaged approach to design, while it might be called by various terms (co-design or participatory design), for the purposes of this thesis, co-design will be used as a blanket term to describe these approaches and project methods in a broad sense of social inclusivity.
2.4.3 Participatory Action Research Participatory action research (or PAR) is similar to participatory design in intention and types of outcomes. However the driver is most often from fields of Education and Art Education. “One of the key intentions of participatory action research is to find ways for people to get involved in research and design activities that may impact them. This allows them to define goals, contribute on their own terms in an emancipated manner, and take ownership of
29
decision making processes” (Foth et al, 2006). This longer process is often only available logistically within the context of a research or grant-funded project. The following provides a thorough description:
“[Participatory]AR is defined by a constant cycle of taking and giving in the form of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The theory building driven by the researcher is combined with practice and informed action which benefits the participants by allowing them to take control of their situation and circumstances. It is a process that “engages all project stakeholders in constantly oscillating between knowledge generation and critical-informed reflection, in a helix directed at reaching a stage of improvement from which the process can start all over again – but this time towards an even higher level of understanding and achievement” (Foth et al, 2006).
While both co-design and participatory action research approaches have processes that are all collaborative in nature, PAR is seen as more of a reflective approach, while co-design and participatory
design are typically cyclical but
perhaps not as reflective.
Participatory Action Research or
just Action Research as it is
sometimes called, involves a user-
Figure 5: Visualization of group or community and through Participatory Action Research
30
direct engagement, slowly builds trust with the participants, in order to fully understand the wants, desires, and needs of a particular community group (Stringer, 2006). For example, PA researchers would move into a community before conducting research there.
Once the researchers and the community engage, they get to know each other before they collectively develop processes and research together (Stringer, 2007; Freire, 2001). Figure 5 shows the cyclical and collaborative nature of PAR. In this thesis I have categorized projects as being examples of PAR if the cyclical nature is evident in the literature, publications, or observations.
2.4.4 Clarifying Participatory Terms One of the goals of co-design is to situate designers as “facilitators or mediators” in the design process, and also to serve as “triggers” to a system or co-design team, “collaborating with a well-defined group of users or participants” (Manzini et al, 2011., pg. 213). Participatory action research seeks to develop this same approach but with everyone involved – not just cultivating designers as facilitators, but also supporting participants as facilitators of their own future.
Throughout the thesis framework (reviewed in Chapter 4) if the
31
selected projects refer to the designer-as-facilitator and designer-as- collaborator roles, then the approach will be noted as co-design. If the designer is an equal ‘participant’ in a collective-community- action, then the approach will be defined as participatory action research.
2.5 Summary In this chapter, the definitions of social and community-based approaches to design have been reviewed. A clear understanding of how the thesis is situated within the examples of social and community-based projects such as design/build, service-learning, participatory action research, and co-design is essential for moving forward. When comparing a variety of projects through these lenses, it becomes clear that not all projects are conducted through the use of only one approach. For each of the cases and projects reviewed, the overarching or driving design approach will be identified and used in order to more clearly define the intentions of the project.
Through the analysis and review of these projects, trends and ideas for the future will emerge; these then may be used to inform curricular development. The goal of reviewing these projects is to identify ways in which educators can learn from these projects. Now
32
that a common vocabulary has been established, Chapter 3 explores the reasoning behind selecting these case studies in order to outline the framework in the subsequent Chapters.
33
CHAPTER 3:
The Rise of Design Activism"
“Just as astronauts and cosmonauts are taught skills that may be demanded of them months or years hence on the moon or Mars, the design team too will have to prepare itself for the social challenges of integrated comprehensive design that the future will bring.” - Victor Papanek , Design for the Real World, 1971
3.1 Introduction The field of design has been changing rapidly. This chapter discusses why the approaches of design/build, service-learning, co-design, and participatory action research discussed in Chapter 2 are relevant to design education and appropriate to review in response to changes in design practice. Additionally, a framework is introduced in Chapter 4 to outline a way to comprehensively understand these various
(socially inclusive) approaches in depth. It is through this framework that a mechanism to analyze the cases is presented.
34
3.2 Design Activism The past decade has shown a sharp increase in socially conscious, community-based design projects. The following table and graph
(Figure 6 and 7) highlight this increase (compiled from: Shea, 2011;
Simmons, 2011; Thorpe, 2012; Appendix A and B),
Ann Thorpe, collaborative design strategist and author of The
Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, notes that there is an interdisciplinary nature to sustainable design and design activism
(2012). As design activism is increasing, the figures also show the increase in collaborative means to approaching design issues. As
Thorpe highlights mainly through architectural based projects, her timeline of design and related events correspond to the increase in design activism on a number of tangential levels: from the environment, to economy, to political culture. To Thorpe, Design
Activism “…arises anywhere--from within advocacy groups, businesses, or public agencies. Design activists use cultural artifacts and design processes to influence change by disrupting the status quo and revealing better visions for society.” Figure 6 shows the striking rise in this work materializing from the 1930’s to present day:
35
based Design Projects, over time - m sources: Shea, 2011; Simmons, 2011; Thorpe, 2012) o
: Frequency of Social and Community 6 Figure (Compiled fr
36
Figure 7: Chronological List of Social and Community-based Design Projects, by decade
(Compiled from sources: Shea, 2011; Simmons, 2011; Thorpe, 2012) 1930s and 1940s 1933 Bauhaus / social potential of design 1930s Bucky Fuller dymaxion car and house Schindler’s shelters: low cost, pre fabricated housing 1950s Buckminster Fuller geodesic domes Walter Segal Self-build system “barrier free”response to disabled veterans 1960s 1960s Situationists International, Superstudio, etc. start (Group) 1965 Intermediate Tech. Development Group (Appropriate Technology) 1966 Drop City Community founded 1968 Whole Earth, Stewart Brand Environment 1969 Design with Nature by Ian McHarg 1968-69 Community Design Center founded 1969 B. Fuller gets “humanist of the year” 1970s 1970s Co-Evolution Quarterly 1970 First things First Manefesto 1970 Cosanti Foundation began building 1970s Arcosanti, an experimental town 1971 Design for the Real World,Papanek 1973 AIA Energy committee, founded 1975 Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems 1977 Soft Energy Paths by Amory Lovins 1977 A Pattern Language 1979 Passive Solar Energy Book, Mazria 1980s 1981 Arch/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility & Environment 1981 One of the first sustainable design champions in architecture, Bob Berkibile 1982 Founding of the Rocky Mountain Institute by Amory and Hunter Lovins 1984 Redesigning the American Dream 1990s 1990 AIA Committee on the Environment 1991 Design Corps Founded 1993 founding of the USGBC 1993 Design for Society, Nigel Whitely 1996 Ecological Design by Sim van Der Ryn and Stewart Cowan 1997 formalization of eco design 1996-97 exhibitions of recycled material 1993 Women in Design section founded at IDSA 1999 Design and Feminism Joan Rothschild, ed 1996 Architecture and Feminism 1993 Rural studio 1993 Congress for the New Urbanism 1999 Design Corps, US community focus 1999 The Glass-House Trust begins 1999 Architecture for Humanity 1999 Architects Without Frontiers/Borders 1998 Ecosa Institute 2000s 2000s Humanitarian/Social Design or Design for Social Impact becomes used 2000 Conference: Structures for Inclusion 1 organized by Design Corps 2001 Designers without Borders 2002 Architecture 2030: getting to zero carbon emission buildings by 2030
(Continued) 37
Figure 7: Chronological List of Social and Community-based Design Projects, by decade (Continued)
2002 Cradle to Cradle By William McDonough & Michael Braungart 2003 Design that Matters 2003 UK Council begins work on design-led solutions to social problems 2003 Project M 2004 Article 25 (formerly architects for aid) 2004 [Re]design, UK 2005 projectOPEN 2005 One + 1: Mentor program promotion 2005 the 1%, Public Architecture’s initiative to professionalize pro bono work 2005 SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design), US 2005 Biomimicry Institute, US 2005 Goldsmiths, University of London: Center for Architectural Research 2006 The 1% User Manual: A booklet for Nonprofit Org’s and Architects 2006 Everything is OK Tape 2006 University of Manchester–design and politics/spatial politics focus 2006 “ecodesign” category added to IDSA 2007 Reason to Give: Helping Neighbors in Need 2006 EcoLabs (developed ecoliteracy teach-in for designers in London 2009) 2007 The Buckminster Fuller Challenge for $100,000 2007 Impact Teen Drivers Awareness Campaign 2007 Designers Accord originally climate driven, now expanded 2008 Stories of the City: Community through Graphic Interventions 2008 Curry Stone Prize, for design emphasizing social good 2008 Project H Design 2008 Safari 7: New York City’s Ecosystems 2008 Conference: A better world by design 2008 Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio conference on design for social impact 2008 Change Observer blog (funded by Rockefeller for initial two years) 2008 SEED Foundation social enterprise and design, UK 2008 “Mapping Design Activism” Leeds 2008 AIGA Get out the Vote Posters 2008 Green Patriot Posters 2009 CareS Mobile Safety Center 2009 Leeds Festival of Design Activism 2009 TU Delft Chair in Politics and Design appointed 2009 Es Tiempo: Cervical Cancer Awareness 2009 Academic network DESIS: Design for Social Innovation towards Sustainability. 2009 Keys for the City: Music and Arts Awareness 2009 Living Building Challenge launched by Cascadia USGBC 2009 Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for Sustainable World 2009 PieLab 2009 A Book by Its Cover: Reading Stereotypes 2009 Parsons New School of Design starts MFA in Transdisiplinary Design 2009 Pentagram Cigarette Packaging Campaign 2010 Fair Food Fight Campaign 2010 buildON Passport Campaign for youth to become better global citizens 2009 Transdisiplinary Design courses, Ohio State University (Dr. Liz Sanders) 2010 Vendor Power! Empowering NYC’s street vendors 2010 Pecans! Teaching teens business skills and marketing 2010 Red Flag Campaign for the VSDVAA 2010 IDEO.org, social design offshoot 2010 Wet Work: Murals on Chicago’s [mis]use of water 2010 Hawthorne Community Center 2010 Austin Center for Design, educating designers for social enterprise 2011 Stir Symposium, Transdisiplinary Conference on Social Issues 2011 REALM Charter School Graphics 2012 Design Intersections: UofMinn Conference on Design and Innovation 2012 School of Visual Arts launches MFA in Design for Social Innovation
38
While this chronological list is not an exhaustive list of projects, it is a clear indication that design practice and professional goals are shifting. However, the increase of this type of work just in the twenty- first century is significant. There are, of course, many more projects that promote socially conscious, i.e., ‘good’ work not shown here. It should be noted that their exclusion from this list is not intentional, but rather, the list is intended to be demonstrative of the paradigm change in design.
This list (Figure 7) only partially highlights work done outside of the
United States in order to further support the global trends shown in design activism. However, it is the intent of this thesis to highlight programs doing design activist work here in the United States as shown through a Framework (page 56) to learn best practices in order to advance a responsive and appropriate design curriculum for the future. It should also be noted that the projects and cases reviewed in this study have been either published in journals or magazines, or are cases in which I (the researcher) have had direct exposure to and gained knowledge from.
39
3.3 Responsible vs. Responsive As the graph (Figure 6) and list (Figure 7) show, design practice is adopting more ‘responsible’ projects. The term ‘responsible’ indicates the ability to have the capacity for moral decision-making and thus be accountable for one’s actions. However, these examples do not guarantee that all programs, projects, and activities intended for
‘public good’ are necessarily responsible. It does, however, signify a shift in thinking toward a more socially conscious, inclusive, and collaborative approach. Or, at the very least, that design teams and individuals want their projects to be called responsible. This, on its own, signals trends and shifts in our global culture. Our world is becoming more connected and interrelated. In their recent book,
Making Good: Finding Meaning, Money, and Community in a
Changing World, authors Parish and Aujla clarify how connected and responsible we have started to feel as a society and why:
“It’s almost as if a global alarm has gone off, calling us collectively into action in a way that feels brand new. …For the first time in history, across divisions of race and class, country and religion, we are beginning to see ourselves as one family. After the attacks of 9/11, the sentiment from remote villages in Africa to subdivisions in Arkansas
40
was We are All New Yorkers…Our innate empathy now extends to the whole planet” (Parish and Aujla, 2012).
It is this internal call that designers are now hearing. Political and social issues have started to change how designers see their role in the world. And, as the landscape of design practice expands into design activism, it is important that designers are able to respond and adapt to the inevitable changes and shifts our world will make in the future.
What is crucial at this juncture is to note the clear difference between the words, ‘responsible’ and ‘responsive.’ Responsive design attempts to reflect the growing changes in social issues we see currently and thus, seeks to become responsible. Responsible design, however, can at times take a presumptive approach to defining if or how a project is in fact, responsible. That said, all of the projects highlighted in this thesis attempt to be ‘responsible’ or ethically-based community projects. Yet, there is no guarantee of a project’s success or the positive impact it may have. The degree of success or failure of the project can only be fully understood by the participants. What can be expected is that designers, who respond directly to the current social
41
concerns in the world (rather than just assuming a responsible role) will be better equipped to conduct culturally sensitive projects, and stay appropriate to clients and participants’ needs. This responsiveness (rather than focusing strictly on responsibility) will consequently give designers a greater chance at a project’s success.
This noted expansion of socially responsive projects has not been a focus of academic research thus far. It is the intent of this research to highlight the changes in design practice toward a more responsive approach, and propose ways in which we might learn from relevant projects to find ways to advance design education. By understanding these specific social and community-based projects further, this thesis will unpack themes and identify lessons to be gained from these projects.
In Chapter 4, a framework is introduced, influenced by the projects introduced in Chapter 3. The structure of this framework provides a way to describe and analyze these twenty-five selected projects.
Through an examination of literature, publications, and essays on each project, the twenty-five projects will be categorized through the
42
following eight characteristics:
• the type of organization or institution
• the approach of the project
• the process utilized for the project
• the mindset of the leading group
• the tools used
• the methods used
• the outcome, and
• the impact
For several of these projects, the outcomes were unknown, and therefore have been written about only as anticipated outcomes.
While the mindset is a significant factor, the mindset category (see
Figure 8) is not necessarily elaborated on or definitive in the final table shown in Chapter 4 but further described in Section 3.4. This lack of definition is due to the subjective nature of designing “with” and designing “for” a particular group. However, after reading and understanding each project further, certain cues can be gleaned from how the project is described, and used to determine the mindset or tools or approaches used. This is indicated as such through the use of italic text in the mindset column to note the subjective quality of this
43
category. The following are examples of the other types of
categorizations developed for the framework:
FRAMEWORK CATEGORIES: CATEGORY INSTANCES OR DESCRIPTORS:
Academic, Business, Non-profit, Government agency, Community Organization group (Local), or Community group (Global)
Traditional design, studio-based, participatory, user-centered, Process customer-driven, community-driven, lead-user innovation, ethnographic or precedent research Mindset Designing “with” OR designing “for” Spatial or space planning, collage-making, mockup creation, enacting Tools future scenarios, critical reflection, storytelling, prototyping, sketching, typical design process
Workshops, studio work, presentations, meetings, travel (local or Methods global), interviews, ethnography
(This section will be a small description of what the project produced, Outcome built, or discovered.) Impact The perceived benefit (through an examination of literature and readings) of the community or group involved. Approach Design/build or Design/make, service-learning, co-design, or PAR (See Chapter 2 for definitions)
Figure 8: Description of Framework Categories and Descriptors
The categorizations in Figure 8 highlight the broad approaches and
characteristics of design activism and how projects of design activism
do the work they do. For example, what methods are used? What
tools are utilized? What approaches are used?
3.4 Mindset As previously introduced, one category highlighted in the framework
44
that remains relatively fuzzy is ‘mindset’. Mindset is a subjective and internal quality that is difficult to define. It has to do with values, morals, and the perspective each group member brings to a project.
Webster’s Dictionary defines mindset as, “the beliefs that affect someone’s attitude or approach.” Even though it is a characteristic that is hard to define, this category of the framework is important for understanding the roles and motivations of the people involved with the projects.
Attempts were made to determine whether a project was done with an attitude of working FOR or WITH the community group. This determination was made based on the analysis of various media: published books or articles, what the website said about the engagement, how the project was discussed, and what the critics and proponents of the projects said. For example, the paragraphs below compare the Rural Studio (Auburn University) in the beginning days, with its current work. In Rural Studio: Samual Mockbee and an
Architecture of Decency, Dean and Hursley write:
“For almost ten years, Samuel Mockbee, a recent MacArthur Grant recipient, and his architecture students at Auburn University have been designing and building striking houses and community
45
buildings for impoverished residents of Alabama's Hale County. Using salvaged lumber and bricks, discarded tires, hay and waste cardboard bales, concrete rubble, colored bottles, and old license plates, they create inexpensive buildings that bear the trademark of Mockbee's work, which he describes as "contemporary modernism grounded in Southern culture" (Dean and Hursley, 2002).
When Andrew Freer succeeded the late Mockbee in 2001, the projects started to become more communal and community-driven. The paragraph, while written after Mockbee’s death, discussed how the projects began and were conducted according to Mockbee. This mindset seems to then change, which can be shown in the text describing Rural Studio’s later work and evolution:
“By increasing the number, size, and complexity of individual projects and the duration of its commitment to them, the studio more strongly established itself as a permanent institution in southwest Alabama. Fifth-year students once chose their own thesis projects, but now community leaders come to the studio seeking design and construction help.” (Proceed and Be Bold, 1998)
In contrasting the use of the terms, “building for” in the first example with evidence of a reinvigorated collaboration with the community, we can reason that a shift in the mindset has occurred in this particular example as moving from a DESIGN-FOR mentality, to a
46
DESIGN-WITH mentality. This type of analysis serves as an example for the classifications made in the framework in Chapter 4.
To address the concept of mindset further, researchers have been classifying design mindset for years. Particularly, Dr. Liz Sanders created a Map of Design Research and Practice in 2006 which specifically attempts to situate ‘expert mindset’ (in this thesis we note this as design-for) and ‘participatory mindset’ (design-with) as these terms all relate to design. The map follows:
47
Figure 9: Sanders' Design Research Map, 2006
Sanders describes the previous map:
“There are two opposing mindsets evident in the practice of design research today. The left side of the map describes a culture characterized by an expert mind-set. Design researchers here are involved with designing FOR people. These design researchers consider themselves to be the experts and they see and refer to people as “subjects”, users”, “consumers”, etc. The right side of the map describes a culture characterized by a participatory mind-set. Design researchers on this side design WITH people. They see the people as the true experts in
48
domains of experience such as living, learning, working, etc. Design researchers who have a participatory mindset value people as co- creators in the design process. It is difficult for many people to move from the left to the right side of the map (or vice versa) as this shift entails a significant cultural change” (Sanders, 2008).
Throughout the framework in Chapter 4, the dimension of mindset will play a role in contextualizing each project’s relationship to the community group involved and where the project designers’ mindset was situated throughout the design process.
3.5 Framework Overview A key to the details of the framework is presented here. The black heading mirrors the framework header and is shown on its own in order to focus on the description of the columns alone. The framework begins with a column called “approach”, which will highlight the difference in project approaches (design/build, co- design, service-learning, participatory action research). The header continues to list the discipline of the project, the name of the project, the organization or institution type, mindset, process, methods, tools, and outcomes. Within the framework, the words used to fill out the
49
framework will reference the words and ideas described in Figure 8
on page 44. Through analysis, common themes and characteristics
will emerge identifying tangible and responsive ideas for design
education, aligning education to better reflect the shifting landscape
of design practice toward design activism.
3.6 Summary Acknowledging design activism is growing in fields of design research
and practice will better equip educators to respond to the future. If
we recognize the need and desire for this broad movement toward a
Figure 10: Snapshot of Framework Headings
more inclusive social design approach, it is the anticipation that
educators will seek out and desire more current and responsive
means to address their courses and curricula in the future.
50
Many of our educational structures were developed years ago and are difficult to modify. So, questions of curricular adaptation emerge.
How can we keep up with this rapid change? Adaptation and anticipatory action is what Papanek posed: “Integrated, comprehensive design is anticipatory. It attempts to see trends-as- whole and continuously to extrapolate from established data and interpolate from the scenarios of the future which it constructs”
(Papanek, 1967).
It is with this same intent and vigor that the research will now look at these projects, and the changes taking place in our design profession and academia. Chapter 4 will further highlight the methods used in each project to understand key characteristics that can be integrated back into design education.
51
CHAPTER 4:
Framework and Case Studies
“That is the reason you go to college, not to make more money, but to gain the knowledge to make this a better world.” -- Samuel Mockbee
4.1 Introduction The following framework reviews twenty-five projects that exemplify work proclaimed as design activism. The projects include examples of current work done in both the design field as well as in academia to provide a mix of perspectives. Portions of these projects are documented in detail and have been written about in various publications, articles and journals. More specific cases were experienced or investigated directly by the researcher for the purpose of this thesis. To varying degrees, each of the twenty-five projects are examples that promote design as a more social and participatory approach. The projects are organized in order to discuss their benefits and commonalities so that themes and key characteristics
52
can be identified, and subsequent connections made to design curricula.
The inclusion of only twenty-five cases represents a snapshot in time of the design work being done in social responsibility and social change today. It is not meant to be an all-inclusive list, as demonstrated in the growing list of cases and projects shown in the graph and list in Figure 6 and 7. Since the beginning of this thesis, new socially responsive projects have emerged and this list is likely to grow. The projects in the framework are intended to illustrate common characteristics present in design activism projects so that we may more fully understand the role that these characteristics could potentially have in design education.
In each of the twenty-five selected cases, the methods, approaches, type of organization/institution, processes, and tools are described.
Following an overview of the twenty-five projects, four case studies are analyzed in more depth to highlight characteristics and concepts that could be utilized in a future educational model. As we can see from Chapters 1 and 2, the prevalence of design activism is clear.
53
Now, it is up to educators to start to make connections between this increase of design activism and what is being taught in design education. The intention of this thesis is to identify these themes, or
‘seeds’ (as will be discussed further in Chapter 5) in order to start incorporating broader issues of design activism, responsive to our changing world, into design education.
By clarifying and describing the intentions and mindset of each project group, it could become easier to see the connection between the mindset and actual work these design activists are doing. The mindset dimension (as introduced in Chapter 2, and further elaborated upon in Chapter 4 and 5) links the larger issues shown in many of the cases. Additional insights will be exposed through the framework by establishing the difference between designing “with a community” vs. designing “for a community.”
4.2 The Framework The purpose of this framework is to analyze and dissect each case study in order to understand their benefits and learning outcomes. As each case study is examined in detail, the following questions arise:
54
• Which characteristics (methods, tools, approaches, etc.)
support these socially responsive and engaged projects?
• Which characteristics could be applied to design education?
• What are the big-picture learning outcomes from these
projects?
The framework breaks these projects down so that these characteristics of design activism can be identified and later factored into design education. On the following pages, the framework is shown in its entirety to provide a reference for the descriptions that follow.
55
(Continued)
Figure 11: Framework of Design Activism
56
(Continued)
Figure 12: Framework of Design Activism
57
The column headings listed in the top row, describe the characteristics associated with each project. In Figures 11 and 12, the first column indicates the project number, while the second column assigns the project an approach (which were described in Chapter 2).
The labels used in column “D” indicate the dominant discipline for each project case:
A=Architecture;
G=Graphic Design / Visual Communication;
E=Engineering;
I=Interdisciplinary
(a few specific disciplines within one field);
D=Design as seen through a very general design lens
(typically conferences or broad design websites,
applicable to a number of audiences, but not clearly
stated as one particular design discipline by the literature
available);
T=Transdisciplinary work. Specifically, in terms of this
categorization, transdisciplinary refers to a crossing of
disciplines into another field where silos or disciplinary
‘hats’ disappear.
Of immediate note in the ‘approach’ column was the obvious exclusion of participatory action research (PAR) as a primary
58
approach for a project. As noted in Chapter 2, participatory action research is typically not used in design disciplines, but some aspects of PAR can be found in some of the other projects. The influence of
PAR will be described in more detail later in the following sections.
Upon examining the framework, other characteristics begin to emerge. Of particular note is the significance of the mindset category.
Design/build projects highlighted in this framework appear to be driven by a “design-for” mindset, while the service-learning projects and co-design projects respectively appear to be driven by a
“designing-with” mentality. This designing “with” not “for” is an important aspect of design for social change according to Andrew
Shea, author of Designing for Social Change (2012).
“…Community engagement is as complex as humans themselves. It requires designers to work with a range of people who have strong opinions and a lot of emotions and pride invested in their community. A single logo or poster design rarely addresses the totality of the social issue that prompted the designer’s engagement in the first place. Instead, designers need to find ways to get to the root of the problem, which is often part of a larger, messier system of issues that need to be dealt with.” (Shea, 2012).
As Shea points out, working in a collaborative manner is a complex process. It remains to be seen if these projects actually impart ‘social good’ (according) to the participants. The column ‘mindset’ remains
59
in italics, as these could not be easily classified. Designing ‘with’ vs.
‘for’ has been termed as such according to the clarifications and descriptions made in Chapter 3, and are based on the literature available on each project. However, clearly highlighted in the cases are the tools, processes, and outcomes so that others can learn and adapt and apply them to their own curricula or projects. The terms used to describe these classifications appeared from a number of examples in various cases and were made consistent in order to compare the cases.
Under the column ‘Outcomes,’ a simple description is given of what each project accomplished or built or designed. This information was described in various publications or sources from a project, or it was obtained from direct interactions with the teams who were involved.
The column ‘Impact’ was similar to the ‘Mindset’ category in that the impact of each project needed to be interpreted from the available text on the project. This does not include the feelings or opinions of the participants involved, but rather a listing of the types of press and
‘reach’ of the project as a social endeavor. For example, if the case was shown in a variety of design websites, and published online AND was discussed in a favorable light, the project could be assumed to
60
have had a positive impact.
It should be noted again that to illustrate the major features of these twenty-five projects from the full framework, this thesis looks critically at four specific case studies. The cases were selected as examples that most clearly demonstrate the attributes of several of the projects in the full framework in more detail. The following sections outline the specific cases in no particular order to highlight what researchers and educators might be able to learn from the cases for design curricula.
4.3 Rural Studio: Then and Now The first case study investigates the design/build program, Rural
Studio. Participants in this program from Auburn University build homes, shelters, community facilities, and other projects for various small communities in central Alabama. Rural Studio is well known in the architectural and design community since its creation by founder,
Sam “Sambo” Mockbee. A man of great goodwill, he connected with a particular community in central Alabama called Hale County in 1993, and founded Rural Studio with then-colleague Dennis Ruth.
“Mockbee and Ruth hoped to expose students to three things usually missing from modern architectural education: construction, clients
61
and social engagement. (Holman, 2012). It was this social engagement which intrigued former instructor and student, Danny
Wicke. “Rural Studio is what architecture should be about, not what it should theoretically be about…Engaging in practice makes school real and gives it context.” (Holman, 2012).
Figure 13: Site Visit Photos of Typical Student Housing, 2010
For at least one year, architecture students in Auburn’s Architecture program (2nd year-5th year) move out to this small town about 150 miles west of their university. They typically live in small structures built by architecture students from a previous academic year. The students then build structures for the community, fully immersing themselves in the design, construction, and the community. Newbern is a town of 222 people (US Census, 2009) in the heart of Hale
County in an area known as the Black Belt. It is an area of deep and profound poverty and one of the poorest in the U.S. The average
62
yearly income for a resident of Hale County is approximately $12,000 as compared to $38,000, the national average (Beck, 2009). Because of this deep poverty, Mockbee wanted to support the community one family at a time utilizing found and otherwise discarded materials.
In the beginning of Rural Studio’s seventeen years in Hale County, their projects were beautiful yet they lacked authentic engagement and participation with community, as Bell points out in his book,
Good Deeds, Good Design (Bell, 2004). It was purely a design/build service for, rather than a service experience with the community. In the beginning, Rural Studio needed to build trust with the community and building single-family homes was a place to start.
“I approached a house that appeared to be in bad shape and knocked on the door. Anderson Harris answered the knock, and I asked him if he wanted us to build him a new house. He said, ‘Not today, thank you.’ That made me feel like a door-to-door salesman,” Mockbee notes in his early days at Rural Studio (Bell, 2004).
Bell notes, “The general public…often do not understand what we do and what we can do for them. As Mockbee used to say, ‘Architecture has been put on the top shelf, out of the reach of most,” (Bell, 2004).
After that first encounter with the Harris’s, Mockbee persisted and was able to build two homes for the family during his time here. Trust was built.
63
Bell brings up the issues of approachability and access to architecture and design, which are significant issues to consider when thinking about conducting a service project in design.
“Designers who are not involved in working for the lower-income sector occasionally criticize the work of the Rural Studio as patronizing and insensitive. This is an important criticism to consider, as designers in any situation can hold power and dominate the decision-making process” (Bell, 2004).
The work of Rural Studio has been featured in a variety of glossy architectural magazines, and books upon books have been published documenting the work and area of Hale County. This has, in turn lured architects to rural Alabama to feast their eyes on these notable structures. As the popularity of these projects began to develop, questions remained regarding the impact these projects were making
– were the projects developed for the Hale County community or for the architectural community? (Bell, 2004)
Toward the end of Mockbee’s life, Rural Studio started to shift toward working more collaboratively; the methods became more community-driven. As Andrew Freear began to take over, his experience and influence started to become more present and apparent:
64
“He was trained, as he puts it, by architects who literally rebuilt England after World War II. And so in a kindred, but different sense than Rural Studio founder Samuel Mockbee, Andrew Freear brings a vision of architecture as a world-changing, world-shaping profession.” (Freear, 2010)
After discovering some of the community resentment and struggle that was going on in the early days (Bell, 2004), the students started working with the community of Mason’s Bend, and soon attempted to start a dialogue that has continued today under the direction of
Andrew Freer.
Most projects previously built and developed by the Rural Studio were design-build projects – built for the community as in Mockbee’s residential work for the Harris family. These projects are still significant in teaching students how materials and structures are put together, and giving them a real-world experience of design and building. However, a significant aspect of teaching and learning is not present, that of social engagement.
In early 2010, I had the opportunity to conduct field studies in Hale
County with Assistant Professor, Susan Melsop from The Ohio State
University Department of Design. From observing these projects first hand, we noted that some of the buildings seemed to be forgotten
65
about. It appeared that many of these were the projects that were created for the community instead of with the community. Shown on the left below, is a project shown in architectural magazines and books quite often: the Mason’s Bend Chapel. The right image shows the condition of the project as it stood in 2010, dilapidated and abandoned.
Travelling around the area, it was observed that the projects developed later in Rural Studio’s development were well utilized and the community took care of them. However, as shown above, some of the projects were left in disrepair and not fully utilized. Questions emerged surrounding the nature of built work; and the significant repercussions of designing for or with communities began to develop.
These questions inspired this thesis investigation.
Figure 14: Mason's Bend Figure 15: Mason's Bend Community Center, 2000 Community Center, 2010
66
We stopped at one project that was currently under construction to talk to students working on a project for Rural Studio. The project was the rehabilitation of two older buildings in the downtown area of
Greensboro, Alabama. The intent was to renovate a small museum,
The Safe House, to commemorate a night that Martin Luther King Jr. spent there in 1968 to seek refuge from the Ku Klux Klan. The students of Rural Studio were more than happy to talk to us about their project. When asked how much involvement the local community had had, they noted that lately they had been “actively participating in community discussions, knocking on doors, and getting to know people before starting projects.” Even in the middle of construction, they proudly displayed and talked about the community meeting they had had a few weeks ago, showing us their project proposal boards based on what the community had suggested.
In describing their project, they noted the need to adjust their data collection method during the process of the project. When they began the museum project, a mail survey was sent to the community to obtain feedback on the project, but they received a low response rate.
Community residents seemed hesitant to provide feedback to a group they were unfamiliar with, the students noted. To improve the
67
response rate and obtain better information, the students decided to switch to a personal interview method. This, they felt, created not only direct opinions on their specific project, but an opportunity to develop relationships with the community that a survey could not.
During our visit, a group of about five men from the community on that hot Alabama day watched over the Rural Studio team. The men brought the students water, and seemed to be protective of them, but also proud of the work they were doing. This showed just us how deeply invested the community had become in the projects, students and outcomes of the work Rural Studio, a great change from the closed door Mockbee had received in the very beginning.
Today, the projects are more community-based and vetted: the safe- house museum, a firehouse, and animal shelter have been built recently. Since our visit in 2010, a large ball field and playground for the local community have also been constructed, as well as several other structures and buildings in the area. Because of the shift in the level of community involvement, the work of Rural Studio has been better received and better utilized by the community (Bell, 2004;
Holman, 2012).
68
So, while Rural Studio is traditionally thought of as utilizing a
design/build approach, we saw directly that there is a shift toward a
more participatory approach. In order to engage in a participatory
project or approach, a dismantling of ego needs to be present. This
lack of ego on the student-architect part is not as typical for an
architectural design process (Monson, 2005) typically driven by in-
studio internally directed design projects. It is somewhat unusual to
see this degree of adaptability in an internally directed design project.
Hence, the process that was ultimately used shares aspects of service-
learning and participatory action research.
4.3.1 Rural Studio: Learning Outcomes Rural Studio acts as a great case study on adaptation in this research
framework. Key elements that have been changed from the beginning
years to present day are highlighted in the following table:
PROJECT APPROACH ORGANIZATION / PROCESS METHODS TOOLS MINDSET INSTITUTION RURAL DESIGN ACADEMIC AND TRADITIONAL STUDIO WORK, PROTOTYPIN DESIGN STUDIO BUILD COMMUNITY DESIGN, PRECEDENT MEETINGS, G (MODELS), FOR (LOCAL) RESEARCH, STUDIO PRESENTATIONS SKETCHING, 1993-2001 BASED (NO FORMAL SPATIAL INTERVIEWS) PLANNING, DESIGN RURAL DESIGN ACADEMIC AND TRADITIONAL STUDIO WORK, PROTOTYPIN DESIGN STUDIO BUILD COMMUNITY DESIGN, PRECEDENT MEETINGS, G (MODELS), WITH AND (LOCAL) RESEARCH, STUDIO PREENTATIONS, SKETCHING, 2001-NOW SERVICE- BASED, INTERVIEWS SPATIAL LEARNING ETHNOGRAPHY PLANNING, DESIGN
Figure 16: Rural Studio Framework Data
69
There have been small changes in Rural Studio’s program, yet it is this adaptation and sensitivity in their methods and processes that have become significant. Of a total of 81 projects, as of 2010, a total of
37 projects are community projects (parks, shelters, museums, etc.) and most of those community projects have occurred since 2001.
The shift from residential projects to community projects does not, in itself, signify notable adaptation. However, many of the individual projects of Rural Studio do indicate a noticeable adjustment, and an increased sensitivity to the community. The notoriety of Rural Studio is increasing and the projects are better utilized and looked-after.
The mindset of Rural Studio has also clearly shifted from a “design- for” to a “design-with.” The positive benefits to the community have clearly increased after a more participatory and inclusive approach has been initiated. Several notable methods and tools used by Rural
Studio over these years could be utilized within design education; these are identified below in the following figure, and these terms connect to the seeds in Chapter 5.
70
Figure 17: Key Characteristics from Rural Studio
• Workshops: several community meetings and workshops were
held to discuss particular projects and the needs, wants, and
opinions of the local community, encouraging a more
collaborative environment to occur within the community.
• Ethnographic Research: living with and talking with the
community before developing projects. This provides
significant contextual understanding.
• One-on-one Interviews: Conducted when appropriate, with
individuals and groups, and trust is building within the
community.
• Studio Project Shifts: The mindset of Rural Studio has shifted
toward a more responsive and open perspective, and now
encourages larger community work in their studio projects.
These activities and methods used, serve as inspiration for the seeds, which will be explained in further detail at the conclusion of this
Chapter, and throughout Chapter 5.
71
4.4 Design Matters at The Ohio State University The second in-depth case study from the framework is a Service-
Learning course developed by Assistant Professor Susan Melsop from
The Ohio State University’s Design Department. The course, Design
Matters, is a great example of a service-learning project that has utilized the participatory design process in its approach. The course has been adaptive, evolving over its three years, and still continues today.
As a design-build and community-based course, Design Matters, is the only course of its kind that the Department has offered in its 40- year old program. It has built almost a cult following: with new and repeat students every year. Working with a local inner-city after- school arts program called Transit Arts, OSU students work collaboratively with the Transit Arts students to develop designs and physical structures for a new arts space in a local, economically- challenged, neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio.
Not unlike several design/build programs highlighted in the full framework (i.e: DesignbuildBLUFF, Over-the-Rhine, BaSIC,
ReCover, and Penn State) Design Matters conducts itself generally as a design/build studio. The outcomes of the quarter-long studio are to
72
physically build projects developed with the Transit Arts teens for their use in a new facility. Many programs like this work in a design/build capacity only, yet Design Matters brings in the added approach of experiential service-learning. This service-learning driver has its own benefits to design education: students are exposed to a variety of cultures and experiences.
The specific methods and processes of the OSU Design Matters course emphasize all of the approaches discussed throughout the thesis framework (Participatory Action Research, Participatory
Design, Service-learning, and Design/build) in varying degrees, yet focus mainly on service-learning and design/build. The overall process of the course is as follows:
• Sharing - The Ohio State and Transit Arts students share
collages that they make of a “day-in-my-life” activity to get to
know each other.
• Teaching - OSU students teach Transit Arts students about
design thinking and the design process to prepare for the
planning of their space.
• Activities - Transit Arts students teach OSU students about the
art that they do, experiencing “Open Mic Night,” (an event
where Transit Arts teens read poetry, sing, dance, and gather
73
with invited community members) and other activities that the
Transit Arts students will need and want to do in their new
space.
• Creativity - Together, OSU and Transit Arts students create
collages and use participatory ‘tool-kits’ to uncover the latent
desires and needs for the students’ new space, which will
inspire what furniture or space-making pieces they will be
making.
• Brainstorming - OSU and Transit Arts students spend time
designing ideas for their new space in the space together, on
the Transit Arts “turf.”
• Collaboration - OSU students facilitate the development,
construction and fabrication of the projects designed
collectively.
• Designing - Transit Arts students help during the construction
process phase at OSU’s woodshop and design studios, seeing
where the OSU students work and go to school.
• Celebration - At the end of the course, a reception is held to
celebrate their collective achievements and share the
experience with family, neighbors, and friends.
74
PROJECT APPROACH ORGANIZATION / PROCESS METHODS TOOLS MINDSET Figure 18: Design Matters FrameworkINSTITUTION Data OHIO STATE SERVICE- ACADEMIC AND TRADITIONAL STUDIO PROTOTYPING DESIGN UNIVERSITY LEARNING COMMUNITY DESIGN, WORK, (MODELS), WITH DESIGN (LOCAL) PARTICIPATORY MEETINGS, SKETCHING, MATTERS (DESIGN/ STUDIO BASED, INTERVIEWS, SPATIAL SERVICE BUILD) ETHNOGRAPHY WORKSHOPS PLANNING, LEARNING DESIGN, COURSE STORYTELLING YEAR 1-3 & COLLAGE- MAKING
While the process has stayed the same year-to-year, the methods,
projects, and students’ mindsets have shifted slightly over the three-
year’s of the course. The first year of the project was a more typical
design-build course where the Transit Arts students worked in an
“advisory” role in the projects. The next year, once trust was built, the
Transit Arts teens were fully engaged with the project’s design, idea,
and concept and finally helped out with building and construction.
The entire process: the development of relationships, building of
projects, and the collective creativity shared between the OSU
students and the Transit Arts students, were all essential pieces to the
project.
“The value of the ‘process of making’ is perhaps underestimated in a culture that can readily have most anything. An emotional connection is naturally embedded in the object made by one’s own hand. A sense of accomplishment and pride is genuinely experienced. Additionally, the skills acquired through the process of making, failing and remaking are invaluable” (Melsop, 2010).
75
4.4.1 Design Matters: Learning Outcomes A major objective of the Design Matters course is to improve the ability of students to create projects with a community other than their own, and to work in a socially responsive manner. This, in turn, should increase their effectiveness when working on design problems in a real-world environment. The students and professor of OSU, and the Transit Arts community group have developed mutual respect and trust for one another.
Common characteristics and themes present in the Design Matters course consistent across the years include the empathy that developed during the processes and the collaborative quality of the projects. These qualities were emphasized by Melsop as an important part to the development of the course. The face-to-face time and commitment of the students could not be replaced by a research project or typical classroom experience of lectures.
The empathic, collaborative and open mindset of designing with this group of Transit Arts students has clearly situated itself as a driving factor for the Design Matters course. Regardless of the outcomes
(e.g., furniture, spaces, or objects) the engagement seems to bring about a change in students’ perspectives that are expressed in the
76
following quote from a recent graduate of the program:
“This course has made a huge impact on how I approach design matters, or how I think that design matters. …multi-functional, interdisciplinary teams are the only way to find the best solutions to big problems. This class really puts it all into practice in a way that our traditional studios have not. I love working in class with engineering, architecture and psychology students. I’ve learned as much from them as I have from the Transit Art kids. [The class] affects how I feel design can make an impact on the world. As a global society with dangerously high population levels, we’re starting to face brand new problems. Designers are simply problem solvers, so our skills should be put to use on these humanitarian issues. I know that it’s just a vague, idealistic notion at this point, but I can finally see a direction I’d like to take professionally” (Anonymous Industrial Design Student, 2010).
What started as a small project-based interdisciplinary design-build studio program has grown to a committed community collaboration integrating the local community with the University and Design
Department. Additionally, this example shows how small changes and actions (e.g., moving the studio outside of the academic walls for part of the quarter or semester) provide students opportunities not found within the walls of academia, creating an expanded and real experience for the design students and Transit Arts students.
Several notable characteristics found in the methods and tools of
Design Matters could be envisioned as seeds within a broader design
77
program or design education. These ideas will be initially identified below in Figure 19, then the descriptions follow to inspire the connections made from these ideas to the seeds in Chapter 5.
Figure 19: Key Characteristics from Design Matters
• Storytelling and Interviews: Initial “get-to-know-you” sessions
have been important to build trust with the Transit Arts and
OSU students, through collage-making, storytelling, and
informal interviews where students ask each other questions
while working together. Emphasis has been placed on building
relationships with the Transit Arts students and the OSU
students before projects start.
• Participatory Projects: Allowing students to craft sessions and
evening courses, and having the students work directly on
projects has proved to be effective and important.
• Design Studio Shifts: Projects have shifted to those that all
students can be involved in the building and design of. In the
beginning, many projects were led by Ohio State students, and
Transit Arts students acted as consultants. The participatory
78
emphasis has become a key element of the course.
The descriptions above serve as inspiration for the seeds proposed in
Chapter 5. The seeds (common characteristics that could be applied in various other ways) derived from these activities and methods will be explained in further detail at the conclusion of this chapter.
4.5 The Projects of Project M A number of socially responsive designers and change-makers have been approaching work in a collaborative and inclusive manner at a national level, rather than the specific local examples of Rural Studio and Design Matters. Founder and director of Project M, John
Bielenberg, invites students (typically in small week-long, non-credit, summer sessions) to workshops in order to engage in exercises which
Bielenberg calls, “Thinking Wrong.” In 2009, a group of designers from across the country got together for one of these sessions. The result was a concept called Pie Lab (also highlighted in the full framework on page 57), which was an exercise in community and positive change. Pie+Conversation=Change was the initial concept behind this project. PieLab is “a combination pop-up cafe, design studio and civic clubhouse” (Edge, 2010; Project M, 2012). What started as a simple notion to provide a neutral environment in which community members can meet each other, grew to be a James Beard
79
Award winning café.
“No one expected this pop-up to last, least of all the designers who transformed the original space in a breakneck three-week stretch and managed it with gusto for the rest of the spring and summer. But that first day at the PieLab was a success. There was music, courtesy of a customer with an acoustic guitar. The crowd was diverse. Ideas were exchanged. Intergenerational friendships were forged. The take, at two bucks per apple-pie slice, was something like $400. PieLab had visual style. And PieLab had a formula, a back-of-the-bar- napkin equation, sketched in Maine and refined on the ground in Greensboro: PieLab = a neutral place + a slice of pie. A neutral place + a slice of pie = conversation. Conversation = ideas + design. Ideas + design = positive change.” (Edge, 2010).
This “ThinkWrong” attitude has been a staple of Bielenberg’s work and reiterates the notion of breaking through the status quo.
At the core of this approach are ‘Blitz’ sessions like the ‘napkin- sketch’ epiphany mentioned above, which are “chaotic, energizing workshop environments for prototyping, researching, doing, designing, and exploring that, while thinking wrong, produces a project or service that uses design thinking for the greater good.”
(Project M Website, 2012) The projects of Project M are specifically developed in order to promote social engagement and interaction – giving this case study a strong foothold as a great example of co- design or collaborative design and what it takes to become a
80
successful agent of social change.
“We take a radical approach to driving positive change by uniting the powers of design, enterprise, and humanity. Together we imagine, build, and run enterprises that create, increase, and sustain positive change for society, the planet, and future generations.” (Project M Website, 2012)
Since the early days of Project M, the organization has grown immensely and is now conducting workshops and guest spots around the country. Recently, their work has been featured in books such as
Just Design (2011), and Design for Social Change (2012). The ideas that come out of these workshops come from an intense desire to utilize design for positive change.
4.5.1 Project M: Learning Outcomes All of the Project M workshops and activities are largely about community building, and making change. The “blitz” sessions attempt to produce tangible results (products, workshops, etc.), but also understand that it is the social and community understanding which assure each projects’ success. Largely, it is the big-picture questioning that makes a difference, as well as the thinking-wrong attitude. In all of their work, the emphasis is on developing questions, adapting, shifting, changing your mind, and rethinking how designers and communities have traditionally worked.
81
Because of this openness to question how design projects are typically conducted, Project M serves as a great example for how adaptation and mindset can be so important in socially responsive work. As defined and explained in Chapter 2, the ability for designers to respond to changes in our world should be an essential component for design education.
The mindset of Project M is difficult to determine. The students and key examples from PieLab do use terms such as, “let the community come to us” rather than knocking on doors or asking what might be needed. However, in the open “think wrong” structure to each project, the group consequently builds an environment or milieu of inclusive receptiveness – one in which community members feel invited and able to participate. This mindset, while not directly
“designing with” seems to have more connections to the intentions behind “designing with” a community than “designing for,” which typically signify a lack of engagement with a community. This example counters the idea that Project M would lack commitment to it community. The organization has built an environment of empathy and inclusiveness, and provides opportunities for collaboration and participation in many of their projects and workshops. For these
82
reasons, this project serves as a great example of an organization doing great socially responsive work.
Several notable methods and tools used by Project M across the variety of projects they are involved with, could be extrapolated as seeds within a broader design program. A few key characteristics from Project M are introduced in Figure 20. These serve as inspiration for the seeds discussed in Chapter 5, and they are elaborated below:
Figure 20: Key Characteristics from Project M
• Quick, On-Site Building and Creation: The “Blitzs” and “Think
Wrong” sessions provide designers the luxury of being able to
quickly re-work, adjust, and shift ideas.
• Ethnographic Studies: The integration of ethnographic
research, and desire to just “move-in” to a community and get
to work, is significant.
• Interviews and Design Studio Work: The contextual inquiry
process is a key to Project M’s success. The ability to conduct
83
research and discover what a community might need, by
utilizing a quick design/make approach, creates a design with
environment out of a design for environment. The
opportunities created by Project M, aim to promote
community members to develop their own co-design activities
around issues that are pressing or important to them.
4.6 Design Corps This case looks at the work of a specific group, Design Corps, that engages in a variety of different types of projects. In this respect it is similar to Project M in that the work is diverse and largely functions as a organization outside of an academic institution.
Designer and architect, Bryan Bell founded Design Corps in 1995 and has since been a strong proponent of the “design activism” movement. Bell founded Design Corps, a nonprofit architecture firm in Raleigh, North Carolina, even before Mockbee had developed
Rural Studio. He has made it the non-profit’s mission to “create positive change in communities through architecture and planning services” (Bell, 2008). “The Design Corps Fellowship program allows recent graduates to design for the underserved” (Bell, 2004). He also has lead projects at Rural Studio.
84
The physical projects of Design Corps fall into two specific categories: farm-worker housing and community planning. The farm-worker housing builds housing on farms in North Carolina where “there is a need.” The program cites a collaborative partnership between the farmers and the workers in the process of developing the design and making it affordable “to both through the assistance of federal funds which are secured by Design Corps” (Design Corps Website, 2012).
The second category of projects Design Corps directly engages is the
“Community Design Planning” work. “These services are directed to rural communities, which are typically isolated from the rest of the society, allowing their poor working and living conditions to go unnoticed. Services are administered in response to and with direct involvement from local community members” (Design Corps
Website, 2012). Examples of these projects include small structures such as a job-training center in Alabama to migrant housing in
Florida.
Of additional note, Design Corps started a conference called
Structures for Inclusion (SFI) which brings together designers and architects who are working in a social capacity, whether for or with a
85
community group. Featured in the 2011 conference were some of the country’s most well-known design activists and team members (many of whom are mentioned in a variety of the cases throughout this thesis) including:
• Ric Abramson, Founder, WorkPlays • Brent A. Brown, Assistant Professor, University of Cincinnati • Thomas Fisher, Dean, College of Design, Univ. of Minnesota • John Folan, Founder, Urban Design Build Studio, Carnegie Mellon • Andrew Freear, Director, Rural Studio • Christine Gaspar, Executive Director, Center for Urban Pedagogy • Sharon Haar, Associate Professor, University of Chicago • Larry Kearns, Wheeler Kearns Architects • Trung Le, Design Principal, Cannon Design • Liz Ogbu, Associate Design Director, Public Architecture • Sergio Palleroni, Founder, Basic Inititative • Emily Pilloton, Founder, Project H • Dan Pitera, Exec. Director, Detroit Collaborative Design Center • Rashmi Ramaswamy, Principal and Co-Founder, SHED Studio • Quillian Riano, Co-Founder, DSGN AGNC • Patrick Tighe, Principal, Tighe Architecture • Michael Zaretsky, Assistant Professor, University of Cincinnati
This list of players also magnifies the reality that this work in socially responsive design has reached a large-scale, as many of these designers are becoming more and more well-known in their fields.
The SFI conference attracted 400 conference attendees, bringing together these agents for ‘social change’ to share their knowledge
86
with each other. The speakers highlighted the work they each were doing through the lens of inclusion and shared successes and failures that they had had in their specific locations, so that others could learn and benefit.
4.6.1 Design Corps: Learning Outcomes There are several issues designers and educators can take away from the work Design Corps has been doing for the past two decades. All of the work done by the speakers at the SFI Conferences, and Bell and his team, focus on the inclusionary process of design or work that seeks to promote ideas of design activism.
Another significant finding is that most projects are conducted through a design/build approach, yet many have some element of engagement with a community. For example: one of the featured projects, Project H, a high school design/build program started by
Emily Pilloton, works on two projects each year with a team from a local high school in Bertie County, North Carolina. In 2011, the core design projects were a public chicken coop and a farmer’s market to advance local food sources to the community. From its social design initiatives and innovative design features, the Farmer’s Market was recently featured in an issue of Architectural Record (March Issues,
87
2012). The studio also won a SEED (Social Economic Environmental
Design) award at the 2011 SFI conference in Chicago. The project empowered high school teens to be the designers and builders of the projects. This project serves as an example of the mission of Design
Corps i.e., to encourage design projects for the greater social good.
The literature and documentation on Design Corps’ work is varied in mindset, and has grown over the past two decades. In 2004, Bryan
Bell edited a collection of projects called, Good Deeds, Good Design.
In it, he introduces the cases as, “examples of finding clients that give a variety of approaches in making connections between those who need design services and those who can provide design” (Bell, 2004.
Pg. 25.) The initial phrasing of this ‘designing-for’ attitude is exemplary of the body of work collected during that time. However, in Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, a book he edited in collaboration with Katie Wakeford, you can see Bell shifting toward a more critical, and perhaps ‘designing-with’ mindset with the inclusion of chapters such as, “Participatory Design,” and “Public
Interest Architecture.” He also includes a chapter on the
“Transformative Power of Architectural Education” encouraging the next phase of this work.
88
The activism conducted by Design Corps is not the work of Bell on his own, but rather a collection gleaned from various change agents. His collections do, however, point to a broad support of this type of work.
Together, his collections of essays (and subsequent projects) have shown a variety of design activists doing this work in a more collaborative and inclusive way. Lessons learned from this work, are briefly highlighted in Figure 21 and elaborated on below:
Figure• 21 : Key Characteristics from Design Corps
• Built Projects: The everyday adaptation required for the full-
scale, built-work of Design Corps is notable and significant.
• On-Site, Participatory Projects: The successes of the
participatory nature of the student projects (as described
through the work of Emily Pilloton and Project H) serve to
encourage collaborative and participatory work in design and
education, and promote on-site community-based work.
• Inclusionary Approach: The sharing involved in the Design
Corps led SFI Conference inspires growth and development
toward a deeper contextual understanding during design work.
89
4.7 Review and Summary
Each of the case studies described in this Chapter address some aspect of social ‘good’ or public concern with successful outcomes that can be applied in other design learning environments. These projects and cases address broad issues of the environment, community involvement, and social equity. The projects also address socially centered issues with an inclusive lens from different mindsets
(designing with and designing for) and approaches (design/build, service-learning, co-design, and participatory action research). It is these mindsets, approaches, and ultimately the characteristics used during these projects, that have been studied and analyzed.
Some projects appear to be community focused but do not engage with those directly affected, and in contrast other projects center themselves on community involvement. Additionally, some projects start with a participatory focus while others have gained this focus over time, as educators lead the way for students to delve into active learning and problem solving. The increase of this participatory work in design activism demonstrates the shift occurring from egotistic to altruistic design practice. The detailed examples in Chapter 4 have shown that there are key commonalities between several of the design
90
activist projects that become the seeds for curricular change in design education.
Figure 22: Introduction to Characteristics and Themes - Found in Case Studies, Connections to Seeds
Connections and threads emerge when the cases are compared in order to see the common characteristics present. The commonalities serve to inspire a set of seeds (introduced in Figure 22); these are color-coded to show connections between the characteristics found in the case studies, and the seeds.
The following paragraphs introduce and summarize these Seeds:
Many projects note self-assessment in a variety of their activities, directly or indirectly. For example, the ability of the students in Rural
91
Studio to change course and conduct in-person interviews as opposed to written surveys was an element of self-reflection, or self- assessment. In doing so, those students began to get to know the community group and recognize that face-to-face contact was a key element to the project’s success.
Additionally noted in the cases (from PieLab, to the Structures for
Inclusion Conference) was the inclusion of research into the personal relationships present within the community and challenges present before or during a project; in order to build contextual inquiry. This action then leads more directly into a deeper cultural understanding and empathy building. This was achieved by conducting interviews, or moving into a community, or having several meetings together in order to build these connections before projects start.
This empathy building and direct exposure to community issues was also demonstrated in the way Design Matters was conducted. The instructors and facilitators of the non-profit understood the importance of the student’s feeling comfortable with one another before starting the project. These relationships developed and helped to build connections during the design process before the students co-designed their team projects.
92
An underlying goal of many of these projects was the building of relationships and trust within the community. This can only happen in a slow manner, as conducted with Design Matters (e.g., weekly meetings with students) or in the example of Design Corps’ Project H in which the high school students gained the trust of the designers by successfully completing a project on their own. This seems to be a significant component of many of these projects and cases.
Additionally, all of these projects or events have been adapted in some way, whether that is change from year to year, or if that change has occurred more rapidly. All of the projects address our changing world. It is important that designers and educators recognize these drastic changes in order to stay responsive to inevitable changes we will see in the future. Finally, the ideas of Project M provide a great example of the ability to reflect and think about ones’ own process, and be willing to adapt and change as the project, constraints, or world changes by offering ways to share and exchange lessons learned to other designers, and encourage adjustments to project types over the past decade.
Examples of the seeds will be described further in the next chapter.
93
The common characteristics found in these case studies, and ideas retained from the framework projects, influence the Seeds for
Responsive Design Education. The term “seed” was chosen to metaphorically describe key learning components of education curricula that could be planted, nurtured, and cultivated for their contributions to social well-being. Using the metaphor of ‘seeds,’ it is conceivable that small characteristics can start to become part of a broader, yet more flexible approach to design education. It is the goal in the next chapter to show how through the use of these seeds in design curricula, shifts in design can lead toward a more responsive and ‘design activist’ approach in education.
94
CHAPTER 5: Planting Seeds
!“Education is a social process; education is growth; education is not preparation for life but is life itself.” -- John Dewey
5.1 Introduction The seeds that promote design activism will now be described and identified. These seeds can be used to provide a place for design educators to start investigating design activism. The cases discussed and examined in this thesis have referenced distinct socially responsive characteristics that could be integrated into design curricula.
The metaphor of “seeds” acknowledges the slow yet nurturing process of the sensitive and responsive work that is design activism. For example, if two seeds are planted at the same time and are nurtured and watered and supported from the beginning, they both will theoretically thrive. If, however, one of those seeds does not thrive, it is understandable; it could be the lack of sun, or lack of water, or
95
having been given too much water. Perhaps the environment was not conducive to living. However, the gardener would not give up. One seed’s lack of an ability to germinate, or blossom, does not indicate failure necessarily in gardening. What it does indicate is that one plant survived. One ‘seed’ did thrive in its environment. It could also be possible that during the seeding process, the other seed will lay dormant for some time, and perhaps blossom at a later date.
In order for change to occur within curricula, facilitators and educators must have the understanding that some of these ideas or project goals and intentions can be understood immediately, while other ideas will not take shape until the ideas and concepts are fully germinated or encouraged within the appropriate mindset or environment. If key characteristics of design activist projects are reiterated over time, the outcome should be a more socially- responsive design education overall, rather than an immediate solution or change to curricula. The proposed Seeds for Responsive
Design Education describe common characteristics which support successful social activist learning. These seeds are filtered through the assessment of prototypical case studies used to enhance social well being through a variety of design projects and activities.
96
5.2 Applications for Curricula Questions remain regarding exactly how programs can begin to shift toward a more active and responsive approach to our social environment, without totally changing entire curricular models.
Requiring more social or community-based courses and changing curricula has been difficult, as the construct of design education in the United States has typically been based largely on studio learning within campus classrooms. Kolko argues for the need to constantly stay responsive by stating:
“While some of the delay is simply due to the nature of and difficulty in driving changes through curriculum council, the largest issue appears to be the additive qualities these shifts present in terms of subject matter, methods, theory, and implications – and the reluctance of educators to give up what they learned, and have been teaching, for decades to make room for new material. As is the case in every subject that advances, the body of knowledge that makes up the specific discipline of design has increased steadily, and so the ability to teach and learn it effectively needs to grow, or otherwise change, to keep pace” (Kolko, 2010).
Design researcher and architect, Christopher Monson from
Mississippi State University has been looking into the construction of design education and its ability to reflect our social environment. In his 2005 article for Ethics, Place, and Environment, he states how design education is inherently a social endeavor, and likewise should be reflected in design pedagogy and education.
97
“Given the social, economic, and political complexity of the built environment in our world today, the ethical construction of design practice seems an essential component in the educational preparation of new professionals. In fact, the context of professionalism requires it. Yet, if the burgeoning disciplinary concern is any indication—academic articles on ethics, dedicated symposia, and questions of professional ethical codes seem to appear with increasing regularity—evidence of the successful integration of ethics in design education remains largely elusive” (Monson, 2005).
The case studies analyzed in this thesis describe several proposed learning outcomes and characteristics that could be utilized to shift design education in the way suggested by Monson, toward a successful integration of ethics.
5.3 Themes from the Framework Several commonalities have emerged from the cases that indicate how this more social and responsive work is conducted, providing opportunities for design curricula. From the case study research described in Chapter 4, major themes were apparent across several cases. Additionally there is a growing interest among designers, educators and students to become involved in projects for social
‘good’, with a more community-based and collaborative approach.
Furthermore, programs are already being adapted based on several of the key cases that point to the need for responsiveness to the global
98
condition. In order for curricula to stay current and relevant to these growing and shifting professional and social needs, design curricula in higher education will need to remain responsive to these global and social issues of poverty, housing, climate change, building community, hunger, etc. As design expands to become more participatory and inclusive, social awareness and responsiveness should be an integral part of the education and development of future designers. As the evidence shows, social design is being embraced and will become an expected outcome of higher education as more design projects take root and serve as templates for this work. Using the metaphor of seeds, a proposed model for how educators could begin to look at complex issues in an already existing curriculum structure is outlined.
5.4 Seeds for Responsive Design Education Benjamin Bloom, a well-known American educational psychologist, provides a conceptual framework to understand complex issues.
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Figure 23) is an educational tool used to understand learning objectives of a program or course through a series of stages or layers that build upon one another in degrees of sophistication. Although named after Bloom, Bloom’s Taxonomy was developed following a series of conferences that focused on
99
improving communication between educators, to clarify the design of curricula and examinations (Bloom, 1956). “A goal of Bloom's
Taxonomy (also known as Bloom’s) is to motivate educators to focus on all levels of knowledge-building (now identified as: Remembering,
Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating), in order to create a more holistic form of education” (Bloom, 1956).
Figure 23: Bloom's Taxonomy
The levels of knowledge in Bloom’s do not directly relate to the Seeds as proposed in this study. Bloom’s model is used to provide a familiar outline and structure for curricular development. Bloom’s model has been a common staple in the development of course structure and planning. Similarly, the acknowledgement that these seeds will develop and grow over time coincides with how Bloom designates student’s understanding and knowledge moving up through the levels of the taxonomy. Furthermore, within the process of design
100
education, as visualized in the model below (Figure 24), the outcome is the student’s holistic understanding and ability to implement the six seeds in his or her design work.
Figure 24: Design Education Process, Seeds for Responsive Design Education
The Seeds for Responsive Design Education process model demonstrates how this idea of ‘seeds’ builds hierarchically through various educational phases, in the pyramid structure similar to
Bloom’s. The arrangement suggests that a full understanding of these seeds will not be possible without developing knowledge and experiences over time and for a specific goal of reaching a design- activist level of practice. The small seeds at the foundation level
101
signify small exercises or projects which could ‘plant the seed’ for a further socially embedded project.
For example, the simple exercise Project M utilizes to “Think Wrong,” whereby students and designers are made to think quickly and throw ideas away, without constraints of preconceived ideas from the past, is a great example of the Seed of Adaptation [Seed 5] or the Seed of
Reflection [Seed 6]. On a larger scale, the Seed of Adaptation [Seed 6] can be used for group workshops, enabling change according to the direction and opinions of participants in the room. This example is not an exercise of social goodwill or social change exactly, but it aims to plant the seed for someone to learn how to provide that same quality of adaptation and reflection to a larger project.
Moving to the top of the pyramidal diagram (Figure 24), the larger, more complete cyclical process shows that all six of these seeds work together, and build upon the knowledge gathered and grown throughout a student’s life or time in school. The development (or growth) of those seeds, depends greatly upon the mindset of not only the student, but also of the participants and environment surrounding the student.
102
Just as these Seeds are a starting point, Bloom also considered his model to be just a beginning. Bloom notes, “Ideally each major field should have its own taxonomy in its own language - more detailed, closer to the special language and thinking of its experts, reflecting its own appropriate sub-divisions and levels of education, with possible new categories, combinations of categories and omitting categories as appropriate" as quoted in A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives (Bloom, 1956).
So, just as Bloom suggests, the design discipline has its own unique needs and desires within its educational structure. Thus, through the implementation of the proposed seeds, design educators can now visualize the necessary slow growth required to create a more adaptive, appropriate, and relevant curriculum based on the need to address and integrate changing social conditions. Thus these seeds exist within existing design curricula, to inspire further thought or inquiry of a particular subject or social issue.
While the seeds are intended to work in a responsive and cyclical manner in the end, each seed could also be considered individually.
The seeds can help to make a shift in attitude toward a more socially
103
responsive and culturally appropriate curriculum. Figure 25 introduces the components of the six seeds. As composites of the best practices in current design activism, each seed can be used individually or in tandem, within a design education curriculum.
The subsequent diagram introduces the seeds, and then follows with a further description of each.
104
Figure 25: Seeds for Responsive Design Education
105
5.4.1 Self-Assessment
Small elements of self-assessment [Seed 1] exist in each of the twenty-five reviewed cases. Similar characteristics of reflection and assessment were also used in many of the full framework project examples. Providing a seed of ‘self-assessment’ is an important part of any design activist project. In many of the project examples, a degree of assessment was necessary to begin. The ability for a designer to recognize that change might need to take place (as was the case with Rural Studio’s museum design process, where the research had to change course at the beginning of the process), requires a certain ability to assess one’s own attitude and mindset before engaging with a cohort or community. What biases exist, or what misconceptions might be present in a community group, or within the designer?
For example, in a course taught by Dr. Liz Sanders in 2011 called
Explorations in Transdisiplinary, (See framework number 20) self- assessment occurred at the beginning of the course to identify the mindset each student was bringing into the course. The course, constructed as a research-based studio inspired by a graduate student-led conference called the Stir Symposium (Stir Symposium
2012) allowed students from a variety of disciplines to work together
106
to confront five major global lifestyle issues: eating, moving, living, learning, and conserving. Tackling such issues, each student needed to self-identify and self-assess their stance and approach to solving these larger issues. Students took a common assessment tool
(StrengthsFinder by Tom Rath) to understand each team members’ dominant personality traits and tendencies. By doing this self- assessment before working on the project, the students were given the freedom and the ability to understand their own perspectives, but could also be open to the perspectives and methods of the other students.
Figure 26: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Self-Assessment [Seed 1]
107
The seed of self-assessment [Seed 1] has also been shown in a number of programs as a way to identify the background and experience of the participants, the designers, and/or the community group involved. (Design Matters, Section 4.4) Essential to understanding this background or perspective, is the ability to assess the mindset in which the participants are coming into the project, and also the mindset with which the designer is coming into a project. What biases or misconceptions are they coming into a project or experience with? What kind of awareness do they have already about this project or activity? By spreading the ideas of self- assessment through a curriculum or a course, students should be more in tune with and understanding of change and self-reflection later on in their design education, and also within the design process.
5.4.2 Contextual Inquiry
Characteristics of contextual inquiry [Seed 2] have been shown throughout the framework and case studies through a variety of methods, tools, and techniques. Understanding the participants’ roles
(and our own) requires background research and an understanding of the context of the project. What is the current state of the neighborhood, community, or particular group in which designers
108
work? Shown in the cases were projects utilizing ethnography and interviews; Rural Studio, Design Matters, and PieLab all used these methods in their work. Even though these projects use different approaches (design/build, service-learning, design/make), the teams working on all of the projects still wanted to understand the community or group in a deeply personal way before working together.
Figure 27: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Contextual Inquiry [Seed 2]
109
For example, Rural Studio understood the need to change their interview methods, and adjusted accordingly to provide a more appropriate contextual investigation by utilizing face-to-face interviews. Students who are able to be cognizant of these contextual needs (the potential that the community did not have access to phones, or some respondents could not read) will be more socially responsive citizens practicing design.
Within a course or curriculum, a design student can use contextual inquiry as a way to understand existing issues within a community or group. This ‘seed’ however goes beyond just simple research.
Contextual inquiry is based on a deep understanding and awareness of community (or client) issues and relationships. By building this contextual inquiry, and then afterwards working with a community
(utilizing subsequent seeds) the thinking is that a designer will be able to better identify relationships and issues on a broad scale.
In his book, Strategies for Community-Based Graphic Design, Shea calls designers to “Identify the Community’s Strengths.” How can we apply these in a course context? Within an existing course, for example, students could be faced with mock parameters of community issues in order to start thinking about the context of a
110
situation. For a project, instead of the assignment, “design this dining room set for a client” for example, the instructor could ‘plant the seed’ of contextual inquiry and give the students a mock family persona to work with. This persona could include things like, “the family doesn’t eat together often” or “this family is composed of three kids, a mother, father, and grandfather and their personalities are x.”
Having students approach or deal with the fact that communities and clients will inevitably have background issues and personal stories, will start to plant this seed of contextual inquiry and investigation as an important part of the design process.
Even though many students might not be able to engage directly with a community group, the intent of the educational process is that this seed identifies an awareness and sensitivity toward the context and background situations of communities – in whatever context the student chooses to work in the future.
5.4.3 Exposure and Empathy
Exposure and empathy go beyond basic research to build trust directly with another group of people. What sensitivities need to be considered? This seed speaks to the “getting to know a group” activities started in the contextual inquiry seed. However the seed of
111
‘empathy and exposure’ requires a more personal relationship and direct understanding between people. This is where the real trust occurs between designers and participants or community. While contextual inquiry exists as a potentially research-oriented action on the part of the designer, exposure and empathy speaks to the direct relationships that need to be built between the designer and community or client.
Figure 28: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Exposure and Empathy [Seed 3]
112
For example, as we saw in the Design Matters course, students not only had to develop an understanding of the neighborhood and needs of the community of Transit Arts, but the students also had to show the Transit Arts teens that they were genuinely interested in their work. This is an act of breaking down the walls of the expert-driven mindset and starting to get to know the individuals on a more personal level. For Design Matters, that meant being present and attending several “Open Mic Nights” in which the Transit Arts students shared their poetry, dancing, rapping, and artwork. The
OSU students were able to be there to witness their work.
Additionally, OSU and Transit Arts students interacted in order to explain what each partner was bringing to the project. What this moment seemed to do was build the trust of the Transit Arts students and the OSU partnership, by demonstrating and describing each other’s strengths. The teams also collaborated and participated in additional ‘storytelling’ exercises that allowed them to exchange information on their backgrounds, experiences, and desires for the design project by creating generative artifacts and collages together.
(MakeTools are generative toolkits developed by Dr. Liz Sanders as a way to understand the wants, needs, and desires of a group in the pre-design phase. The tools used for Design Matters were inspired and derived from her work.)
113
Exposure and Empathy [Seed 3] could be planted into a course simply by encouraging students to engage in thoughtful and considerate design practice. For example, in a typical design studio students are often told they will be working with a client. However, time spent on the development of the relationship with that client is seldom a focus. Perhaps a studio course could be situated to address the importance of spending time to understand the client. This is the rare opportunity where money is no object (i.e., there is not a paying client at stake) and students could spend a few weeks getting to know a client group or community.
Giving students the freedom to do work to develop relationships, and recognize the importance of this, is a key characteristic of this seed. It should be acknowledged and understood by students who engage in design activist projects, and who wish to become thoughtful design citizens that time should be allotted to get to know new clients or new communities.
It is understood that not all courses will be able to function directly with a community group like Design Matters was able to do.
However, what the students can be exposed to is the importance of
114
getting to know a group before quickly designing an outcome. It is a hope that this seed, when nurtured and encouraged, will support a more socially conscious and considerate design practice in students of the future – getting to the term empathy. The term “exposure” simply begins the process; the term is understood as an initial step in empathy development.
5.4.4 Co-Design Activities
The ‘designing-with’ mindset was shown throughout the framework to be an important piece to the success of a project. The participatory mindset for these engagements seemed to produce better results (i.e., the evolution of the Rural Studio projects from the ‘designing-for’ mindset to the ‘designing-with’ mindset) and further supports the importance designers need to place on an ability to design in this manner. Co-design, or collaborative design, allows participants and designers to each contribute to a project’s outcome. This is where the
“design” part of the project comes into play and where often the process can stop or stumble, creating divides between the ‘expert’ and the ‘client’ (Sanoff, 2000). Shown in the examples of Rural Studio,
Design Matters, and Design Corps, the direct work with a community seemed to be vital. The following figure highlights areas where elements of co-design played a role in these case study projects in
115
order to inform the applications for this seed in existing design curricula.
Figure 29: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Co-Design [Seed 4]
Making sure that each player of the project is considered and working together is essential to project success. Examples of this participatory work include projects or activities that require students to work together. This could be working in a community atmosphere, or could be working with members of another discipline so that students start to develop the ability to work with a variety of people. These concepts are key to the development of a more thoughtful and engaged
116
designer capable of confronting global and social concerns.
5.4.5 Adaptation
One of the most important seeds is the concept of adaptation. While moving through a project (either within a course or in a real-world setting) it is necessary to be able to adapt and change. This is the most difficult, but arguably the most important, aspect of this model.
For example, participants are often faced with changes to cost constraints or project parameters after the design process has begun.
A more complex issue could also arise such as political changes, or cultural differences or other constraints within the community the designer is working. The participants/students will need to be able to fully adapt to the new reality quickly. This adaptation was shown in many of the framework projects and in many of the key cases, particularly the Rural Studio and Design Matters projects. Failure to adapt may result in the project’s failure, or in many cases, simply the project’s end.
117
Figure 30: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Adaptation [Seed 5]
If a project is unable to be done in collaboration with a community or other group, it is still possible to practice adaptation in a strictly academic setting. Students may be given a project (perhaps about a different community, such as “design a bus stop” in a local neighborhood) with two design review dates, one preliminary and one final. Before beginning the project they may be told that one or two additional constraints could be announced later. After the
118
preliminary review, they would be given these additional constraints
(for example: the bus stop moved OR, your bus stop offends some of the local residents) to determine how well they could adapt their designs. This would challenge the students to become more flexible and responsive as new information appears, even if they are not able to work directly with an outside group or in community collaboration.
5.4.6 Reflection
The reflection seed is the last piece to this proposal, however this seed could exist at any moment in the design process. The reflection component is shown through the projects such as Design Matters and
Rural Studio, that have the ability to change and grow year after year.
The ability to reflect upon what was ‘working’ and what was not gave the students and the professor the ability to adjust and change course when needed.
As with all of the seeds, the reflection seed could be integrated into a design curriculum at any moment – at the end of a project, or ideally at the midterm. Having the ability to reflect (whether that is the self- assessment seed shown at the beginning or the reflection shown at the end) will encourage students to be more thoughtful and engaged
119
citizens, rather than just people who produce a product without considering its effects.
Figure 31: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Reflection [Seed 6]
This is not to say that all design education does not currently reflect on learning outcomes and projects the students undertake. But what the reflection seed provides is a structure to highlight social concerns in a more direct and applicable way. Different than the self- assessment seed, this characteristic seeks to encourage students to ask, “What could be improved in the process? Is this the right
120
approach?” and, “How has this been transformative to my life?”
5.5 Seed Examples for Curricula Finally, the following are examples of how the seeds discussed in
Chapter 5.5 can apply to existing university work. For clarity and comparison, all six seeds are shown in their entirety to provide a series of examples of applications to higher education design curricula. It should be noted again, the amount of nurturing and support will help determine each project’s success or failure so it is the intent of these examples to serve as brainstorming mechanisms for further design curricula. In the following list, smaller seeds (small assignments or ideas) are described first, while larger seeds (bigger concepts and longer projects) are described last:
Seed 1: SELF-ASSESSMENT
• Personality Assessment: For the beginning of a studio project, or small group work, have students take a personality assessment to understand traits better. Students may interview each other to share the results. • Mindset Assessment: Discuss what Mindset means in class in relationship to design. What does it mean to design ‘with’ someone? Or, ‘for’ someone? • Pre-Project Reflection Essay: Bookend an existing project by asking students to write a small reflection journal before beginning. What are the expected
121
outcomes? What hurdles are in place? • Personal Mindset Exercise: Privately write down several biases you might have toward a project, or preconceived ideas. Revisit at project completion date. • Group Mindset Exercise: Have students work together and talk about an approach to a group project. How would you tackle group assumptions? Are you working ‘with’ a community group or client? What steps can you take to plan and be mindful of your actions in the future?
Seed 2: CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY
• Interview Exercise: Practice interview skills, sensitivity, communication • Basic Ethnographic Research Project: Conduct a small research project about a site used for a design studio project, documenting the site with photographs, journal entries, or on-site interviews. • Persona Project, Studio: Develop a persona, design with the needs of this person in mind • Ethnographic Project, Understand Community: Expand research and begin to work directly with a community, group, or neighborhood. Start to develop relationships and understand roles, struggles, needs, wants, and background. • Interview Community Members: Begin to interview and get to know the members of the community to interact, and start to build trust. Focus on understanding the personalities of those involved in the project.
(Con’t)
122
Seed 3: EXPOSURE / EMPATHY
• Field Trip (Small/1-day): Conduct a small community or social service. Discuss in class how designers can be a part of this work. • Site Visit at Community Location: Work on a project or have students explore ideas for a project outside of the studio or seminar room walls. Explore, get to know the community. Visit a new place, report back. • Community Work: Designers could propose community-based or socially considerate work, or simply have a day to discuss how projects could be more beneficial to the community. • Field Trip (Week long/Ongoing): Field trip to an off-site community or location to conduct several meetings and collaborative sessions to get-to-know each other before starting a project. • Open House: Further developing participation and a relationship with a community, mutually hold ‘open house’ sessions to understand and participate with the group in a collective activity. This could be the ‘Open Mic’ nights that Design Matters mentions, or simply invitations for a relationship.
Seed 4: CO-DESIGN ACTIVITIES
• Research Inquiry with Group: Conduct a small research project about a site used for a design studio project, where students team up and divide research tasks. • Collective Brainstorming (Discussion-based): As a whole class, have a discussion around a key societal issue or problem to tackle. Have the students lead and facilitate the group.
123
• Multidisciplinary Studio Design Project: Combine two or more design courses together to have students from different classes and disciplines (within design) to work together on a studio project. • Interdisciplinary Studio Design Project: Combine two or more courses together to have students from different classes and disciplines (outside of design: i.e. architecture and business) to work together on a studio project, utilizing skills from each discipline. • Collective Brainstorming (Activity based): As a whole class or in small groups, tackle a design issue (working together) through the use of MakeTools (Sanders, 2003; Sanders, 2006) or other physical charette-style activities to come up with an idea of how to solve or work through the design problem. • Transdisiplinary Idea Generation or Studio Project: Working with a variety of different disciplines, collectively decide on a social issue or design problem to solve (or discuss) utilizing the collective capacity of the group – leaving disciplines behind (Sanders, 2006; Manzini & Rizzo, 2011; Stir Symposium, 2012).
Seed 5: ADAPTATION
• Discuss Change: Lecture or discussion or seminar on why and when project ideas and concepts change. Acknowledge adaptation is sometimes necessary. • Reflective Essay: Have students reflect on a life situation or project that changed unexpectedly, reflecting on what was learned. • Project Adjustment (Student-led): Partially through the project, have students introduce another design parameter. Allow more time for the change.
124
• Project Adjustment (Instructor-led): Partially through the project, the Instructor instigates a new parameter or change in the project. (Allow more time for the subsequent work.) • Community Project Work: Develop and work with community group, continue to ask questions and check in. Acknowledge that change is okay.
Seed 6: REFLECTION
• Essay Prompt on Project Process: Reflect on project process and discuss in class. • Essay Prompt: Write the same assignment but fix one issue you had with the project process. • Analyze Project/Impact: Review outcomes of project, interview, conduct research to discover successes and failures, and propose next steps to repeat the process with a renewed perspective.
125
5.6 Summary Each one of the seeds can work alone, and also work together with other seeds (see Figure 32 and Section 5.5) in order for students to become more responsive designers and learners for the future.
Through the case studies and framework, key characteristics have inspired the development of the Seeds for Responsive Design
Education: self-assessment, contextual inquiry, exposure and empathy building, co-design activities, adaptation, and reflection.
The seeds provide a starting place for design educators to approach this large daunting issue of design activism in a more familiar and achievable manner.
By understanding the relationship between the seeds, and seeing examples of how the seeds might be applied to higher education, the proposal encourages students to learn to appreciate the opinions of others, to be open to change and adaptation, to work in a more socially considerate manner, and to reflect on what they are learning.
Many characteristics and examples shown in this chapter could be very common in courses already; interviews, case study research, ethnographic research, etc. However, when these seeds are directed
126
toward a more socially conscious agenda throughout a program, the repetition of these characteristics within design education will start to plant themselves into students’ minds, perhaps surfacing in the future.
Figure 32: Seeds for Responsive Design Education, Diagram
As evidence has shown, an awareness of global issues and concerns is
127
necessary for our future designers; these seeds provide a way to structure or approach the incorporation of relevant characteristics into already existing course work toward an academic design program at the collegiate level.
It is intended that even if students work in a more traditional design studio environment (not a non-profit or university institution as many of these projects are), that these seeds have still been planted.
The next generation of designers will still need to have a “deeper personal, social, and cultural connection to their work” (Accord,
2006) and know how to become “facilitators of the future” (Thackara,
2005) no matter what clients or communities they choose to work with.
The goal of planting these seeds is to be able to respond to changes from a client, changes in topic – or most importantly, changes in our world without disrupting already existing curricula. The big picture idea is that the seeds, planted throughout a curriculum, are simply ideas to start the conversation. Facilitators or educators shouldn’t feel the need to change a course to fit the seeds, but they may plant a seeds within an existing course. It is the work of planting the seeds that becomes so vital.
128
CHAPTER 6: Future Work
“We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.” -- Albert Einstein, 1954
“One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feelings. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child.” -- Carl Gustav Jung
6.1 Overview The need for designers to become activists and engage in our social world is becoming more and more clear. This call to action integrates humanist values into design, promotes a social agenda, and must be developed throughout a designer’s career. As many publications and designers are focusing on this work today, the need to address these shifts and changes in design education has been the focus of this work. Through a review of the case studies presented in this thesis,
Seeds for Responsive Design Education are proposed. This proposal was developed from characteristics presented at the end of Chapter 4.
The Seeds contain elements that can be integrated into existing
129
course work or a broader curriculum, and emphasize the rise of social concerns and design activism in design practice. However, there is still more work to be done.
6.2 Next Steps Education must be structured in a way to stay responsive to our changing and ever more complex social world. This thesis seeks to inspire future research to build upon this work in an effort to highlight this new direction of practice, and to promote exercises and activities that lean toward a more social and responsive design education, in a tangible and applicable way to design educators.
However, in order for this change to occur, there are still many issues and roadblocks that impede a successful engagement of social projects. From rigid and established university practices hindering service-learning projects, to pushing past the traditional expert mentality of the designer, there are things we can learn from the design case studies outlined in this thesis. It is the intent of this work to provide a way around these rigid academic structures, to provide a way to slowly and consistently integrate socially-responsive design efforts into design education.
130
The broad support of faculty to engage in or to promote work based on social good is essential, yet remains uncertain in the U.S. While the seeds provide a way to proceed, there is still work to be done in creating an academic community supportive of this work. Architect and educator, Ann Pendleton-Jullian writes of the paradigm shifts in our social world today, and how those relate to education. She writes:
“Scaleable learning is not discrete learning, but learning that connects with other knowledge bases, and fosters easy adaptability and application to multiple instances, multiple scenarios, and multiple applications. It is the inverse of instructional teaching environments, promoting and in fact requiring students to actively and entrepreneurially engage in their own education. It is authentic learning, highly situated but extensively connected” (Pendleton-Jullian, 2010).
Pendleton-Jullian encourages a more connected and flexible educational environment; yet it is difficult to remove the silos that exist in academia. The walls that exist between disciplines will be difficult to break down until broad institutional level and faculty support is felt (and funded) for more collaborative and participatory practices to occur across disciplines within the university at large.
Thomas Fisher is quoted in the March 2012 ‘Building for Social
Change’ issue of Architectural Record noting, “I find that in almost every school, there are at least a couple of faculty members interested in [design activism], even in schools that are very traditional. It has
131
definitely emerged as a kind of grassroots phenomenon…but we have to take it to the next level.” He pushes for the creation of a more connected University, much of what University President E. Gordon
Gee calls upon at The Ohio State University as part of its “One
University” campaign, in which he calls upon colleges and departments to work together. David Hill again quotes Fisher’s thoughts in an article, “The New Frontier in Education,” charging
Universities to narrow in on the design disciplines and socially conscious work calling for:
“an entire interdisciplinary degree program based on socially conscious design…a kind of hybrid between architecture, cultural studies, engineering, and industrial design. Not unlike fields of public health, which grew out of medicine to serve the needs of communities and large populations” (Hill, 2012).
This ambitious request, I believe, is daunting for universities to tackle. If, however, we encourage these seeds to be developed, over time shifts will begin to occur toward socially responsive work.
Further research to track students through a curriculum utilizing
Seeds for Responsive Design is the necessary next step for this research. This thesis demonstrates that design activism is not just a fleeting trend, but a necessary part of our design future. Many designers are looking to these ideas, and promoting this action in
132
design practice. However, if designers are exposed to this work only after they have had their design training, it will be harder to be professionally ‘socialized’ with the ideas and goals that socially conscious design work entails. There is a growing need and desire for this work to continue, and for graduates of design schools to be adaptable and ready to employ design activism post-graduation.
Planting seeds within an existing design curriculum (with the necessary supportive and nurturing environment) will be key to furthering the understanding of how these changes can happen.
Questions still remain regarding the assessment and implementation of the Seeds. It would be most important to follow a series of students through their design education, utilizing these more reflective and responsive approaches, and anticipating the production of a more socially concerned, adaptable, and flexible group of students. How this assessment would occur, with what students, and for how long, are still key next steps to further this research.
Additionally, several other designers and researchers have posed answers to the desire and question of social change in design and in turn provided other designers with proposals for how to go about
‘social change’ (Shea, 2011) or ‘massive change’ (Mau, 2008) in
133
practice. These ideas and solutions (shown in the lists in Appendix F and G) are noble and very positive. However, it is still difficult to see or understand from these lists what the applications to design education would be. It is my belief that these changes need to happen slowly, and we must acknowledge that in order to teach responsive design and appropriate social approaches, we must also (as educators) be realistic and responsive to our current University parameters and personal mindsets going into this new and potentially unfamiliar work.
The proposed seeds are meant to highlight a portion of a design education that is current, necessary, and will always be changing – design activism. This research does not outline the various changes and adaptations needed in other areas of design such as technology and tools. These, too, need to be addressed, but it is particularly the social condition of design that this thesis addresses. Understanding and being able to adapt to growing changes in our world will be essential in practice moving forward, but also will help students adapt to not just social conditions and global concerns, but will support a broad big-picture view of design and the world. “Until a new model for design education is realized, academies will not be preparing students to become global thinkers and strategists and to
134
understand socioeconomic complexity and inter-connectivity. They will continue to produce design students who are service providers and not cultural responders,” (Canniffe and Wiley, 2011, pg. 81).
6.3 Summary and Conclusion This thesis has outlined the growing interest in design activism, and through an examination of ‘social’ design approaches (design/build, service-learning, co-design, and participatory action research), has identified common characteristics. Several cases are analyzed and commonalities are identified in order to discover Seeds for
Responsive Design Education that could be integrated into an existing design curriculum. The Seeds are:
[Seed 1 ] Self-Assessment
[Seed 2 ] Contextual Inquiry
[Seed 3 ] Exposure and Empathy Building
[Seed 4 ] Co-Design Activities
[Seed 5 ] Adaptation
[Seed 6 ] Reflection
It is proposed that design educators who are able to incorporate the seeds throughout their teaching will produce more thoughtful and engaged students. It is not enough however, to plant just one seed. If only one seed is planted it would be hard for a full garden (capable of
135
feeding or providing for a whole community) would emerge. If however, several seeds are planted, grow together, pollinate from each other, and nourish each other, these seeds can produce a full garden. The purpose of this thesis is to promote exposure to these
Seeds, which will encourage students in their work, and encourage an environment of faculty and students open to this change and growth.
This research serves to inform and guide current design educators trying to manage how to stay relevant and appropriate while the world is changing around them.
Based on the cases reviewed and the direction the profession and academe is moving, I speculate that social responsiveness and design activism will be inextricably linked to design education and an important part of our future curricular discussions. Further research will be necessary to definitively situate design activism as a permanent fixture in design curricula.
136
Bibliography
Ambrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Architecture for Humanity (Ed.). (2006). Design like you give a damn: Architectural responses to humanitarian crises. New York, NY: Metropolis Books.
Beck, E., Drenttel, W., & Lasky, J. (2009, November 11). Aspen design summit report: Hale County rural poverty project. Change Observer: Design Observer. Retrieved from http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/feature/aspen- design-summit-report-hale-county-rural-poverty-project/11927/
Bell, B. (2004). Good deeds, good design: Community service through architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Bell, B., & Wakeford, K. (2008). Expanding architecture: Design as activism. New York: Metropolis Books.
Benyus, J. M. (2002). Biomimicry innovation inspired by nature. New York: Harper Perennial.
Berberet, J. (2002). Nurturing an ethos of community engagement: Scholarship in the postmodern era. In Scholarship in the postmodern era: New venues, new values, new visions (p. 90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berger, W. (2009). Glimmer: How design can transform your life, and maybe even the world. New York: Penguin Press.
Berman, D. B. (2008). Do good design: How designers can save the world. Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.
Brookfield, S. (1990). The skillful teacher : On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: HarperCollins.
Bruce Mau Design, OWP/P Architects, & VS Furniture. (2010). The third teacher: 79 ways you can use design to transform teaching & learning. New York: Abrams.
Canniffe, B., & Wiley, B. (2011). Designing in and for communities: Breaking Institutional Barriers and Engaging Students in Meaningful and Relavent Projects. ICERI Proceedings, 2557-2563.
137
Dean, A. O., & Hursley, T. (2002). Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and an architecture of decency. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Design Accord. (2009). Integrating sustainability into design education. The Designers Accord | Integrating Sustainability into Design Education: The Toolkit. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://edutoolkit.designersaccord.org/
Dewey, J., & Dworkin, M. S. (1964). (John) Dewey on education: Selections with an introd. and notes by Martin S. Dworkin. New York: Teachers College Pr.
Edge, J. T. (2010, October 10). POP-UP COMMUNITY CENTER; Pie Design = Change. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/magazine/10pielab-t.html?_r=1
Fast Company, & Tischler, L. (2011). The United States of Design 2011 | Fast Company. FastCompany.com. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/design/2011/masters-of-design
Fisher, B. M. (2011). Feminist Pedagogy. In B. Bank (Ed.), Gender and higher education (pp. 203-210). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foth, M., & Axup, J. (2006). Participatory Design and Action Research: Identical Twins or Synergistic Pair? In Proceedings Participatory Design Conference 2006. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
Freear, A. (2010). On being: An Architecture of Decency [Interview by K. Tippett, Transcript]. In On Being. American Public Media.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Freire, P., Freire, A. M., & Macedo, D. P. (2001). The Paulo Freire reader. New York: Continuum.
Guellerin, C. (n.d.). Design Education and Globalization : The New Deal (Part I). Christian Guellerin — Free Opinion about Design Education. Retrieved January 13, 2011, from http://christianguellerin.lecolededesign.com/2009/04/16/design-education- and-globalisation-the-new-deal-part-i/
Hill, D. (2012, March). Building for Social Change. Architectural Record. Retrieved from http://archrecord.construction.com/features/humanitarianDesign/Building-for- Social-Change.asp
Holman, W. (2012, January). Lessons from the Front Lines of Social Design. Arcosanti, Rural Studio, YouthBuild: On the Front Lines of Social Design: Places: Design Observer. Retrieved May 05, 2012, from http://places.designobserver.com/feature/lessons-from-the-front-lines-of- social-design/31998/
Hooks, B. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.
138
Institute Without Boundaries. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.institutewithoutboundaries.com/
Lees-Maffei, G. (Ed.). (n.d.). Reflections on Design Activism and Social Change, Design History Society Annual Conference, September 7–10, 2011, Barcelona. Retrieved June, 2012, from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DESI_r_00147
Manzini, E., & Rizzo, F. (2011). Small projects/large changes: Participatory design as an open participated process. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 7(3), 4th ser., 199-215.
Massive Change In Action. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.massivechangeinaction.virtualmuseum.ca/results.php
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Melles, G., de, V. I., & Misic, V. (September 01, 2011). Socially responsible design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line to socially responsive and sustainable product design. Codesign, 7.
Melsop, S., Gill, C., & Chan, P. (n.d.). Re-envisioning a Design Curriculum. Conference Proceedings, 2010 DesignEd Asia Conference.
Milford, B. (2009, October 4). Design as a Differentiator —. Design and Branding Blog | BrandFreeze. Retrieved October 05, 2009, from http://brandfreeze.com/design- as-a-differentiator/
Monson, C. (2005). Practical discourse: Learning and the ethical construction of environmental design practice. Ethics, Place & Environment, 8(2), 181-200.
Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship new models of sustainable social change. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Ohio State University Service-Learning Inititative. (n.d.). OSU Service-Learning Initiative. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://service-learning.osu.edu/
Papanek, V. J. (1972). Design for the real world human ecology and social change. New York: Pantheon Books.
Parish, B., & Aujla, D. (2012). Making good: Finding meaning, money, and community in a changing world. [Emmaus, Pa.]: Rodale.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Riverhead Books.
139
Putting people first. (n.d.). Experientia, International Experience Design Consultancy. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.experientia.com/blog/
Rawsthorn, A. (2006, September 10). A Visual Campaign for Change in Guatemala. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/style/10iht-design11.html
Rural Studio Glass Chapel/Masons Bend Community Center. (2012). Forrest Fulton Architecture. Retrieved May 05, 2012, from http://forrestfulton.com/masons- bend-community-center/
Sanders, L. (2006). Design research: From market-driven era to user centered innovation (L. De Rossi, Ed.). Master New Media. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.masternewmedia.org/interface_and_navigation_design/design- research/state-of-design-research-from-market-driven-era-to-user-centered- innovation-MakeTools-Liz-Sanders-20071019.htm
Sanders, L. (2006). Design serving people. Cumulus Working Papers, 28-33. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
Sanders, L. (2008). On Modeling: An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions - Designing Games: Why and How, 15(6), 13.
Sanders, L., & Van Patter, G. (2003). Science in the making: Understanding generative research now! NextD Journal: ReReThinking Design, (5.1).
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York, NY: Wiley.
Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: Paths to strategic insight for yourself and your company. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Service-learning course listing. (n.d.). Service-learning initiative. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://service-learning.osu.edu/
Shea, A. (2012). Designing for social change: Strategies for community-based graphic design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Simmons, C. (2011). Just design: Socially conscious design for critical causes. Cincinnati, OH: How Books.
Sinclair, C., & Stohr, K. (2006). Design like you give a damn: Architectural responses to humanitarian crises. London: Thames & Hudson.
Socially Responsible : Design Is History. (n.d.). Design Is History. Retrieved April 06, 2012, from http://www.designishistory.com/design/socially-responsible/
Stir Symposium. (2012). Stir Symposium. OH: The Ohio State University Department of Design.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
140
Tanzer, K., & Longoria, R. (2007). The green braid: Towards an architecture of ecology, economy, and equity. London: Routledge.
Thackara, J. (2005). In the bubble: Designing in a complex world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The Women's Place, The Ohio State University. (2008). Status report on women [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved March 03, 2012, from http://womensplace.osu.edu/assets/files/Status_Report_08.pdf
Thorpe, A. (2007). The designer's atlas of sustainability. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Valian, V. (2000). Schemas that explain behavior. In ASHE Reader: Women in American Higher Education (Second ed., pp. 22-33). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Whiteley, N. (1993). Design for society. London: Reaktion Books.
141
Appendix A: Design Feast Design Activism List
http://www.designfeast.com/design-activism
61 Unite For Children “60 artists and designers from the whole wide world gather together through a book dedicated to UNICEF's actions. The totality of the profit concerning the book's sell will be given to UNICEF.” Added November 4, 2007
Architects / Designers / Planners for Social Responsibility!“ADPSR has a sixteen year history of educating design professionals and the public about critical social and environmental issues. Although established with a disarmament focus, during the last nine years ADPSR has expanded its concerns to include the protection of the natural and built environment, and the promotion of ecologically and socially responsible development” Added February 9, 2003
Architects For Peace “A humanitarian, not for profit professional organisation for architects, urban designers, engineers, planners, landscape architects and environmentalists, seeking urban development based on social justice, solidarity, respect and peace.” Added March 8, 2008
Bloggers Unite “An initiative designed to harness the power of the blogosphere to make the world a better place.” Added January 5, 2008
DESIGN 21: Social Design Network “Mission is to inspire social activism through design. We connect people who want to explore ways design can positively impact our many worlds, and who want to create change here, now.” Added February 3, 2008
Designers Without Borders “For designers, by designers. We are here to give artists like us opportunities to create, to promote themselves and to better society by contributing designs for apparel that can be purchased on our site. A portion of the proceeds from each item sold will go to a charity of the buyer's choosing. A cause for design, plain and simple.” Added December 11, 2007
Designgive “For designers, by designers. We are here to give artists like us opportunities to create, to promote themselves and to better society by contributing designs for apparel that can be purchased on our site. A portion of the proceeds from each item sold will go to a charity of the buyer's choosing. A cause for design, plain and simple.” Added December 28, 2007
142
Dutch Design in Development “A matchmaking platform between professional Dutch designers and on the other hand exporting companies (and design academies) in developing countries.” Added February 6, 2008
Earth Architecture “Dedicated to exploring ideas about better living in modernist family homes that are affordable, efficient, healthy, environmentally responsible and available today.” Added January 26, 2008
Future House Now “Dedicated to exploring ideas about better living in modernist family homes that are affordable, efficient, healthy, environmentally responsible and available today.” Added January 26, 2008
Goodness500.org “idea lab + blog for dreamers who are doers” Added December 18, 2009
Groundswell Blog “Dedicated to clever and innovative trends of art and design in activism.” Added February 3, 2008
InSTEDD “An innovation lab for technologies designed to improve early disease detection and rapid disaster response.” Added February 5, 2008
Lets Evo “An innovation platform focused on Ideas that surround design, collaborative strategies and technologies that help shape our surroundings.” Added February 5, 2008
One Laptop per Child “The mission of OLPC is to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school- age child.” Added January 5, 2008
OrangeTree Project “An open-source food-activism project in which you may already by participating. To place unwanted leftovers, typically in a doggie bag, on top of the nearest trash can so they don't go to waste.” Added December 28, 2007
Project H Design “An open-source food-activism project in which you may already by participating. To place unwanted leftovers, typically in a doggie bag, on top of the nearest trash can so they don't go to waste.” Added November 1, 2008
Replate “An open-source food-activism project in which you may already by participating. To place unwanted leftovers, typically in a doggie bag, on top of the nearest trash can so they don't go to waste.” Added November 11, 2007
SocialDesignSite.com “A non-profit organisation that aims to foster a discourse
143
on social design through our international online platform and the organization of and participation in projects, exhibitions, conferences, lectures, etc.” Added April 18, 2008
The Designers Accord “A coalition of design and innovation firms focused on working together to create positive environmental and social impact.” Added January 23, 2008
The Open Architecture Network “An online, open source community dedicated to improving living conditions through innovative and sustainable design.” Added December 11, 2007
Working Proof “Besides showcasing emerging artists and great artwork, the intent of the Working Proof is to promote a variety of charities and to expose them to new supporters through the appreciation of art and creativity.” Added June 27, 2010
Worldstudio Foundation “A not-for-profit organization whose primary goals are to stimulate, coalesce and channel social activism in the design and fine arts industries; to encourage discussion of the fields' ethical assumptions; to promote professional practices sensitive to ecological and humane issues; and to expand the global consciousness of individual artists, architects, designers, and the businesses they serve.” Added September 19, 2001
Architecture 2030 “Our goal is straightforward: to achieve a dramatic reduction in the global-warming-causing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Building Sector by changing the way buildings and developments are planned, designed and constructed.” Added February 5, 2008
FLOWmarket “Designed to inspire consumers to think, live and consume more holistic.” Added March 22, 2008
Green Patriot Posters “Posters for energy independence and the fight against climate change” Added August 1, 2008
River Project “With the Danube River Project, German artist Andreas Müller- Pohle has focused on Europe's most important river, which he has portrayed above and below the water line, using photography, video and sound recording complemented by scientific analyses of water samples taken from the river. After completion of the Danube project, the focus will be on specific city/river environments and river deltas outside Europe. This site is intended to serve as an interface between those projects and the public.” Added March 1, 2009
Superfund365 “An online data visualization application with an accompanying RSS-feed and email alert system. Each day for a year, starting on September 1, 2007, Superfund365 will visit one toxic site currently active in the Superfund
144
program run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” Added August 1, 2008
The Canary Project “Produces art and media that deepen public understanding of human-induced climate change and energize commitment to solutions.” Added October 2, 2011
The Design Studio for Social Intervention “DS4SI is a space for artists, activists, academics and other social interventionists to reframe, reimagine, and reinvigorate the possibilities of the non-profit sector.” Added January 1, 2009
The Story of Stuff “A 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world.” Added December 17, 2007
The Virtual Water project “Based on the data gathered by Hoeckstra et al. in their study 'Water Footprint of Nations' German designer Timm Kekeritz created this double-sided poster. One side visualizes the water footprint of selected nations, emphasizing the im- and export of virtual water. The other side shows the virtual water content of selected foods and commodities.” Added June 10, 2008
19.20.21.org “A multi-year, multimedia initiative to collect, organize and package information on population's effect regarding urban and business planning and its impact on consumers around the world.” Added January 20, 2008
Camp Firebelly “Intensive collaboration with an awesome nonprofit client to address a social justice issue, strategize + design the solution and see it all the way through to print.” Added July 1, 2008
Change Observer’s Resources “Regularly updated organizations, opportunities, and events related to social change” Added October 18, 2009
Creative For A Cause “This site is a collaborative resource for educators of Visual Communications who wish to instruct their students on the importance of adopting a social and ethical approach to their work.” Added June 1, 2008
Design Can Change “Design can change is simple. It works on the belief that our industry can make positive change by working together. Use this resource as a starting point to help bring our community together to encourage sustainable practices.” Added June 9, 2007 everything is ok “A kind of social design experiment in subversive positivism” Added June 1, 2009
145
Global Voices “Seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online—shining light on places and people other media often ignore.” Added February 5, 2008
Making Public Policy “Center for Urban Pedadagogy's new series of fold-out posters uses innovative graphic design to explore and explain public policy. Making Policy Public is published twice a year, and each poster is the product of a commissioned collaboration between a designer and an advocate.” Added June 1, 2008
Once Upon A School “Dave Eggers' TED wish to 'find a way to directly engage with a public school in your area and that you'll then tell the story of how you got involved, so that within one year we have 1,000 examples of innovative public- private partnerships.” Added March 29, 2008
Osocio “Dedicated to social advertising and non-profit campaigns. It's the place where marketing and activism collide. Formerly known as the Houtlust Blog, Osocio is the central online hub for advertisers, ad agencies, grassroots, activists, social entrepreneurs, and good Samaritans from around the globe.” Added July 1, 2009
Pangea Day “Taps the power of film to strengthen tolerance and compassion while uniting millions of people to build a better future.” Added February 10, 2008
Power To The Poster “A graphic design democracy project.” Added August 2, 2009
Responsible Design 101 “Hopes to infuse environment, ethics and economics into design conversations and consideration. This site is just the tip of the melting iceberg—a springboard to learning more, sharing best practices and finding inspiration and innovation in and out of the design community.” Added February 1, 2009
Stock Exchange of Visions “Platform for the world leading artists, sociologists, activists, scientists and others to share their visions about the future of our planet with a broad public and let them decide if either they agree up on their thoughts or not.” Added March 7, 2010
The Feast Conference “Gathers the world's greatest innovators from across industries and society to empower, inspire and engage each other in creating world- shaking change.” Added July 1, 2009
The Polling Place Photo Project “A nationwide experiment in citizen journalism that seeks to empower citizens to capture, post and share photographs of democracy in action.” Added December 31, 2007
146
Things I have learned in my life so far “What have you learned in your life so far? What is it that you are fairly sure about? What is it that you believe in by now?” Added February 23, 2008
Visualizing Information “An Introduction to Information Design: "A booklet I wrote and designed to introduce advocacy organizations to basic principles and techniques of information design.” Added March 1, 2008 Organizations
Architecture for Humanity “A volunteer non-profit organization founded for the promotion of architectural and design solutions to global, social and humanitarian problems.” Added May 21, 2002
147
Appendix B: Timeline of Events
Retrieved and compiled from: (Shea, 2011; Simmons, 2011; Thorpe, 2012)
1930s and 1940s 1933 Bauhaus / social potential of design 1930s Bucky Fuller Dymaxion car and house 1930-1950 Schindler’s shelters: low cost, pre fabricated housing
1950s 1949/50s Buckminster Fuller geodesic domes 1950s “Barrier free” Movement - response to disabled veterans
1960s 1960s Situationists International, Superstudio, etc. start (Group) 1960s Walter Segal Self-build system 1965 Intermediate Tech. Development Group (Appropriate Technology) 1966 Drop City Community founded 1968 Whole Earth, Stewart Brand Environment 1969 Design with Nature by Ian McHarg 1968-69 Community Design Center founded 1969 B. Fuller gets “humanist of the year”
1970s 1970s Co-Evolution Quarterly 1970 First Things First Manifesto 1970 Cosanti Foundation began building 1970s Arcosanti, an experimental town 1971 Design for the Real World,Papanek 1973 AIA Energy committee, founded 1975 Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems 1977 Soft Energy Paths by Amory Lovins 1977 A Pattern Language by Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein 1979 Passive Solar Energy Book, Mazria
1980s 1981 Arch/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility & Environment 1981 One of the first sustainable design champions in architecture, Bob Berkibile 1982 Founding of the Rocky Mountain Institute by Amory and Hunter Lovins 1984 Redesigning the American Dream
1990s 1990 AIA Committee on the Environment 1993 Founding of the USGBC 1993 Design for Society, Nigel Whitely 1996 Ecological Design by Sim van Der Ryn and Stewart Cowan 1997 Formalization of eco design
148
1996-97 exhibitions of recycled material 1993 Women in Design section founded at IDSA 1999 Design and Feminism Joan Rothschild, ed 1996 Architecture and Feminism 1993 Rural Studio 1993 Congress for the New Urbanism 1999 Design Corps, US community focus 1999 The Glass-House Trust begins 1999 Architecture for Humanity 1999 Architects Without Frontiers/Borders 1998 Ecosa Institute
2000s 2000s Humanitarian/Social Design or Design for Social Impact becomes used 2000, Conference: Structures for Inclusion 1 organized by Design Corps 2001 Designers without Borders 2002 Public Architecture 2002 Architecture 2030: getting to zero carbon emission buildings by 2030 2002 Cradle to Cradle By William McDonough & Michael Braungart 2003 Design that Matters 2003 UK Council begins work on design-led solutions to social problems 2003 Project M 2004 Article 25 (formerly architects for aid) 2004 [Re]design, UK 2005 projectOPEN 2005 One + 1: Mentor program promotion 2005 The 1%, Public Architecture’s initiative to professionalize pro bono work 2005 SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design), US 2005 Biomimicry Institute, US 2005 Goldsmiths, University of London: Center for Architectural Research 2006 The 1% User Manual: A booklet for Nonprofit Org’s and Architects 2006 Everything is OK Tape 2006 Manchester Architecture Research Center, University of Manchester 2006 “Ecodesign” category added to IDSA 2007 Reason to Give: Helping Neighbors in Need 2006 EcoLabs (developed ecoliteracy teach-in for designers in London 2009) 2007 The Buckminster Fuller Challenge for $100,000 2007 Impact Teen Drivers Awareness Campaign 2007 Designers Accord originally climate driven, now expanded 2008 Stories of the City: Community through Graphic Interventions 2008 Curry Stone Prize - $100,000 for design emphasizing social good 2008 Project H Design 2008 Safari 7: New York City’s Ecosystems 2008 Conference: A better world by design 2008 Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio conference on design for social impact 2008 Change Observer blog (funded by Rockefeller for initial two years) 2008 SEED Foundation social enterprise and design, UK 2008 “Mapping Design Activism” Leeds 2008 AIGA Get out the Vote Posters 2008 Green Patriot Posters 2009 CareS Mobile Safety Center
149
2009 No Hooks before Books 2009 Leeds Festival of Design Activism 2009 TU Delft Chair in Politics and Design 2009 Es Tiempo: Cervical Cancer Awareness 2009 DESIS: Design for Social Innovation Towards Sustainability 2009 Keys for the City: Music and Arts Awareness 2009 Living Building Challenge launched by Cascadia USGBC 2009 Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for Sustainable World 2009 PieLab 2009 Made in Midtown: Exposing the Garmet District 2009 Project Winterfood 2009 The Importance of Dialogue: Predatory Lending 2009 A Book by Its Cover: Reading Stereotypes 2009 Pentagram Cigarette Packaging Campaign 2010 Fair Food Fight Campaign 2010 buildON Passport Campaign for youth to become better global citizens 2010 Vendor Power! Empowering NYC’s street vendors 2010 Pecans! Teaching teens business skills and marketing 2010 Red Flag Campaign for the VSDVAA 2010 IDEO.org, social design offshoot 2010 Wet Work: Murals on Chicago’s [mis]use of water 2010 Hawthorne Community Center 2010 Austin Center for Design, educating designers for social enterprise 2011 Walk in My Shoes: Promoting At-risk Youth Performances 2011 REALM Charter School Graphics
150
Appendix C: Architectural Record, “The Good List” http://archrecord.construction.com/features/humanitarianDesign/The-Good- List/
BaSiC Initiative is a collaboration of faculty and students from Portland State University and the University of Texas at Austin, which deploys students to work on community-based projects around the world. For information:www.basicinitiative.org
The Building Project at Yale University, now in its fifth decade, partners first- year graduate students with nonprofit housing organizations, including Common Ground and Habitat for Humanity. For information: www.architecture.yale.edu/
The Carl Small Town Center at Mississippi State University, which is also several decades old, works with rural communities on policy, research, planning, and, ultimately, design projects. For information:www.carlsmalltowncenter.org
Detroit Collaborative Design Center at the University of Detroit-Mercy focuses on neighborhood development, facilitating collaboration among residents, community organizations, local government, and private developers. For information:http://arch.udmercy.edu
The Gulf Coast Community Design Studio (GCCDS), another outreach program of Mississippi State University, was born out of the need to rebuild housing and other community amenities in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The GCCDS engages local government, nonprofit organizations, nearby universities, private developers, and other partners. For information: www.gccds.org
The Howard S. Wright Neighborhood Design/Build Studio is a flagship program of the University of Washington Department of Architecture. In operation for nearly 25 years, students partner on design/build projects for Seattle-area nonprofits, gaining hands-on experience and interaction with clients, communities, and public agencies. For information: http://courses.be.washington.edu/ARCH/hswdesignbuild/index.html
The Rural Studio, Auburn University’s acclaimed design/build program has transformed and raised expectations within Alabama’s Hale County over the past two decades, with its projects growing in size, scope, quantity, and quality. The Rural Studio’s Outreach Program welcomes students and graduates from outside Auburn University, culminating in a certificate. For information: www.ruralstudio.org
151
Studio 804 at the University of Kansas focuses on research, design, and development of sustainably designed structures, including single-family homes and other urban amenities. It engages students to build a single structure per year, either for a specific client or on spec for sale. For information: www.studio804.com
The Tulane City Center at Tulane University in New Orleans hosts the School of Architecture’s applied urban research and outreach programs. The City Center was established in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, to aid in rebuilding and recovery. Much of its work involves community design/build projects, including single-family homes and other urban amenities. For information: www.tulanecitycenter.org
The University of Arkansas Community Design Center focuses on community and creative development in rural and urban areas of Arkansas, through education, research, and design. For information:http://uacdc.uark.edu
152
Appendix D: Interdisciplinary Service-Learning Models
Interdisciplinary Service-Learning Models
Source: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse www.service-learning.org http://www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/fact_sheets/he_facts/interdiscip linary
“The interdisciplinary service-learning models described below were identified through a review of publications and websites, and through a request posted to the service-learning in higher education email discussion list managed by the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. This list is intended to provide a wide range of examples, including curricular, co-curricular and student-led models.”
Portland State University (PSU) has been recognized nationally for implementing a campus-wide engagement strategy that includes interdisciplinary service-learning activities. In senior capstone courses, interdisciplinary teams of students apply what they have learned in their previous courses to community-identified concerns. Each 6-credit, community- based learning course is designed by a PSU faculty member to provide students with the opportunity to apply, in an team context, what they have learned in their major and in their other courses to a real challenge emanating from the metropolitan community. Interdisciplinary teams of students address these real challenges and produce a summation product under the instruction of a PSU faculty member. Each capstone's purpose is to further enhance student learning while cultivating crucial life abilities that are important both academically and professionally: establishing connections within the larger community, developing strategies for analyzing and addressing problems, and working with others trained in fields different from one's own. For more information: http://www.pdx.edu/cae/cbl-capstone-resources
Evergreen State College has developed "the five foci" of Evergreen's pedagogy and curriculum: interdisciplinary study, personal engagement in learning, linking theory and practice, collaborative work, and teaching across significant differences. These foci are advanced through community-based learning. For example, the College supports ongoing interdisciplinary service- learning partnerships with local organizations focusing on fair trade, locally and globally, and on understanding and strengthening connections between Puget Sound-based efforts and groups throughout the Pacific Rim. For more information: http://www.evergreen.edu/dtf/communitylearning/home.htm
Ohio State University. The Scholarship and Service Teams in the University Neighborhood project at Ohio State University form community partnerships to enhance student learning and civic development across 18 colleges while improving the success of community partners in achieving identified
153
goals. Funded by a Learn and Serve America: Higher Education grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service, the project emphasizes the following elements: a focus on community goals, intentional design by interdisciplinary/community teams, and regular and long-term support for the community.
Fifteen teams (five per year for each of three years) comprised of faculty from more than one discipline, community/resident representatives, and students define projects that address community goals and include a variety of approaches, including service-learning courses, student/faculty/community research, and volunteer service activities. The work of teams and community/course partnerships is bolstered by a summer institute that provides training and technical assistance on best practices. Teams remain intact for the duration of the project and until the identified community goal is accomplished.
An example of a team project is Pulling Our Own Strings: Puppets, Diversity, and Service-Learning in Partnership. The project is a collaboration of faculty in psychology, theatre, and English with a middle school and represents an ongoing collaboration between OSU Marion and the Marion Schools. The project responds to growing numbers of new immigrants and minority and class issues result in pressures that exacerbate conflicts over "difference." Middle school students learn to write scripts, make puppets, and put on shows that address appreciation for diversity and training in conflict resolution. OSU students in psychology assess middle school students' stereotypes, prejudices and inter-group attitudes. Issues identified in the assessment are used by students in theatre to help the middle school students create diverse puppets, scripts, rehearsals, and performances. The middle school students will mount puppet shows for peers and elementary school students, helping students to find positive ways to deal with conflict and to embrace differences. The project is being recorded and reported by OSU students in English. For more information: http://service-learning.osu.edu/aboutus.php
Kennesaw State University. The Maya Heritage Community Project , an interdisciplinary service-learning project, is a joint effort among Kennesaw State University (KSU) faculty members and students in history, human services, nursing, education, criminal justice, communications, international studies, and foreign language to serve the Mayan immigrant community in Northeast Georgia. There are approximately 2500 Mayans living and working in the area. They bring with them a rich historical and ethnic culture as well as many social, economic, legal and emotional needs. The goals of the project are: To conduct an assessment of the Mayan immigrant population by students and faculty To offer training sessions to the Mayan immigrant population by faculty and community experts such as educators, lawyers, etc. To offer service-learning opportunities for the students at KSU To create a network of appropriate community services for the Latino Immigrant population in the northeast Georgia area To educate students about the Mayan culture Students, faculty and community partners have a number of different roles in the project. Students are involved in service-learning projects. Faculty conduct research, supervise students, conduct training programs, write grants and educate the public. Maya community members conduct workshops and
154
festivals for the students and faculty, meet with the Maya Heritage Project members to analyze the program and conduct a national conference for Mayan immigrants. Community agency partners offer training, services, service- learning sites, and attend project meetings For more information: Contact Alan LeBaron, Professor of History, [email protected] or Anne Hicks-Coolick, Associate Professor of Human Services, [email protected]
Elmhurst College. The Glen Hill Project is an interdisciplinary service- learning project that involves Elmhurst College students and faculty from the Departments of Education, Music, Foreign Languages and Kinesiology. The project, a partnership between Elmhurst College and Glen Hill School , is designed to alleviate bullying, expand musical experiences, and increase literacy and English skills among at-risk students in Glen Hill School, and engage Elmhurst students and faculty in "melding Service and Intellect" in the "real world." For more information: Contact Michael P. Savage. Director of Service Learning Program, Associate Professor of Kinesiology, Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, Illinois, [email protected]
Purdue University. Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) is an interdisciplinary service-learning program that was initiated at Purdue University in the fall of 1995 (Coyle 2005). EPICS is a unique program in which teams of undergraduates are designing, building, and deploying real systems to solve engineering-based problems for local community service and education organizations. The teams are: multidisciplinary - drawing students from across engineering and around the university; vertically-integrated - maintaining a mix of freshman through seniors each semester; and long-term - each student participates in a project for up to seven semesters. The continuity, technical depth, and disciplinary breadth of these teams enable delivery of projects of significant benefit to the community.
The goals of the EPICS program include: providing students with multi-year, team-based, design and development experience; teaching students, by direct experience, how to interact with each other and with customers to specify, design, develop and deploy systems that solve real problems. Non-engineering students, including those in liberal arts fields, also participate in EPICS.
In the 2003-2004 academic year, over 400 Purdue students from 20 different departments participated on 25 multidisciplinary teams. Over 2000 Purdue students have participated in EPICS to date. Each team has a multi-year partnership with a community service or education organization. Projects are in four broad areas: human services, access and abilities, education and outreach, and the environment. Purdue EPICS teams have delivered over 150 projects to their community partners.
Each team of 8 to 18 students includes freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Teams are advised by Purdue faculty, staff, and engineers from local industry, along with graduate teaching assistants. Students earn 1 or 2 academic credits each semester and may register for up to four years. Projects may last several years, so tasks of significant size and impact can be tackled.
EPICS students gain long-term define-design-build-test-deploy-support
155
experience, communication skills, experience on multidisciplinary teams, and leadership and project management skills. They gain an awareness of professional ethics, the role of the customer in engineering design, and the role that engineering can play in the community. Community organizations gain access to technology and expertise that would normally be prohibitively expensive, giving them the potential to improve their quality of service or to provide new services. For more information: https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICS/
University of Nebraska at Omaha. The university's interdisciplinary service-learning project involved faculty members from four academic departments (Spanish, Social Work, Communication, and Construction Engineering Technology) and 80 students who completed 4 major projects to advance the work of a single community agency providing an array of services to facilitate clients movement from homelessness to home ownership (Sather 2005). Students enrolled in a Survey of Spanish Literature course translated agency marketing and case management documents from English to Spanish to serve the growing Spanish speaking population served by the agency. The social work students enrolled in a Generalist Practice II course assisted in the development of grant to create a mural on the agency building to more clearly identify the services offered by the agency in a visual form that would be more culturally relevant to neighborhood residents and created a case management system to provide an intake and service delivery record that would be less cumbersome to staff and clients. The students engaged in a Construction Engineering Technology course on Personnel and Supervisory Methods planned and managed the rehabilitation of 2 homes owned by the agency for use as future rental properties. The rehabilitation efforts, known as Seven Days of Service, occurred over the University Spring Break and involved more than 200 student volunteers. Journalism students taking a course on Principles of Public Relations created a public relations campaign for the agency as well as the Seven Days of Service project while also serving as representatives of the Spring Break project to the substantial number of media outlets which provided coverage of the event. For more information: Contact Paul Sather, [email protected] or visit http://www.unomaha.edu/servicelearning/
Pennsylvania State University. Community-Built Sustainable Housing is a service-learning course that provides an interdisciplinary and hands-on experience in the application of a sustainable building technology and community-built construction methods to address housing shortages in disadvantaged communities. The course is taught by a faculty team from architecture, architectural engineering, landscape architecture, and community design.
This 3-part course examines how sustainable building methods including strawbale construction can be utilized to improve the poor living conditions common on American Indian reservations.
During part 1, students examine the physical and cultural environment in which a strawbale structure will be designed and constructed. During part 2, students s pend two weeks on location in Montana assisting with the construction of a strawbale structure. During part 3, students document and reflect upon this experience and make constructive recommendations for
156
future research on housing programs for American Indian tribes in the Northern Plains.
The course objectives include the following: Students will examine the known properties of strawbales as a building material in terms of their mechanical properties, architectural applications, and site planning implications. Students will work collaboratively with multiple disciplines to develop architectural, engineering, and site design concepts for a strawbale building project and then participate in the construction of the building on an American Indian reservation. Students will gain hands-on experience in interdisciplinary team problem solving, the application of participatory design concepts and the construction of a building on an Indian reservation For more information: http://www.engr.psu.edu/greenbuild/pdf/297.497_outline.pdf or http://www.engr.psu.edu/greenbuild/
State University of New York at Stony Brook. SUNY-Stony Brook's interdisciplinary minor in community service learning is open to all undergraduates who wish to add a service learning dimension to their academic experience. The program is designed to use the special educational and research opportunities available at Stony Brook to create citizens with the depth of commitment to community service that the 21st century demands. Acquisition of skills and knowledge is combined with a fostering of appreciation by students of their role as citizens both in the University and in the surrounding communities. The learning arena is extended into the community by addressing local social issues. After completion of academic course work, student interns are partnered and assigned to work in specific communities to address community concerns. Completion of the minor requires 23 credits. Required courses include: The Nature of Community, Methods for Social Action Research, Directed Research in Community Service, Community Service-Learning Internship and Senior Seminar in Community Service Learning. For more information: Carrie-Ann Miller, [email protected]. Indiana University. The Calnali Health Education Outreach International Service Learning Project began in October 1998. A group of first and second year medical students from the Indiana University School of Medicine, a nurse and a pediatrician traveled to Calnali , Mexico in January 1999 to conduct a community assessment; provide direct medical care to the children of the town and surrounding villages; and evaluate the health care education program in a local Calnali school. A faculty member form the school of dentistry traveled with the group that time, in order to assess if dental students could be incorporated into this effort.
In six years, the project has evolved to include an interdisciplinary team comprised of medical, nurse practitioner, and dental students along with faculty advisors from each school. Pediatric, pediatric dentistry and optometry residents have also joined the group. More than 100 students and faculty have participated since 1998. Previously, the majority of the five-day stay in Calnali was devoted to clinical care, but since 2001 the week has been divided equally between clinical time and workshops taught by project members in order to foster a long-term impact on the community. The medical team has
157
concentrated on preventive health education with limited direct clinical services. Topics have included alcoholism, hygiene, teen pregnancy, and smoking. The team has presented this health education information to various groups in the community and surrounding villages with the help of the local students. The dental team has primarily provided preventive services including fluoride applications, sealants, restorative, and limited periodontal work using field equipment. They have also collected useful data on water quality, numbers of patients served and for what reasons and most recently performed a small needs assessment and conducted a study on caries prevalence and risk factors. They have also partnered with an organization in Mexico City dedicated to health education to help provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services.
Project goals include the following: To provide a valuable cultural and linguistic competence curriculum to medical, dental, and nursing students, residents and faculty that will prepare them for both the project in Calnali and for daily encounters with the growing Latino population seeking medical care in Indianapolis.
To provide a quality health education curriculum to the community with the help of local Calnali health care students and providers, concentrating on public health issues which affect the pediatric and adult populations in the town and surrounding villages. To provide clinical experience to the professional students of the outreach program and also to the local health care students through direct medical care to the population of Calnali and surrounding villages. To empower local community groups and students to continue education regarding health promotion and disease prevention. To partner with providers and organizations in Mexico to better provide culturally and linguistically effective education and services to the residents of Calnali. To eventually fund a health provider from the area to provide constant health care for acute problems, to manage chronic problems, to provide treatment plans that are affordable, and to provide support for ongoing health education and disease prevention projects. For more information: Sarah M. Stelzner, [email protected]
University of New Mexico. The university's Rural Health Interdisciplinary Program (RHIP) interdisciplinary service-learning program began in 1991 with funding from the federal Health Resources and Services Administration's Quentin N. Burdick Interdisciplinary Program. The program's goals are: To assist health professional students to develop positive attitudes and skills for interdisciplinary practice To encourage health professional students to choose healthcare practice in rural and underserved communities RHIP works with approximately 100 undergraduate and graduate students every year from the following health professional degree programs: dental hygiene, public health, medical laboratory sciences, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, physician assistant, respiratory therapy, social work, and speech/language pathology.
Students spend three months in the spring in interdisciplinary teams (typically 8-12 students plus two faculty members) using problem-based learning (PBL)
158
to develop interdisciplinary skills, competence and confidence. Students write and facilitate most of their own PBL cases. Subsequently, during two months in the summer, the student teams live and work in rural New Mexican communities. They complete clinical rotations and spend about 4 hours per week as an interdisciplinary team doing some type of community-based service learning health project. These projects have included health fairs, health screenings, youth mentoring, and/or health education.
A full-time Program Manager and a.5 FTE Program Director provide staff support for the program. An Interdisciplinary Faculty Steering Committee meets weekly and maintains ongoing relationships with Community Coordinators in every rural community where students are placed. For more information: Betsy VanLeit, Assistant Professor and Director, Rural Health Interdisciplinary Program, 505-272-3441 [email protected] Eastern Carolina University. The university's Interdisciplinary Rural Health Project began in 1993 and has evolved over time to include students in health education, medicine, nursing, nutrition, pharmacy, and social work who engage in interdisciplinary service-learning in a community health/migrant health clinic in rural North Carolina. Researchers evaluated the effort in 1998 and noted that the educational strategies and curriculum evolved significantly with community input (Lilley et al., 1998). A follow-up study showed that the program enhanced student learning, strengthened the infrastructure and commitment of the university for decentralized education, and led to the development of team-based care paths and changes in the attitudes of providers regarding interdisciplinary collaboration (Holmes, 1999, Hager, 2002). For more information: http://www.ecu.edu/oihse/IRHTP.htm
The Health Professions Schools in Service to the Nation Program, funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service and The Pew Charitable Trusts was a national demonstration project that supported interdisciplinary service-learning in 17 health professionals schools from 1994-1998 (Seifer 1997; Gelmon 1998). While not a requirement, many of the participating universities found that service-learning provided a natural framework for developing interdisciplinary experiences for students (Connors 1996). Links to published case studies on these interdisciplinary programs are listed in the reference section of this fact sheet. Below is a description of one of these programs. For more information: http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pastprojects.html
George Washington University & George Mason University. The Interdisciplinary Student Community-Oriented Prevention Enhancement Service (ISCOPES) is an interdisciplinary service-learning program resulting from a collaborative effort between George Washington University (GWU) in Washington , DC and George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax , VA. (Horak 1998). The program began in April 1995 under a grant from the Health Professions School in Service to the Nation Program. The project initially involved first and second year medical, physician assistant, and nurse practitioner students but has evolved to also include health services management and policy students, physical therapy students and graduate public health students. Interdisciplinary student teams work with a wide range of community-based organizations in the Washington , DC area to identify health needs and assets and to design and implement health education and
159
health promotion activities. Populations served by these organizations include preschool children; immigrants; senior citizens; homeless men, women ,and children; school-based children, the underinsured, uninsured, and underserved.
Each team of students is supervised by a university preceptor and a community preceptor. Student activities range from conducting asthma management classes, performing needs assessments for Head Start participants, and developing and implementing health promotion activities for seniors. Curriculum modules include community-oriented primary care, interdisciplinary teams, functioning as a team, continuous quality improvement and cultural competency. Students are required to spend a minimum of six hours per month on the program. This allows two hours for team meetings, two hours for studying the curriculum, and two hours for working on a team project.
Learning objectives of the ISCOPES program include: Appreciate and describe the roles of different members of the interdisciplinary team, including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physicians, community health workers, nurses, public health specialists, physical therapists, and administrators Describe literature-based models of interdisciplinary team practice and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each model as it relates to care in the community-based setting Identify characteristics of collaborative practice as outlined in the literature Identify barriers, both real and perceived, to collaborative practice Utilize tools for assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation of team processes. For more information: http://www.gwumc.gwu.edu/sphhs/institutescenters/iscopes.cfm andhttp://depts.washington.edu/ccph/servicelearningres.html#Interdisciplin ary
160
Appendix F: Proposed Steps to “Good” Design, According to Mau
(Listing of Bruce Mau’s Incomplete Manifesto for Growth, from Massive Change)
Allow events to change you. You have to be willing to grow. Growth is different from something that happens to you. You produce it. You live it. The prerequisites for growth: the openness to experience events and the willingness to be changed by them.
Forget about good. Good is a known quantity. Good is what we all agree on. Growth is not necessarily good. Growth is an exploration of unlit recesses that may or may not yield to our research. As long as you stick to good you’ll never have real growth.
Process is more important than outcome. When the outcome drives the process we will only ever go to where we’ve already been. If process drives outcome we may not know where we’re going, but we will know we want to be there.
Love your experiments (as you would an ugly child). Joy is the engine of growth. Exploit the liberty in casting your work as beautiful experiments, iterations, attempts, trials, and errors. Take the long view and allow yourself the fun of failure every day.
Go deep. The deeper you go the more likely you will discover something of value.
Capture accidents. The wrong answer is the right answer in search of a different question. Collect wrong answers as part of the process. Ask different questions.
Study. A studio is a place of study. Use the necessity of production as an excuse to study. Everyone will benefit.
Drift. Allow yourself to wander aimlessly. Explore adjacencies. Lack judgment. Postpone criticism.
Begin anywhere. John Cage tells us that not knowing where to begin is a common form of paralysis. His advice: begin anywhere.
Everyone is a leader. Growth happens. Whenever it does, allow it to emerge. Learn to follow when it
161
makes sense. Let anyone lead.
Harvest ideas. Edit applications. Ideas need a dynamic, fluid, generous environment to sustain life. Applications, on the other hand, benefit from critical rigor. Produce a high ratio of ideas to applications.
Keep moving. The market and its operations have a tendency to reinforce success. Resist it. Allow failure and migration to be part of your practice.
Slow down. Desynchronize from standard time frames and surprising opportunities may present themselves.
Don’t be cool. Cool is conservative fear dressed in black. Free yourself from limits of this sort.
Ask stupid questions. Growth is fueled by desire and innocence. Assess the answer, not the question. Imagine learning throughout your life at the rate of an infant.
Collaborate. The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential.
______. Intentionally left blank. Allow space for the ideas you haven’t had yet, and for the ideas of others.
Stay up late. Strange things happen when you’ve gone too far, been up too long, worked too hard, and you’re separated from the rest of the world.
Work the metaphor. Every object has the capacity to stand for something other than what is apparent. Work on what it stands for.
Be careful to take risks. Time is genetic. Today is the child of yesterday and the parent of tomorrow. The work you produce today will create your future.
Repeat yourself. If you like it, do it again. If you don’t like it, do it again.
Make your own tools. Hybridize your tools in order to build unique things. Even simple tools that are your own can yield entirely new avenues of exploration. Remember, tools amplify our capacities, so even a small tool can make a big difference.
Stand on someone’s shoulders.
162
You can travel farther carried on the accomplishments of those who came before you. And the view is so much better.
Avoid software. The problem with software is that everyone has it.
Don’t clean your desk. You might find something in the morning that you can’t see tonight.
Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you.
Read only left-hand pages. Marshall McLuhan did this. By decreasing the amount of information, we leave room for what he called our "noodle."
Make new words. Expand the lexicon. The new conditions demand a new way of thinking. The thinking demands new forms of expression. The expression generates new conditions.
Think with your mind. Forget technology. Creativity is not device-dependent.
Organization = Liberty. Real innovation in design, or any other field, happens in context. That context is usually some form of cooperatively managed enterprise. Frank Gehry, for instance, is only able to realize Bilbao because his studio can deliver it on budget. The myth of a split between "creatives" and "suits" is what Leonard Cohen calls a ‘charming artifact of the past.’
Don’t borrow money. Once again, Frank Gehry’s advice. By maintaining financial control, we maintain creative control. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it’s surprising how hard it is to maintain this discipline, and how many have failed.
Listen carefully. Every collaborator who enters our orbit brings with him or her a world more strange and complex than any we could ever hope to imagine. By listening to the details and the subtlety of their needs, desires, or ambitions, we fold their world onto our own. Neither party will ever be the same.
Take field trips. The bandwidth of the world is greater than that of your TV set, or the Internet, or even a totally immersive, interactive, dynamically rendered, object-oriented, real-time, computer graphic–simulated environment.
Make mistakes faster. This isn’t my idea — I borrowed it. I think it belongs to Andy Grove.
Imitate. Don’t be shy about it. Try to get as close as you can. You’ll never get all the way, and the separation might be truly remarkable. We have only to look to Richard
163
Hamilton and his version of Marcel Duchamp’s large glass to see how rich, discredited, and underused imitation is as a technique.
Scat. When you forget the words, do what Ella did: make up something else … but not words.
Break it, stretch it, bend it, crush it, crack it, fold it.
Explore the other edge. Great liberty exists when we avoid trying to run with the technological pack. We can’t find the leading edge because it’s trampled underfoot. Try using old- tech equipment made obsolete by an economic cycle but still rich with potential.
Coffee breaks, cab rides, green rooms. Real growth often happens outside of where we intend it to, in the interstitial spaces — what Dr. Seuss calls "the waiting place." Hans Ulrich Obrist once organized a science and art conference with all of the infrastructure of a conference — the parties, chats, lunches, airport arrivals — but with no actual conference. Apparently it was hugely successful and spawned many ongoing collaborations.
Avoid fields. Jump fences. Disciplinary boundaries and regulatory regimes are attempts to control the wilding of creative life. They are often understandable efforts to order what are manifold, complex, evolutionary processes. Our job is to jump the fences and cross the fields.
Laugh. People visiting the studio often comment on how much we laugh. Since I’ve become aware of this, I use it as a barometer of how comfortably we are expressing ourselves.
Remember. Growth is only possible as a product of history. Without memory, innovation is merely novelty. History gives growth a direction. But a memory is never perfect. Every memory is a degraded or composite image of a previous moment or event. That’s what makes us aware of its quality as a past and not a present. It means that every memory is new, a partial construct different from its source, and, as such, a potential for growth itself.
Power to the people. Play can only happen when people feel they have control over their lives. We can’t be free agents if we’re not free.
164
Appendix G: Proposed Steps to “Good” Design, According to Shea
(Listing of Andrew Shea’s Strategies for Community-based Graphic Design, from Designing for Social Change)
• Immerse Yourself • Build Trust • Promise Only What you can Deliver • Prioritize Process • Confront Controversy • Identify the Community’s Strengths • Utilize Local Resources • Design with the Community’s Voice • Give Communities Ownership • Sustained Engagement
165