Blog Re: Educate
By Jon Kolko - October 20, 2010
It would appear that we’ve arrived: design has emerged as the discrete discipline of problem solving and cultural change, and the designerly ability described by Nigel Cross in 1995 as “a distinct form of intelligence” is now considered with some degree of respect in disciplines such as the sciences or the liberal arts.
That’s good, as a disciplinary acceptance of design work would imply that:
- Designers could spend less time justifying what we do and why we do it, and more time actually doing it
- Designers could work alongside and with other disciplines, rather than working instead of other disciplines (or being excluded by other disciplines)
- Designers could begin to further differentiate and structure nuances of specialty, allowing for a more impactful depth of practice and a larger degree of impact
- A larger “we” could benefit from a broader view of problems and opportunities, approaching issues from a multiplicity of perspectives simultaneously
Yet these statements aren’t necessary true, and as I traveled between three significantly different groups of thinkers at three different conferences, I interpreted a few trends as an indication of some of the largest “next steps” we face in achieving the above. I’ve summarized a few of these here.
