Design Thinking Pedagogy Facilitating Innovation and Impact in Tertiary Education 9780367438593, 9781032279831, 9781003006176

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Expert Sidebars
Foreword by Lina Markauskaite and Peter Goodyear
Preface
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Contextual Background
1.2 The Emergence of Design Thinking
1.3 Reshaping the Boundaries of Design Education
1.3.1 Disciplinarity of Design Thinking Education
1.4 Contextualising Design Thinking Pedagogy
1.4.1 The Purpose of Design Thinking Pedagogy: Soft Skills and Their Importance for the Future of Work
1.5 Purpose and Perspectives
1.6 Overview
Chapter 2: Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy
2.1 Design Practice and the Design Profession
2.1.1 Discourses Around Design Thinking
2.1.2 Design Thinking Education Landscape
2.2 Principles and Practices of Design Thinking Pedagogy
2.2.1 Design Thinking Attributes
2.2.2 Boundary Objects
2.2.3 Processes and Methods
2.2.4 Design Expertise
2.2.5 Design Facilitation
2.2.6 Design Problem Complexity
2.3 Theoretical Learning Foundations in Design Thinking Education
2.3.1 Experiential Learning Theory
2.3.2 Knowledge Creation: Inquiry and Application
2.3.3 The Reflective Practitioner
2.4 The Design Thinking Pedagogy Framework
Chapter 3: Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency
3.1 Contextualising Design Within Intra-, Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinarity
3.2 The T-Shaped Designer
3.3 Global Snapshot of Design Thinking Undergraduate Programs
3.3.1 University-Wide Minors and Majors
3.3.2 Combined Bachelor’s Degrees
3.3.3 Cross-Faculty Labs
3.3.4 Multidisciplinary Design Degrees
3.4 Undergraduate Design Thinking Pedagogy
3.5 Summary
Chapter 4: Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education
4.1 The Nexus of Design Practice, Postgraduate Education and Research
4.2 Global Snapshot of Design Thinking Postgraduate Coursework Programs
4.2.1 Innovation, Strategy, and Management Master’s Programs
4.2.2 Design for Transformation Master’s Programs
4.3 Postgraduate Coursework Design Thinking Pedagogy
4.4 Case Study: HDR Design Catalysts
4.5 Higher Degree Research Design Thinking Pedagogy
4.6 Summary
Chapter 5: Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education
5.1 Everyone as a Design Thinker, Design Thinking for Everyone
Part I: Digital Design Thinking Education
5.2 Teaching Design Thinking Online and in a Digital Environment
5.3 Global Snapshot of Digital Design Thinking Courses
5.4 Digital Design Thinking Pedagogy
5.4.1 Boundary Objects
5.4.2 Reflective Expert Facilitator
5.4.3 Knowledge Offering
5.4.4 Learning Outcomes Versus Educational Engagement
5.4.5 Student Experience
Part II: Professional Design Thinking Education
5.5 Bespoke Training in Design Thinking
5.6 Government Initiatives and Professional Training
5.7 Case Study: Edgy Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force
5.8 Professional Design Thinking Pedagogy
5.8.1 Engagement Through Applied Activities
5.8.2 Facilitator Expertise
5.8.3 Relevancy to Context and Problem Set
5.8.4 Intuitive Boundary Objects
5.9 Summary
Chapter 6: Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning
6.1 The Relationship Between Design Thinking Pedagogy, Education Ecosystems, and Learning Ecologies
6.2 Designing Education Ecosystems
6.3 Case Study: TAFE NSW
6.4 Designing an Ecology of Learning
6.5 Case Study: Designing Learning Experiences in the Australian Defence Force
6.6 Design Thinking Pedagogy Ecosystem and Ecology Framework
6.7 Summary
Chapter 7: Conclusion
7.1 Epistemic Fluency and the Disciplinarity of Design Thinking Education
7.2 Design Thinking Pedagogy Framework Revisited
7.2.1 Design Thinking Process Foundation
7.2.2 Reflective Facilitator
7.2.3 Reflective Facilitator – Active Learner
7.2.4 Active Learner
7.3 The Future of Design Thinking Education
7.3.1 Accreditation and Standards in the Field
7.3.2 The Teacher as the Reflective Facilitator
7.3.3 The Student as the Active Learner
7.4 Future Initiatives
7.5 Final Thoughts
Appendix A: Design Thinking Pedagogy Description and Definition
Appendix B: Related Publications
Appendix C: About the Expert Sidebars
References
Index

Citation preview

DESIGN THINKING PEDAGOGY

The problems facing society today are complex, multifaceted, and require crossing multiple disciplinary boundaries. As such, these problems call for interdisciplinary collaboration, including new and different combinations of skills and knowledge. Currently, tertiary education providers are not well-positioned to develop these interdisciplinary capabilities at a rate commensurate with the speed of contemporary change. This book places design thinking as the catalyst to create change in the tertiary education sector and to build interdisciplinary skill sets that are required for the graduate of the future. By presenting a series of case studies and drawing on global experts in the field, this book investigates pedagogical approaches, disciplinary facilitation practice, curriculum integration, and a framework for understanding design thinking pedagogy within tertiary education. Focusing on how educational institutions can produce innovative graduates with the ability to traverse disciplinary constraints, this book will be essential reading for research students, academics, and industry practitioners. Cara Wrigley is a professor of design innovation at The University of Queensland and director of the Design Innovation Research Lab (DiLab). Cara leads a team of design researchers on projects spanning education, health care, science, business, and defence, crossing interdisciplinary boundaries. Cara has published extensively on the application and adoption of design, which has been disseminated through a number of books, including Design Innovation and Integration (2021, BIS Publishers, co-authored with Karla Straker and Erez Nusem), Design Innovation for Health and Medicine (2020, Palgrave Macmillan, co-authored with Karla Straker and Erez Nusem), and Affected: Emotionally Engaging Customers in the Digital Age (2018, Wiley, co-authored with Karla Straker). Cara has more than 80 refereed papers in outlets such as Design Issues, Journal of Cleaner Production, Energy Policy, California Management Review, ASAIO Journal, and Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. She is the editor-inchief of the Journal of Design, Business & Society. Cara holds extensive experience

in curriculum development and delivery. During her time at The University of Sydney she developed and delivered a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on Design Innovation (2018), rolled out a university-wide Design Major (2018), and launched the Master of Design Innovation and Strategic Design (2019) program. She is passionate about providing positive student and supervisor experiences and has presented at a number of universities on the topic of academic development and PhD supervision. She has advised colleagues and higher degree students on developing efficient and successful ways to collaborate, building professional networks, and working with industry partners. Genevieve Mosely is a research fellow at the Design Innovation Research Lab (DiLab) and a PhD candidate at The University of Queensland. Genevieve’s research focuses on design education as well as the application of design thinking to help capture new value through better understanding users and their needs. She has practical experience working in partnership with industry, including the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian Defence College, and TAFE NSW, employing design innovation methods to help gain and sustain competitive advantage. She has published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals including Thinking Skills and Creativity, The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, The Australian Educational Researcher, and She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Her PhD research utilises a qualitative approach to contribute to current discourse on design practice, through specifically drawing attention to design facilitation. Genevieve holds a unique combination of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in architecture and education, which have been drawn upon in the development of this book.

DESIGN THINKING PEDAGOGY Facilitating Innovation and Impact in Tertiary Education

Cara Wrigley and Genevieve Mosely

Cover image: Joshua Neale – Love Letters Studio First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Cara Wrigley and Genevieve Mosely The right of Cara Wrigley and Genevieve Mosely to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-43859-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-27983-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-00617-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176 Typeset in Bembo by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

CONTENTS

List of Figures ix List of Tables xi List of Expert Sidebars xii Foreword by Lina Markauskaite and Peter Goodyear xiii Prefacexvi Acknowledgementsxviii 1 Introduction 1.1 Contextual Background  1 1.2 The Emergence of Design Thinking  6 1.3 Reshaping the Boundaries of Design Education  9 1.3.1 Disciplinarity of Design Thinking Education  11 1.4 Contextualising Design Thinking Pedagogy  15 1.4.1 The Purpose of Design Thinking Pedagogy: Soft Skills and Their Importance for the Future of Work  19 1.5 Purpose and Perspectives  26 1.6 Overview 27 2 Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy 2.1 Design Practice and the Design Profession  30 2.1.1 Discourses Around Design Thinking  31 2.1.2 Design Thinking Education Landscape  32 2.2 Principles and Practices of Design Thinking Pedagogy  37 2.2.1 Design Thinking Attributes  37 2.2.2 Boundary Objects  37

1

30

vi  Contents

2.2.3 Processes and Methods  39 2.2.4 Design Expertise  41 2.2.5 Design Facilitation  44 2.2.6 Design Problem Complexity  45 2.3 Theoretical Learning Foundations in Design Thinking Education  46 2.3.1 Experiential Learning Theory  46 2.3.2 Knowledge Creation: Inquiry and Application  48 2.3.3 The Reflective Practitioner  49 2.4 The Design Thinking Pedagogy Framework  51 3 Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency 3.1 Contextualising Design Within Intra-, Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinarity  54 3.2 The T-Shaped Designer  55 3.3 Global Snapshot of Design Thinking Undergraduate Programs  58 3.3.1 University-Wide Minors and Majors  59 3.3.2 Combined Bachelor’s Degrees  66 3.3.3 Cross-Faculty Labs  68 3.3.4 Multidisciplinary Design Degrees  69 3.4 Undergraduate Design Thinking Pedagogy  73 3.5 Summary 79 4 Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education 4.1 The Nexus of Design Practice, Postgraduate Education and Research  80 4.2 Global Snapshot of Design Thinking Postgraduate Coursework Programs  84 4.2.1 Innovation, Strategy, and Management Master’s Programs  85 4.2.2 Design for Transformation Master’s Programs  85 4.3 Postgraduate Coursework Design Thinking Pedagogy  96 4.4 Case Study: HDR Design Catalysts  106 4.5 Higher Degree Research Design Thinking Pedagogy  111 4.6 Summary 114 5 Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education 5.1 Everyone as a Design Thinker, Design Thinking for Everyone  115

54

80

115

Contents  vii

Part I  Digital Design Thinking Education  117 5.2 Teaching Design Thinking Online and in a Digital Environment 117 5.3 Global Snapshot of Digital Design Thinking Courses  118 5.4 Digital Design Thinking Pedagogy  118 5.4.1 Boundary Objects  123 5.4.2 Reflective Expert Facilitator  124 5.4.3 Knowledge Offering  125 5.4.4 Learning Outcomes Versus Educational Engagement 125 5.4.5 Student Experience  126 Part II  Professional Design Thinking Education   130 5.5 Bespoke Training in Design Thinking  130 5.6 Government Initiatives and Professional Training  131 5.7 Case Study: Edgy Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force  132 5.8 Professional Design Thinking Pedagogy  140 5.8.1 Engagement Through Applied Activities  140 5.8.2 Facilitator Expertise  141 5.8.3 Relevancy to Context and Problem Set  142 5.8.4 Intuitive Boundary Objects  142 5.9 Summary 145 6 Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning 6.1 The Relationship Between Design Thinking Pedagogy, Education Ecosystems, and Learning Ecologies  146 6.2 Designing Education Ecosystems  147 6.3 Case Study:TAFE NSW  148 6.4 Designing an Ecology of Learning  159 6.5 Case Study: Designing Learning Experiences in the Australian Defence Force  159 6.6 Design Thinking Pedagogy Ecosystem and Ecology Framework  167 6.7 Summary 167 7 Conclusion 7.1 Epistemic Fluency and the Disciplinarity of Design Thinking Education  169 7.2 Design Thinking Pedagogy Framework Revisited  173 7.2.1 Design Thinking Process Foundation  173

146

169

viii  Contents

7.2.2 Reflective Facilitator  175 7.2.3 Reflective Facilitator – Active Learner  178 7.2.4 Active Learner  179 7.3 The Future of Design Thinking Education  183 7.3.1 Accreditation and Standards in the Field  183 7.3.2 The Teacher as the Reflective Facilitator  184 7.3.3 The Student as the Active Learner  185 7.4 Future Initiatives  187 7.5 Final Thoughts  188 Appendix A  Design Thinking Pedagogy Description and Definition 190 Appendix B  Related Publications 194 Appendix C  About the Expert Sidebars 195 References201 Index215

FIGURES

1.1 The design bridge binding creativity and innovation together 1.2 Disciplinary models, circles represent the interaction between disciplines (adapted from Jensenius, 2012) 1.3 Disciplinary models of design thinking pedagogy 1.4 Educational design ladder (redrawn from Wrigley & Straker, 2017) 2.1 Typical Stanford d.school design thinking process (d.school Stanford University, n.d.) 2.2 UK Design Council’s double diamond design process (Design Council, 2019) 2.3 The cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) 2.4 Foundations of design thinking knowledge: Paradigms of inquiry and application (Owen, 2007) 2.5 Schön’s reflective practitioner theory (Schön, 1983) 2.6 Design thinking pedagogy framework 3.1 The T-shaped design professional (Brown, 2010) 3.2 The T-shaped design thinkers 3.3 Different configurations of T-shaped design thinkers 4.1 Relationship between design practice, education, and research (synthesised from McCoy, 1990) 4.2 Relationship between design practice and design education 4.3 ID&BM program structure 4.4 HDR design catalyst relationship between research and practice (Adapted from Wrigley et al., 2021) 4.5 HDR design catalyst cohort engaging in a seminar discussion 4.6 Relationship between design practice and design research 5.1 Edgy Air Force base visit 5.2 Defence by design framework (Wrigley et al., 2021) 5.3 Defence by design at Australian War College

12 12 14 19 40 41 47 49 50 51 56 57 74 81 84 95 107 108 111 134 135 139

x  Figures

5.4 Defence by design boundary object in use at Australian War College 143 6.1 Relationship between design thinking pedagogy, education ecosystems, and learning ecologies 147 6.2 TAFE NSW ecosystem 149 6.3 TAFE NSW design thinking process 150 6.4 Public providers existing model (as published in Mosely, Wrigley, & Key, 2021) 151 6.5 Value proposition mapping of educator providers by typology (as published in Mosely, Wrigley, & Key, 2021) 152 6.6 TAFE NSW future business model presentation 153 6.7 Future teacher co-design workshop using bespoke boundary objects 154 6.8 Public providers future model (as published in Mosely, Wrigley, & Key, 2021) 154 6.9 Facilitators Guide project design thinking process 161 6.10 Defence educational design ladder (Australian War College, 2020) 162 6.11 Co-design workshop developing Facilitators Guide content 163 6.12 The Facilitators Guide to Learning book 164 6.13 Facilitators Guide being used in the ADC 165 6.14 Design thinking education ecosystem and ecology pedagogy framework 168 7.1 Design thinking disciplinary pedagogies 172 7.2 Design thinking pedagogy framework foundation 173 7.3 Design thinking pedagogy framework – the reflective facilitator 176 7.4 Design thinking pedagogy framework – the reflective facilitator – active learner 178 7.5 T-shaped design thinking students 187

TABLES

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Top 10 cited “design thinking” publications in Google Scholar Key contributors to design thinking 1965–2013 Definitions of disciplinary models Foundational skills for the future citizen developed through design thinking education Design thinking attribute models, 2007–2019 Design expertise levels Design expertise models Underpinning theory for design thinking pedagogy Design thinking pedagogy framework breakdown Snapshot of design thinking undergraduate programs worldwide Undergraduate design thinking pedagogy implications Global snapshot of innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs Snapshot of design transformation programs Postgraduate coursework design thinking pedagogy implications Design catalyst capabilities (Straker et al., 2021, p. 160) Higher degree research design thinking pedagogy implications Summary snapshot of global digital design thinking courses Design thinking online learning resources Digital design thinking pedagogy implications Professional design thinking implications

3 7 13 21 38 42 43 47 53 60 77 86 89 98 107 113 119 124 126 144

EXPERT SIDEBARS

1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1

Professor Cees de Bont Dr Gjoko Muratovski Dr Karla Straker Dr Sylvia Lui Professor Andy Dong, Sara Fenske Bahat, and Nathan Shedroff Dr Judy Matthews Professor Jeanne Liedtka Dr Murray Simons Tom Key Professor Lorraine Justice

23 33 70 93 99 108 128 136 156 180

FOREWORD

Professor Lina Markauskaite and Professor Peter Goodyear Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation,The University of Sydney Lina Markauskaite is a professor of learning sciences at The University of Sydney, Australia. Lina has published more than 100 refereed papers and three books. Her most recent projects have been mainly concerned with understanding the nature of knowledge work in the professions through analysing the capacities needed to solve novel, complex problems. Peter Goodyear is a professor of education at The University of Sydney and was founding co-director of the University’s Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation. Peter is one of the most well-recognised authors in the field of education design and has been carrying out research in this space since the 1980s. He is an Australian Laureate Fellow and has published 13 books and over 150 journal articles and book chapters. Lina and Peter have been jointly working on projects investigating professional education, design for learning, knowledgeable action, innovation, and epistemic fluency for the past 10 years. Their most recent collaboration with design seeks to map interdisciplinary expertise through learning how to co-create knowledge across disciplines. Championing course and curriculum innovation in today’s universities can be a risky and challenging enterprise. Overworked academics are understandably cautious: course approval processes may be slow and uncertain. Additionally, creating

xiv  Foreword

new educational resources, writing new lectures, and designing good assessment tasks all consume scarce time and energy, and students may be reluctant to try new things. Yet it’s patently clear that large-scale educational renewal is necessary, not least to help our graduates rise to the challenges entailed by what Ezio Manzini (2015) calls “the great transition” – the processes through which humanity adjusts to living equitably within planetary limits, while simultaneously appreciating, strengthening, and building upon human connections. Practices of social innovation are at the heart of this – the practices through which new ideas, products, services, models, frameworks, and so on are created, and which meet social needs and create new social relationships. In earlier work, we have argued for more serious attention to be given to the capabilities that people use when they are collaborating with others to find better ways of living: jointly creating better services or improving local working practices, for example. When neither the nature and causes of problems, nor the shape of candidate solutions, are obvious, progress with shared tasks of this kind involves careful inquiry. Such inquiry may be needed in order to clarify the nature and origins of a local problem, to find specific opportunities for change, and to spot constraints. It may also be needed in order to find and agree upon more general knowledge that can be applied to the problem at hand. And inquiry may be needed in order to uncover and build a consensus around sources of value. The design theorists, Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman (2014), describe these as inquiries into what is real, what is true, and what is ideal. Working with others to combine these areas and forms of knowledge, these diverse ways of knowing, and to make progress on the design of innovative products and services demands epistemic fluency: a facility with knowledge work that recognises but transcends disciplinary boundaries (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). In this book, Cara Wrigley and Genevieve Mosely make productive use of what we have written about epistemic fluency and epistemic resourcefulness to review pedagogical approaches and ideas that help educate people in design thinking. As they argue, design thinking is no longer the preserve of professional designers. It has a role to play in many areas of work and community life. It is intimately connected to innovation, and designers often must work in interdisciplinary groups, championing the development of projects that extend beyond the imagination and capabilities of individuals. Some may argue that there is not much that is unique about design thinking. As Kripendorff (2021) puts it, “design is fundamental to being human” (p. 333). It is an indispensable human right. However, human rights are not so much what we value but the human capabilities and opportunities needed to achieve these values (Sen, 1999). There is also no shortage of literature on design thinking, including how to embrace it in creating innovative products, services, networks, and other projects. However, not much has been said about how people actually become skilful at innovation design and, most importantly, how to teach these skills well and at scale. The current generation has the right and also the obligation to play a role in designing sustainable and collaboratively attainable futures. For this, university teachers need a much better understanding of how design thinking can be taught.

Foreword  xv

And first, they need language to talk about how to teach it. To champion design thinking in today’s universities is itself a risky and challenging enterprise. Design thinking is both over-sold and under-sold. It can be offered as a panacea and its spirit and purpose can be diluted to the point where it loses all power. This book avoids these dangers. It retains a sense of the scope, complexity, and importance of design thinking, it offers a pedagogical language for talking about its teaching, and it treats with due seriousness the careful work that is needed to induct people into the ways of design.

References Krippendorff, K. (2021). Design discourse. In T. Schwer, & K.Vöckler (Ed.), Der Offenbacher Ansatz: Zur Theorie der Produktsprache (pp. 333–341). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. doi:10.14361/9783839455692-024. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf.

PREFACE

Today, innovation is unanimously seen as a competitive differentiator across sectors, necessary for future jobs and economic growth. As a result, education is beginning to adapt to develop individuals who have a mix of capabilities, particularly an interdisciplinary knowledge base and skill set. In light of this, design thinking is increasingly recognised as a broader approach to promote and facilitate innovation. Although the adoption of design thinking across many contexts (including business and management, information technology, law and policy, to name a few) has received a great deal of critical attention, an investigation of the pedagogical approach and adoption of design thinking within the tertiary sector and beyond is yet to be extensively explored. This book presents the role of design in, and the value it contributes to, the tertiary education sector found at the nexus of innovation, industry, and impact. The book investigates pedagogical approaches, disciplinary facilitation practice and curriculum integration, and establishes a framework for understanding design thinking pedagogy within tertiary education to create the entrepreneurial graduates of the future. By drawing on concepts from the learning sciences, this book presents an extended analysis of design thinking pedagogy, what it is, how it is applied, and its relationship to education research and practice. Additionally, this book discusses the importance of design education research for impact and explores how this research informs new knowledge and practice, to be fed back into the classroom and teaching practices. The book provides a deeper conceptual understanding of how design thinking pedagogy traverses disciplinary constraints across different levels of tertiary education and beyond. The book explores the often overlooked and under-researched topic of design thinking implementation across undergraduate (university-wide minors and majors), postgraduate (master’s degrees both research and coursework related and

Preface  xvii

doctoral programs), in addition to free online courses offered worldwide and corporate education programs. By drawing on case studies and perspectives from diverse experts within the field, this book aims to bridge the academic–industry divide to help design thinking educators develop individuals with true interdisciplinary capability, who are better equipped to solve the complex – and wicked – problems facing society today.

Genevieve Mosely & Cara Wrigley

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our colleagues at the Design Innovation Research Lab at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, for their support and feedback during the development of this manuscript, particularly Dr Karla Straker and Dr  Judy Matthews. Our thanks also go to Professor Lina Markauskaite and Professor Peter Goodyear for their ongoing support during the creation of this manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge Dr Kathryn Grushka and Associate Professor Jess Harris from The University of Newcastle, Dr Natalie Wright from the Queensland University of Technology, and Dr Erez Nusem from The University of Sydney for providing us with the motivation and inspiration for embarking on such an ambitious project.We also thank retired Major General Mick Ryan. The graphics and diagrams in this manuscript were developed by the authors, and the illustrations were reproduced digitally by Joshua Neale of Love Letter Studios. We wish to also thank our editors, Genevieve Farrell and Dr Michael Mosely, for their meticulous attention to detail. And, as a personal note, we extend our thanks to our loving and supportive partners, Mon and Tom, for their understanding during the many hours spent writing this manuscript. We are very grateful to the academic staff involved in establishing, creating, and running the design education courses that we examined in this book – their hard work and dedication have continually crafted the evolution of the design field. Moreover, the expertise that they so generously shared with us has made this book what it is, and we are extremely appreciative of their collegiality and drive to make the student experience better. We are also very thankful for all the students whom we have had the privilege to teach and mentor over the years and who have gone on to do amazing things around the world. Additionally, we are extremely grateful to the experts featured throughout the chapters of this book for generously offering their knowledgeable

Acknowledgements  xix

and experienced perspectives to contribute to the discussion on design thinking pedagogy: Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

Professor Cees de Bont, Loughborough University Dr Gjoko Muratovski, University of Cincinnati Dr Karla Straker, The University of Queensland Dr Sylvia Lui, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Professor Andy Dong, Oregon State University Sara Fenske Bahat, California College of the Arts Nathan Shedroff, California College of the Arts Dr Judy Matthews, Queensland University of Technology Chapter 5 Professor Jeanne Liedtka, University of Virginia Dr Murray Simons, Australian War College Chapter 6 Tom Key, TAFE NSW Chapter 7 Professor Lorraine Justice, Rochester Institute of Technology Even though funding was not directly associated with this research output, multiple research projects and the learnings from them have been the impetus for this book. We are appreciative of the support of the ARC Discovery Project DP200100376, Mapping Interdisciplinary Expertise: Learning to Co-Create Knowledge Across Disciplinary Boundaries in Laboratories And Courses, awarded to Professor Lina Markauskaite, Professor Peter Goodyear, and Professor Cara Wrigley, and we are very pleased to acknowledge the subsequent financial support from the NSW Department of Education Strategic Research Fund Leveraging Grant, Developing Teachers Interdisciplinary Expertise, awarded to Professor Lina Markauskaite, Professor Peter Goodyear, and Professor Cara Wrigley. Additionally, the Jericho Smart Sensing Laboratory, Royal Australian Air Force research project at The University of Sydney Nano Institute led by Professor Ben Eggleton and Professor Cara Wrigley We also wish to acknowledge the team for their collaborations and efforts during the engagement with the Royal Australian Air Force. Only through these opportunities and collaborators could we develop such a vast, in-depth, and rigorous study through all layers of tertiary design thinking education.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Contextual Background As the year 2020 has shown, the unpredictability of the 21st century has created a context that for many of us is unprecedented. Rapid advances in technology have radically changed how we live and work. Globalisation and our ability to cross continents easily has seen the world open (and close) in new ways and has enabled pandemics of new proportions, driving an amplified rate of change and ambiguity about the future. It is well recognised that professional work is changing, and these uncertain times have caused destruction across all sectors: businesses have closed their doors overnight, millions of people have become unemployed, industries have had to pivot to remain relevant, and education has moved online. In response to these complex challenges and unprecedented contexts, 21st century skills have been established as vital for individuals to succeed in the emergent knowledge-driven economy (Dede, 2010).The complex problems that we now face not only sit within discipline silos but also transcend disciplinary bounds, requiring collaborative inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to problem-­solving. These collaborations require continual interactions between individuals from diverse disciplinary backgrounds, necessitating an ability to work across disciplinary and knowledge boundaries using new methods, skills, and approaches. Design thinking is one approach through which this interdisciplinary collaboration can be undertaken and has been proposed as an avenue through which to build 21st century skills. Understanding the foundational knowledge of design thinking is not complex, although learning its methods, skills, and approaches can hold some complications. Implementing these approaches in real-world contexts to solve difficult, complex problems, however, is challenging and requires practical experience, expertise, experimentation, and no fear of failure. A lack of inter- and transdisciplinary

DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-1

2  Introduction

expertise to apply such design thinking methods creates severe challenges for innovation teams and limits progress. Despite the importance of this inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge, many tertiary education graduates lack the ability to transition beyond their subject expertise and engage in interdisciplinary problem-solving. Understanding the expertise needed (Reimann & Markauskaite, 2018), and the pedagogy required, to develop these capabilities and attributes in graduates is a challenge facing education providers globally.To address these challenges across the tertiary education sector, there has been a rise over the last 5–10 years in interdisciplinary education programs, including cross-faculty design programs, that are intended to develop students’ capabilities for productive problem-solving and collaborative teamwork with people from different disciplinary backgrounds using design thinking as the core. These programs seek to encourage students to “think outside the box” with an entrepreneurial mindset and challenge assumptions about things. Many programs aim not to create professional designers, but rather only to complement the credentials of students’ core degrees with an abductive thinking style such as design (Rodgers & Bremner, 2017). Design thinking is commonly known as a human-centred approach to problem-solving with the goal to create innovative products, services, environments, processes, and organisations. However, there are many definitions of design thinking within the literature. A popular mainstream definition of design thinking is “a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity” (Brown, 2008, p. 86). Here, Brown (2008) advocates, as does Buchanan (1992), for design thinking as a discipline in its own right, compared to other definitions that describe design thinking as a cultural philosophy, relying on one’s “ability to be intuitive, to recognize patterns, to construct ideas that have emotional meaning as well as being functional, and to express ourselves in media other than words or symbols” (Brown & Wyatt, 2010, p. 33). The top 10 most commonly cited publications when searching “design thinking” as ranked by Google Scholar are outlined in Table 1.1. The authors of these publications range from designers to engineers, to business and management consultants. Tim Brown is the most well-cited authority, with his popular press article, released in the Harvard Business Review in 2008, titled “Design Thinking”. This article is not based on an academic or theoretical perspective of the field; rather, it is one that is driven by industry and is representative of the uptake of design thinking in industry and organisations globally. Richard Buchanan’s (1992) publication “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, on the other hand, the second most highly cited publication, draws upon the work of John Dewey and Herbert Simon to present design thinking and wicked problems from a highly theoretical perspective. We are of the view that as Brown (2008) speaks to more of an applied research agenda, conversing with people from all fields, Buchanan (1992) is far more important for the future development of the discipline. The majority of these top 10 authors have a disciplinary background in design; however, as the professional career of Buchanan illustrates, many have had portions

TABLE 1.1 Top 10 cited “design thinking” publications in Google Scholara

#

Citations

Author/s

Year

Title

Publication

Disciplinary Background

Perspective

1

5,486

Brown

(2008)

Design Thinking

Design

Practice driven

2

4,230

Buchanan

(1992)

Design

3

2,924

(2005)

4

2,223

Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, and Leifer Martin

Journal of Engineering Education Harvard Business Review Press

Engineering design Business/ Management

Theoretically driven Theoretically driven Practice driven

5

1,929

Rowe

(1987)

Wicked Problems in Design Thinking Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning The Design of Business:Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage Design Thinking

Harvard Business Review Design Issues

The MIT Press

Architecture

6

1,800

Brown and Wyatt

(2010)

Design

7

1,604

Cross

(2011)

Stanford Social Innovation Review Berg Publishers

8

1,472

Dorst

(2011)

Design Studies

Design

9

1,016

Dunne and Martin

(2006)

Business/ Management

10

929

Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, and Çetinkaya

(2013)

Academy of Management Learning & Education Creativity and Innovation Management

As of May 2021.

Design Thinking for Social Innovation Design thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work The Core of “Design Thinking” and its Application Design Thinking and How it Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures

Design

Business/ Management

Theoretically driven Practice driven Theoretically driven Theoretically driven Practice driven

Theoretically driven

Introduction  3

a

(2009)

4  Introduction

of their careers in other disciplinary homes. Richard Buchanan was originally the head of Carnegie Mellon University School of Design and is now a professor of design and innovation in the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. Unlike Buchanan, who has a design background and became a dean of a business school, Ulla Johansson-Sköldberg, the lead author of the 10th most cited publication, has a background in business and management. Johansson Sköldberg, however, went on to establish the Business and Design Lab at the University of Gothenburg, later becoming a professor in design management. Her most recent research explores artistic interventions and the arts being integrated into organisations (Johansson Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Berthoin Antal, 2015). This cross-pollination of areas of knowledge is what has developed design thinking’s unique ability to facilitate the crossing of disciplinary boundaries. However, this table also shows that popular press publications are shaping the majority of the discourse around design thinking, while the theoretical foundations of the field are often overlooked. To facilitate this boundary crossing, we suggest that design can help bridge siloed disciplines within tertiary education contexts. We define tertiary education as engaging in any form of education after compulsory education, including bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees, vocational education and training, massive open online courses (MOOCs), and corporate education programs. However, what is still underexplored is how design thinking programs across each tertiary education level are mapped and translated into practice globally to facilitate disciplinary boundary crossing.The ability to work across and bridge these disciplinary boundaries requires epistemic fluency. Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) define epistemic fluency as allowing “professionals to understand, switch between and coordinate different ways of knowing with awareness, sensitivity to the situation and skill” (pp. 64–65). Drawing on this understanding, and recognising that this capability is highly critical for solving complex problems, we argue design thinking pedagogy is one practice that facilitates epistemic fluency for innovation and impact in tertiary education. The theoretical background of design thinking pedagogy has driven the development of this research and is what we aim to discuss in detail in this book. More specifically, it asks the following questions: •

How do educational institutions produce innovative graduates with the knowledge and understanding to cross disciplinary boundaries? • How do educational institutions produce design thinking graduates with industry relevance who can solve complex problems? • What design thinking pedagogical frameworks are best suited to what program constructs? • What role can design thinking play to develop epistemic fluency in graduates? Due to the exponential rise of the popularity of design thinking in a relatively short period, tertiary education programs have not been able to keep up. Developing a new program within institutions, building reputation and support, gaining approval,

Introduction  5

developing curriculum, and finding academics to teach those courses takes time and cannot keep pace with the fast pace of industry and organisations. As a result, many individuals who claim to be expert design thinkers and practise design thinking within organisations have no formal design education backgrounds. Therefore when they are faced with situations of increasing complexity, they have no experience to draw on and resort to going back through the process in a linear way using the toolkit associated with the design thinking model they are familiar with. It is in these unfamiliar and uncomfortable contexts that design thinking should be employed to redesign tools and processes to better fit the problem and context. Due to the nature of the conceptualisation of design thinking, particularly in corporate education settings, it is marketed as entertaining and easy to digest in short, informal 6-week (or less) courses, where foundational knowledge and insight into the field is presented. However, short, introductory design thinking courses can only create a superficial understanding of the concept and as Di Russo (2016) states, “design thinking is only [as] good as its implementation, and can only be measured by its outcomes and applications” (p. 55). When a superficial understanding of design thinking is attempted to be implemented, it inevitably leads to unsuccessful outcomes, the result of which is a dismissal of the value of design thinking and the lack of design expertise by the individual who has undertaken the 6-week course.The rise of novice designers identifying themselves as expert design thinkers is not only detrimental to the reputation and potential of design thinking, and to the implementation of a design approach to solve problems, but also devalues academic design education. For example, what is the motivational driver to undertake a 1–2-year master’s program in design when an individual can participate in other short digital and corporate offerings that are not only more cost-effective but also less time intensive? Some would argue that credentialing is the motivational driver; however, the lack of accreditation in the field shows that it has been a poor incentive and as a result, individuals have not been adequately prepared for the workplace. In response to this problem, this book draws on expert design thinking perspectives across academia to develop comprehensive, practical, and theoretical representations of design thinking pedagogy to demonstrate its importance and its role in tertiary education for innovation and impact.The rise of design thinking in industry and the inability of tertiary education to keep up with it has established the following additional questions: • What impact has the rise of design thinking had on design education? • What is the impact upon the field when novice practitioners present themselves as expert design thinkers? • How can we ensure that the successful outcomes of design thinking are able to be replicated through the same quality approach and pedagogy? In this book, we present examples from tertiary intuitions that have established, taught, and created design thinking methods across tertiary education settings. As part of its rise in popularity, the design thinking process has been viewed generally and

6  Introduction

simplistically as a heuristic model; as a result, a watered-down design approach to problem-solving has been created that develops only shallowly trained design thinkers. This book seeks to turn this around. It aims to demonstrate how to create highquality design thinking education programs by analysing best practice programs globally, illustrating perspectives from experts worldwide, and drawing on experience from the field. When implemented well, through high-quality trained designers and design academics, design thinking can help solve the world’s most difficult “wicked” problems in society today.

1.2 The Emergence of Design Thinking The creation and development of design thinking, and particularly its current popularity, are most commonly attributed to IDEO’s Tim Brown and David Kelley. IDEO states that they have been practising human-centred design since they were established in 1978; however, they coined the term “design thinking” to represent the elements of practice they found most tangible and easy to translate: “empathy, optimism, iteration, creative confidence, experimentation, and an embrace of ambiguity and failure” (IDEO, n.d., para. 1). This process-oriented representation of design thinking has led to its interest and rise in popularity, especially in fields outside of design, such as business, management, education, law, and policy (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2018; Hagan, 2020; Howlett, 2014; Martin, 2009), particularly as globalisation and rapid technological developments are developing complex, wicked problems that require new problemsolving approaches. Developed by Rittel and Webber (1973) within an urban planning context, the concept of wicked problems was formed to distinguish problem complexity and identify the types of problems designers face. In response, design thinking has been suggested as a potential approach to assist in solving these problems (Buchanan, 1992); however, as Goodyear and Markauskaite (2019) identify, “wicked problems, by their very nature, mean that people have to become more adept at designing inquiry. That is, working with others on wicked problems necessitates on-the-fly reconfiguration of methods and tools for inquiry” (p. 44). Understanding problem complexity and its relationship to design thinking are pivotal to understanding where this field has emerged from. The boundaries around the design thinking discipline have not yet been firmly established, and what we are now seeing are more and more factions occurring within the discipline. Although some recent PhD dissertations have reviewed the antecedents and evolution of the design thinking field from the 1950s and 1960s to now (see, e.g., Camacho, 2020; Di Russo, 2016), a comprehensive, historical review of the emergence of design thinking is still missing from the extant design literature. Both Camacho’s (2020) and Di Russo’s (2016) reviews categorise design thinking theorists into first and second generations. However, many publications on design thinking often omit the seminal authors of, and key contributors to, the field that date back to 1965, as described in Table 1.2, demonstrating a lack of rigorous investigation, conceptual understanding, and disciplinary expertise.

Introduction  7 TABLE 1.2  Key contributors to design thinking 1965–2013

Date

Authority

Contribution

1965

Bruce Archer Systematic Method for Designers

1969

Herbert Simon The Sciences of the Artificial

1970

John Chris Jones Design methods: seeds of human futures (1st ed.) Victor Papanek Design for the Real World

• from an Industrial Design disciplinary background • argues for an artefact approach as distinct from a systems approach • systematic methods of problem-solving, for the assessment of design problems and the development of design solutions • establishes design as a rigorous and systematic discipline presented from a learning sciences perspective • aimed to establish design as a science • argues new design methods are needed to address today’s more complex problems • provides 35 design methods for use across five different design situations • presents a case for sensible, responsible design in a disposable world • criticises design schools for focusing too much on design skills and not enough on the problems of the world • policy sciences background • conceptualisation of wicked problems • argues that a different approach is needed to resolve them • argues design as a fundamental aspect of education • defines design as a third area of knowledge distinct from the sciences and humanities • investigates how designers think through looking at what designers know • discusses how designers might be better educated, to develop techniques to assist them in their task • theory about reflective activity, knowing in action and reflection in action • reflective-practice concept, opposed Simon (1969) Sciences of the Artificial concept of design

1972

1973

1979

1980

1983

1987

1992

Horst Rittel & Melvin Webber Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning Bruce Archer The Three R’s Bryan Lawson How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (1st ed.) Donald Schön The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action Peter Rowe Design Thinking

Nigel Cross, Norbert Roozenburg, & Kees Dorst Research in Design Thinking

• provides a systematic account of the process of designing in architecture and urban planning • discusses the procedural aspects of design thinking, linking it to how designers think and ultimately how they solve problems • the first international symposium on design thinking research • the symposium was first proposed by Nigel Cross and Norbet Roozenburg at Delft University of Technology to explore the design process from both a design cognition and computational modelling perspective (Continued)

8  Introduction TABLE 1.2 Continued

Date

Authority

Contribution

1992

Richard Buchanan Wicked Problems in Design Thinking

2000

Jeanne Liedkta In Defence of Strategy as Design

2006

Nigel Cross Designerly Ways of Knowing Klaus Krippendorf The Semantic Turn: New Foundation for Design Tim Brown Design Thinking

• connects design thinking to the innovation necessary to begin tackling wicked problems • designers often engage in conceiving and planning “what does not yet exist, and this occurs in the context of indeterminacy of wicked problems” (p. 18) • expands the practice of design by proposing four orders, 1) symbolic and visual communication, 2) the design of material objects, 3) activities and organised services, and 4) the design of complex systems and environments • one of the first articles to look at design in strategy • presents the concept of design as a prescription for strategy making • establishes the attributes of the design process – which is synthetic, adductive, hypothesis-driven, opportunistic, dialectical, inquiring, and value-driven • suggests that designers possess and apply specific designerly ways of knowing and thinking • traces and unpacks the nature of design cognition • reviews the history of semantics in design • epistemological bridge between language/ communication theory and human-centred conceptions of contemporary artefacts • argues that thinking like a designer can transform the way organisations develop products, services, processes, and strategy • defines design thinking as an approach to creative problem-solving, as a human-centred approach to innovation that will transform the way companies do business • reviews the origins of the term design thinking in research • three areas of origin, design thinking as a cognitive style, as a general theory of design, and as a resource for organisations • fundamental reasoning pattern behind design that makes up the core of design thinking • presents a framework for the description of design practice • argues design as its own culture of inquiry and action that is applicable across design and non-design domains • proposes design culture through the schema of foundations, fundamentals, and metaphysics and discusses them through both a learner and practitioner perspective

2006

2008

2011

Lucy Kimbell Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I

2011

Kees Dorst The Core of “Design Thinking” and its Application Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed)

2012

(Continued)

Introduction  9 TABLE 1.2 Continued

Date

Authority

Contribution

2013

Ulla JohanssonSköldberg, Jill Woodilla, and Mehves Çetinkaya Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures

• presents key discourses of design thinking from a managerial, design, and managerial design thinking perspective • distinguishes between design thinking, used beyond the design context and designerly thinking, within the academic field of design

1.3 Reshaping the Boundaries of Design Education With the continued rise of design thinking and its implementation within both private and public organisations for innovation, design education is evolving to keep pace. Design education has had a long history of change and is continuing to change as needed (Noël, 2020). Design is often referred to as a young field of professional practice (Friedman, 1997) and, as Davis (2017) states, the design fields of today originated as “trades, rather than professions” (p. 3). Historically, design education originated with an apprenticeship, as there was no formal design education, and design was “learned by example and through personal engagement” (Buchanan, 2001, p. 18). Art schools were once independent of universities and could therefore teach the craft they explored through the master-apprentice model. Design then shifted to being taught in trade and technical schools, through hands-on, practical, learning-by-doing training. Some years later, design then moved again into the larger higher education sector – the university. Within this shift, it became more appealing for the technical universities to adopt design first, creating a practical degree that had much of its teaching delivered by industry practitioners reflecting on their practice. This mimicked the master-apprentice model, where small classes were taught by someone who was well established in their field. As Davis (2017) states: The history of design practice, therefore, is one of transition from trades to professions; from purely instrumental know-how gained through employment to academic preparation that includes study of the discipline as well as the practice – that is, the theories, perspectives, and discourse that underpin professional decision-making. (p. 5) Eventually, design was adopted by established universities with high academic and social prestige, where original trade subjects had been eliminated from the curriculum to generate room for more theoretical subject matter, thereby extending the length of the degree and the revenue raised. Additionally, over time, a PhD (at the majority of tertiary institutions globally) became a common prerequisite for a

10  Introduction

teaching contract rather than expertise and experience. As a result, this has shifted the balance and reprioritised the selection criteria for a design educator. After this capitalisation, the design school, now still eager to grow and hungry for larger student numbers to rival larger degrees such as business or education, latched onto the design thinking movement as an opportunistic avenue to teach design across the institution as both minors (6–8 subjects) and majors (8–12 subjects). The origin of design’s educational drive to interdisciplinarity has shifted the landscape of design undergraduate offerings. Postgraduate design degrees have also seen a tectonic shift in their content, from a focus on developing a deep mastery in a design discipline to that of business innovation and design management. Over time, as design has developed and design thinking has become associated with innovation, strategy, and management, “Master of Design” programs have started to evolve. In addition to the demand for more online micro-credentialing and a global appetite for university branding, MOOCs and “add-on” credentials are also changing the nature and purpose of design education (Wrigley, Mosely, & Tomitsch, 2018). Higher education institutions are continually developing MOOCs to bring professionals in the design field up to date with new methods, as well as provide potential new students with an introduction to programs offered at that institution (Voûte, Stappers, Giaccardi, Mooij, & van Boeijen, 2020). The application of this change in tertiary education institutions globally has driven change in design practice (to address the challenges of the 21st century) in different ways. The professional practice of design has never been so diverse, and as such, “there is … a gap between the education designers receive and the roles designers play in practice” (Sanders, 2017, p. 4). As Bremner and Rodgers (2013) state, the role of the designer has become increasingly complex and as such preparing design students to participate actively in such dynamic, systemically complex circumstances calls for new pedagogical approaches and methods. Further to this, design skills are recognised as an interdisciplinary skill within industry contexts and have subsequently been integrated into higher education curriculums (both undergraduate and postgraduate) globally. Currently, many new courses are being developed to assist in growing design thinking skills across programs in universities worldwide.These programs, as well as design-driven courses, need to be expanded to focus on the gaps in organisational capabilities (a combination of underlying knowledge, skills, and abilities). Tertiary institutions are well positioned to provide this new knowledge through practice-based research activities. Bremner and Rodgers (2013) argue that design has evolved into a practice that can constantly “traverse, transcend, and transfigure disciplinary and conceptual boundaries” (p. 8). If this is the current situation for design, then it can also be argued that design research, design practice, and design education are also in a constant state of flux (Bremner & Rodgers, 2013). Unlike architecture, there is currently a lack of uniformity of design education worldwide.There are a variety of different programs available for individuals, but often programs, particularly master’s degrees, that teach the same content are named differently.There has been a mass expansion of the role

Introduction  11

of the designer across industries and contexts, and this has led to a gap in how we teach this expanded new role – and it is this gap that this book aims to fill. It is the position of this book that the new practice of the designer is to facilitate the creativity of others (Meyer & Norman, 2020; Wrigley, 2016). In 2010, the United Kingdom’s Design Council produced a report, Multi-Disciplinary Design Education in the UK, calling for “T-shaped people” who have a vertical specialist depth, which is complemented by the horizontal “appreciation and understanding of other disciplines and professional contexts” (p. 14). As the popularity of design’s application to multiple sectors increases in research and practice, pushing the expansion of the discipline of design, this has implications conceptually, theoretically, and methodologically to pose frameworks to encompass the growth of such activities and practice in a designerly way (Cross, 2006; Rodgers & Bremner, 2017).

1.3.1 Disciplinarity of Design Thinking Education Globally, universities have increased their investments in design schools and programs to embed design thinking throughout the curriculum. This has been a way for students to experience collaborative teamwork that exposes them to skills and knowledge beyond their own disciplines in a safe, connected learning environment. As a process, design thinking encourages failure and experimentation, a successful learning environment for design thinking is one where a student feels they can make mistakes and learn from them without being judged.The academic or facilitator needs to create an environment where students feel that they can be vulnerable and present all of their ideas, allowing them to create innovative solutions to the problems of the day using design as the vehicle. In this context, and as illustrated in Figure 1.1, design acts as the bridge between creativity and innovation. The UK Design Council (2015) explains design as binding creativity, the generation of new ideas and innovation, and the successful exploration of those ideas together. Design is what “links creativity and innovation. It shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users and customers. Design may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end” (Cox, 2005, p. 2). The dotted line in Figure 1.1 represents the role of design thinking pedagogy for this transition in tertiary education. This transition, moving creativity through design to create innovation, can only be enhanced through collaboration and working with diverse groups of people who have different viewpoints to one’s own informed practice (Gardiner, 2020). Within tertiary education, the dotted line in Figure 1.1 describes the role of design thinking pedagogy for this transition. The terms intradisciplinary, cross/multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary (Figure 1.2) are often all defined differently and used interchangeably.Transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary can be used differently depending on the discipline. For example, within the science disciplines,“interdisciplinarity” means collaboration between different disciplines within the broader discipline of science, such as biologists and chemists collaborating together (Smith-Doerr, Croissant, Vardi, & Sacco, 2017). Alternatively, outside of science, interdisciplinarity can refer to individuals from different disciplines

12  Introduction

FIGURE 1.1 

The design bridge binding creativity and innovation together

FIGURE 1.2 

 isciplinary models, circles represent the interaction between disciplines D (adapted from Jensenius, 2012)

collaborating to solve a problem, such as a designer, an engineer, and a scientist. Klein and Newell (1997) define interdisciplinarity as “a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession” (pp. 393–394). Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning, and Mulder (2009) state that a defining characteristic of interdisciplinarity is the “integration or synthesis of knowledge” (p. 366). Despite these different definitions, as Davis (2015) states, the intent of each of these terms is to work beyond the traditional boundaries of disciplines on problems that are somewhat ambiguous regarding the skills and knowledge required for their solution. In doing so, it is possible for new fields to emerge that are interdisciplinary from inception or for traditional fields to transform into something that bears little resemblance to their origins. (p. 15) To ensure that these different interpretations of cross/multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, do not cause confusion, Table 1.3 defines how these terms and concepts are used throughout this book.

Introduction  13 TABLE 1.3  Definitions of disciplinary models

Term

Definition

Example in Context

Intradisciplinary

Intradisciplinary is defined as “being or occurring within the scope of a scholarly or academic discipline or between the people active in such a discipline” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Cross/multidisciplinary approaches require the combination of several disciplines in order to solve a problem.

A graphic designer working in isolation or with other graphic designers to design a new logo and branding package.

Cross/multidisciplinary

Interdisciplinary

Transdisciplinary

Interdisciplinary is “a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession” (Klein & Newell, 1997, pp. 393–394). Transdisciplinary is where people from diverse fields come together to traverse the boundaries of their combined disciplines – also known as boundary spanners. These diverse groups of people work together to solve complex problems and integrate the perspective of multiple disciplines to create new knowledge and solutions leading to transformative learning.

An architect and interior designer working together to deliver a project. The architect passes the plans onto the interior designer, who decides on the finishes, colour scheme, and style guide. An industrial designer, a mechanical engineer, and a nanoscientist are developing a radical science capability where their individual actions to develop the artefact are integrated to inform and impact each other. A designer, an analyst, a philosopher, an anthropologist, a chemist, a political scientist, and a biologist all working together to address the effects of human consumption on climate change – such a wicked problem requires an individual’s departure from their own disciplinary background to that of a united perspective to approach the problem.

14  Introduction

These disciplinary approaches are presented in Figure 1.3 and build on Figures 1.1 and 1.2. Figure 1.3 represents the design bridge that binds creativity and innovation together using multiple disciplinary vehicles. These disciplinary models (intra, cross-/multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary) could be utilised dependent on the level of education being taught or selected based on the problem complexity and as the work dictates. However, in industry there is a lack of boundaries within and across design disciplines – and few professional boundaries. Trained graphic designers are working as user experience and service designers; individuals with non-design backgrounds are

FIGURE 1.3 

Disciplinary models of design thinking pedagogy

Introduction  15

upskilling through short intensive non-accredited programs to work in industry as user experience designers. Product designers often work as detailed drafters within an engineering team and even new product development and marketing specialists. In addition to this, there is no professional design thinking and innovation body as there is in other disciplines, such as engineering, architecture, law, or even medicine, that governs the profession and ensures that those with the correct experience and qualifications practise design thinking within industry. Furthermore, there is no professional body that governs the education of these disciplines. Anyone can call themselves a design thinking and design innovation expert. Therefore, within the field, there is a strong need to develop a deeper conceptualisation of how design thinking pedagogy traverses disciplinary boundaries.This raises the question: How can the field of design thinking facilitate epistemic fluency to provide a progressive way forward?

1.4 Contextualising Design Thinking Pedagogy Research specifically exploring and examining design thinking pedagogy within tertiary education contexts is rather narrow and limited. Studies on the teaching of design thinking within K–12 contexts are plentiful (see, e.g., Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017; Goldman & Zielezinski, 2022; Koh, Chai,Wong, & Hong, 2015), but research examining design thinking teaching and learning and tertiary education are lacking (Melles, 2020), as is research specifically defining design thinking pedagogy, beyond a few recent publications (see, e.g., Beligatamulla, 2021; Beligatamulla, Rieger, Franz, & Strickfaden, 2019; Luka, 2019; Wrigley & Straker, 2017). Despite the many definitions and debate surrounding the description of design thinking (Chapter 2 presents this in depth), for the purposes of this book, the authors describe design thinking as a cognitive process that designers use, as opposed to the designed objects they produce. Design thinking is generally considered as the ability to combine empathy, creativity, and rationality to analyse problems and fit solutions to particular contexts (Wrigley & Straker, 2017). On this foundation, the contextual understanding of design thinking pedagogy has been described as concerning “the theory and practice of teaching design thinking, including the strategies, actions and judgements that inform curriculum design and delivery” (Beligatamulla et al., 2019, p. 92). As such, throughout this book, we define design thinking pedagogy as a humancentric problem-solving approach that may be used in the teaching and learning process to develop 21st century skills and enhance creativity and innovation. It encompasses both micro and macro levels of education by putting the student and their educational experience and journey both at the centre of learning and also at the centre of the institution’s business model. To unpack design thinking pedagogy, it is important to first understand the related field of design pedagogy and its origins. This is not to be confused with pedagogy design, which is a collaborative process for course and unit development. In this book, we broadly define pedagogy as the way topics or subjects are taught, and how this is informed by different educational practices and theories. Beetham

16  Introduction

and Sharpe (2020) describe pedagogy as embracing “an essential dialogue between teaching and learning: learning in the context of teaching, and teaching that has learning as its goal” (p. 2). However, similar to understandings about design thinking, Southgate (2020) states that within education there is a divide between pedagogical theories which frame teaching as a set of generic instructional strategies for the transmission of knowledge across educational settings (sometimes called technised or transmission model of pedagogy) and more philosophically infused theories which consider teaching as a contextualised practice involving the way knowledge is transmitted, exchanged, (co)produced, reproduced, transformed, and challenged. (p. 24) In the context of design practice, design pedagogy is considered a contextualised practice where the learner is an active participant within knowledge inquiry, often within the design studio. However, finding an explicit definition of design pedagogy in the literature is difficult, and perhaps this is indicative of the nature of teaching design. Design studio pedagogy has origins in architectural education (Rowe, 1987) encompassing signature pedagogies defined by Shreeve (2015), as “those ways of learning which help students to become designers; to think and act in ways which are deemed to be professional and appropriate” (p. 85). Shulman (2005) defines signature pedagogies as the “types of teaching that organise the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions” (p. 52).Within the design studio, signature design pedagogies include design projects and the brief, materiality (doing and making), design dialogue, and the design crit (Orr & Shreeve, 2018; Shreeve, 2015). The design studio environment is a space for creative problem exploration and enables learners “to reflect on their own decision making; to see where certain decisions, or approaches to a problem, failed to yield the desired result” (McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019, p. 86). Design studio pedagogy blends problem- and inquiry-based learning into a small-cohort learning environment where formative feedback is given to learners throughout the development of a project (McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019, p. 84). Mewburn (2012) argues that design studios as learning environments are complex and focused on student-centred learning. Additionally, Dutton (1987) describes the design studio as a social practice, which in more modern times has translated to co-design workshops. Design thinking and co-design workshops draw on the design studio model to enable interdisciplinary collaboration for complex problem-solving among participants. Many design tools (boundary objects) have been developed to help facilitate design thinking and design innovation strategies in workshops (Napier & Wada, 2017). However, the design studio is not free of bias, and lecturers often “impart values and perspectives throughout their interactions with students in the classroom” (Davis, 2017, p. 83).These power relations in the studio between student and teacher are co-constructed (Dutton, 1987; Orr & Shreeve, 2018) and it needs to be recognised that, within design pedagogy, students are encouraged to break the rules and think outside the box. Therefore, within this design studio environment, Orr,Yorke,

Introduction  17

and Blair (2014) argue that “the role of the lecturer is to facilitate, listen and draw out” (p. 39) as opposed to a transmission model of pedagogy. Notably, Orr and Shreeve (2018) contend that “project centred pedagogy is a tacit part of the studio environment and that it is important to interrogate this approach to identify its full pedagogic potential” (p. 14). It is common to be introduced to the design studio with design projects early on in an undergraduate degree, exposing students to multiple ways of addressing the same problem – usually presented in the form of a design brief. Mewburn (2012) gives the name “desk crit” to this learning process and considers it to be the “pedagogical core of the design studio” (p. 364). Elaborating on this notion Mewburn (2012) writes that it is a collaborative activity where the teacher and the student do design work together, discussing and sketching possibilities and imagining the consequences of design choices. …The desk crit can be thought of as an exercise in role play in which the student plays the “novice architect”, while the teacher takes on various other roles such as “experienced architect”, “client” or “consultant”. (p. 364) However, Laurillard (2012) asks why the best ideas and teaching practices (signature pedagogies) should be confined to their original discipline. This transmission of the design studio can be seen in the rise of the business studio and design thinking being taught in business schools to business students through problem-based learning (PBL) (Barry & Meisiek, 2015). Meisiek, Wad, and Zubrickaite (2020) argue that within business school pedagogy, design thinking is not an isolated occurrence: “experiential learning, active learning, collaborative team exercises, problem-based learning, project-based learning and other approaches have found entry into the business school over the years” (pp. 189–190). The expansion of design beyond its own discipline raises questions surrounding design thinking pedagogy practices when design thinking is taught to nondesigners. Is this what design thinking pedagogy epitomises? Or is it more than that, with multi-, trans-, and interdisciplinary approaches? Royalty (2018) defines design-based pedagogy as “an educational environment with instructional scaffolds that allow students to solve problems through the practice of design” (p. 138). It has five main attributes: 1. Audience – non-designers 2. Challenges – projects are open-ended and based in a context that extends beyond the classroom 3. Team – students primarily work in interdisciplinary teams 4. Practice – problem solving practice is driven by a process or principles that designers typically engage in 5. Creativity – a major outcome of design-based pedagogy is to enhance student creativity (Royalty, 2018, p. 138)

18  Introduction

Building on the potential of design-based pedagogy, McLaughlan and Lodge (2019) explore the facilitation of epistemic fluency through design thinking in a tertiary education context by positioning the design studio as a pedagogical model to build epistemic fluency in students. As the authors state, “transdisciplinary engagement provides one possible strategy for enhancing the benefits of studio learning for the development of epistemic fluency” (McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019, p. 94). They go on to explain, “the challenge to educators in the delivery of epistemic learning environments is to remain agile in response to the changing needs of students” with curriculum design and delivery requiring “an ongoing process of discovery, testing and refinement” (p. 94). Developing epistemic fluency enables students to work and collaborate across disciplines. However, Bradbeer (1999) argues that students have problems working across disciplines, working in different disciplines, and synthesising different disciplines. These difficulties can be a result of differences in disciplinary epistemologies, disciplinary discourses, traditional disciplinary teaching and learning, and disciplinary-preferred learning approaches (p. 382). One way to overcome these barriers and enable students to move between disciplines, Bradbeer argues, is to develop self-aware learners: enabling students to become aware of how they learn as well as what they are learning through experiential learning (discussed further in Chapter 2). In this context of learning design thinking, Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) propose it is learnt through two ways stating, That is, the design thinking process is either ‘orchestrated’ by existing heuristics and learnt through articulated formal discourse or is ‘orchestrated’ by ‘nature and culture’ and learnt through participation in design work. Such encounters with the creative minds of experienced designers are necessarily complicated by the tacit aspects of their epistemological and methodological expertise. (p. 576) Raising the question: What are the signature pedagogies of design thinking education in practice? This question is looked at and explored further in the work of Wrigley and Straker (2017) where they present the educational design ladder (Figure 1.3), which illustrates that for design thinking projects to cross disciplines, they need to:

• • • • •

involve authentic, hands-on tasks process clearly defined outcomes that allow for multiple solutions promote student-centred, collaborative work and higher order thinking allow for multiple iterations to improve the product have clear links to a limited number of science and engineering concepts (pp. 383)

The ladder as seen in Figure 1.4 demonstrates a progression of lower to higher order thinking skills with the 1st step on the ladder pertaining to foundational

Introduction  19

FIGURE 1.4 

Educational design ladder (redrawn from Wrigley & Straker, 2017)

knowledge and comprehension progressing in difficulty to the 5th step on the ladder which hosts a professional level of demonstration through practice and evaluation. The authors suggest that units, subjects, courses, taught within the ladder scaffold should increase in complexity as the students’ understanding of design thinking increases with each stage.

1.4.1 The Purpose of Design Thinking Pedagogy: Soft Skills and Their Importance for the Future of Work Design thinking education is often centred around solving real-world problems and has similarities to PBL.Within higher education, PBL has originally been associated with medical education; however, since the 21st century, it has expanded into other diverse disciplines and professional education contexts to encourage the questioning and challenging of knowledge associated with the act of defining a problem in a variety of different learning contexts (Hmelo & Evensen, 2000;Yew & Goh, 2016). PBL focuses on a student’s learning – where the learning and teaching is structured through engaging with and solving problems “centring learning around domains, themes, and issues rather than disciplinary silos” (Bridges, Hmelo-Silver, Chan,

20  Introduction

Green, & Saleh, 2020, p. 285). Within PBL the teacher or instructor acts as a facilitator, to help guide student’s learning and scaffold new knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Hmelo-Silver, Bridges, & McKeown, 2019). As Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) describe, students work in small, self-directed groups, guided by a facilitator, shifting away from lectures towards self-study (p. 36). In this context, students become responsible for their own learning. Within design thinking education, the curriculum and units of study are often structured around diverse problems that students solve over the course of the semester, through implementing design thinking approaches, methods, and tools.To develop solutions to these problems, students either work individually or collaborate in groups guided and facilitated by their lecturer and tutors, who provide feedback throughout the course. Here, students take on a more active role, making decisions and structuring their own learning; at the same time, teachers are required to learn along with their students, challenging their assumptions and encouraging them to reflect on their practice (Barell, 2010; Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2019). However, design thinking and PBL are not identical. Melles, Anderson, Barrett, and Thompson-Whiteside (2015) highlight two key differences between design thinking education and PBL. The first difference is that in design thinking education problems are framed by students rather than being predetermined by the teachers, the second is that although it is underpinned by explicit strategies, the design thinking process is non-linear (Melles et al., 2015, p. 207). Discourse around 21st century skills is often focused on the importance of soft skills and is centred around preparing young people for the future of work. There are many variations of core individual skills and capabilities that are described as part of these 21st century skills (see, e.g., World Economic Forum, 2015). Common to these variations, however, are foundational knowledge skills (e.g., literacy, numeracy, STEM, and digital skills) and a complement of applied or transferable skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, creativity, collaboration, imagination, risk-taking, and adaptability). From a survey of 18,000 people across 15 different nations, McKinsey and Company (2021) identify 56 skills across 13 skill groups to enable individuals to thrive in the future workforce. These skills, outlined in Table 1.4, are grouped into four foundational categories: cognitive, interpersonal, self-leadership, and digital. The skills representative of design thinking core competencies have been highlighted. That design thinking involves and fosters such a high proportion of these skills further suggests that it should be a focus for tertiary education providers. The competencies and character qualities that are referred to as enterprise skills, soft skills, or general capability skills are generally developed through inquiry-based pedagogies (Timms, Moyle,Weldon, & Mitchell, 2018), including approaches that require students to innovate and engage in design thinking (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017).While technical and foundational knowledge skills are important, the foundational “capabilities” or “qualities” as described by McKinsey & Company (Table 1.4) are necessary for innovation and the resulting engagement in the knowledge economy. In addition to these basic skills, knowledge and technical skills, entrepreneurial,

TABLE 1.4  Foundational skills for the future citizen developed through design thinking education

Cognitive 1. Critical thinking - - - -

Structured problem-solving Logical reasoning Understanding biases Seeking relevant information

2. Planning and ways of working - Work-plan development - Time management and prioritisation - Agile thinking

3. Communication

4. Mental flexibility

- - - -

Storytelling and public speaking Asking the right questions Synthesising messages Active listening

- Creativity and imagination - Translating knowledge to different contexts - Adopting a different perspective - Adaptability - Ability to learn

6. - - - -

7. - - - - - -

Teamwork effectiveness Fostering inclusiveness Motivating different personalities Resolving conflicts Collaboration Coaching Empowering

Interpersonal 5. - - - -

Mobilising systems Role modelling Win-win negotiations Crafting an inspiring vision Organisational awareness

Developing relationships Empathy Inspiring trust Humility Sociability

Self-leadership 9. Entrepreneurship

10.  Goals achievement

- Courage and risk-taking - Driving change and innovation - Energy, passion, and optimism - Breaking orthodoxies

- - - - -

Introduction  21

8. Self-awareness and self-management - Understanding own emotions and triggers - Self-control and regulation - Understanding own strengths - Integrity - Self-motivation and wellness - Self-confidence

Ownership and decisiveness Achievement orientation Grit and persistence Coping with uncertainty Self-development

(Continued)

Digital 11.  Digital fluency and citizenship - Digital literacy - Digital learning - Digital collaboration - Digital ethics

12.  Software use and development - Programming literacy - Data analysis and statistics - Computational and algorithmic thinking

(Synthesised from McKinsey & Company, 2021)

13.  Understanding digital systems - - - -

Data literacy Smart systems Cybersecurity literacy Tech translation and enablement

22  Introduction

TABLE 1.4 Continued

Introduction  23

business, and management skills, Howard (2016) positions creativity and design skills as integral to building innovation in the knowledge economy. Furthermore, Howard (2016) suggests that creativity and design skills are closely connected to innovative capabilities of problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication. Moyle (2010) concurs, indicating that “creativity and imagination underpin innovative capabilities” (p. 11). Building innovative and creative skills in individuals “requires educators to move beyond rewarding students for providing correct answers to problems, to also rewarding them for their effort and ideas” (Moyle, 2010, p. 12). This involves identifying and acknowledging in the curriculum the capabilities young people need to live productively in the 21st century (Reid, 2005). Building on this argument, new design thinking pedagogy must be crafted to address these two vital outcomes: (1) ensuring students learn to engage in flexible, creative, and critical thinking that allows them to responsively pivot and adapt in any situation; and (2) students must also be reflective enough to collaborate in various social constructs and environments so they are equipped for uncertainty. Addressing these two outcomes will require universities to adapt their course offerings and ensure they are sufficiently resourced to provide the academic staff necessary to teach these courses for years to come. An understanding of the importance of evolving, adapting, and refining design thinking pedagogy through practice underpins the expert sidebars and case studies featured throughout this book. The first of which presents Professor Cees de Bont and his decades of leadership experience in the design education field.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 1.1:  PROFESSOR CEES DE BONT Dean of the School of Design and Creative Arts, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Professor Cees de Bont has had an experienced design career in both industry and academia, leading arguably the best design schools in the world, beginning at Delft University of Technology (2005–2012), then The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2012–2018), and currently the School of Design and Creative Arts at Loughborough University. Before entering academia, Cees had a strong industry career with Royal Philips Electronics (1995–2005), where he was responsible for human behaviour research with Philips

24  Introduction

Design and for market intelligence and strategy with Domestic Appliances & Personal Care. In this expert sidebar, Cees comments on the shifting perspective of design education in these institutions over time, while drawing on his practical design expertise from his time spent in industry. Throughout my 35-year career in industry and academia, design has changed from designing products to designing product-service systems, to designing solutions to societal matters. Because of these changes design schools and educators have had the task of keeping up with the pace of change in the discipline. As such, for me, the vision of leading a design school largely comes from people like Victor Papanek. Leaders of design education need to be sensitive to the main issues in society and to understand the contribution that design can bring to solving those issues. In addition, the leadership needs to be able to see which of the traditional design skills will still be relevant in the future and which are the new elements that should be incorporated into the curriculum. Building these skills into curriculum requires design educators to read and to engage with advanced design practice, and it is additionally important for design educators to take on industry projects as consultants. My perspective is that the best practice of design teaching comprises a combination of studio-workshop practice, design theory, and reflection. This is common practice in most schools. What I want to add to this is the understanding of ethical matters and societal issues. This is not taught very well in most design schools. The unique traits of design pedagogy are the “making”, which can be of all sorts, and the “reflection”. Also essential is the design critique where students learn to evaluate intermediate design outcomes. Design has a culture of studio-based teaching. Compared to most other fields of study, students in design tend to read and write less than other students. Quite a bit of learning and teaching takes place in groups. Design teaching should be a mix of online and offline delivery. The studioand workshop-based elements should be in person as much as possible. Many subjects, such as design history, can be taught online. Other subjects such as ergonomics can be partly online and partly in person. COVID-19 has made clear that students can attend lectures, seminars, and tutorials from wherever they are in the world. Similarly, guest lectures can be provided by scholars and practitioners from all over the world. This gives much more flexibility. Online teaching often leads to a larger participation and to increased interaction (between teacher and student) compared to before.

Introduction  25

From my experience as dean at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, I  take pride in having developed the Executive Master in Meaningful Innovation. This was an exceptional program, with excellent teaching staff and guest lecturers involved. Unfortunately, when I left Hong Kong, they could not sustain this program. Many of the students in this program had already been very successful in their own fields before joining the program. However, what the program demonstrated was that design thinking is of much value to more mature students (average age was around 50). Another program I developed and that still runs in Hong Kong is the master’s program in International Design & Business Management. This program brings together students from many different countries with very different disciplinary backgrounds and teaches them to collaborate productively and to pull off design-driven innovation. Design thinking is important for people who aren’t necessarily going to be designers, as it informs them how to work towards a solution. It provides a structure, terminology, and a process. Such skills are relevant in all sorts of jobs and positions. This is why, in my view, it is a good thing when students of business and management come to know about design thinking. It nurtures their appreciation for design, makes it easier for them to collaborate with creative people, and they will be more successful in their jobs. Strategic designers should not be afraid of competing in the job market against business leaders who understand design thinking. Collaboration and speaking the same language are much more important. Students with non-design backgrounds benefit from being introduced to design thinking. They will be able to develop confidence in bringing creativity to the table. They should be shown examples of design projects, but also be stimulated through exposure to arts, music, dance, etc. Design thinking is very important for non-designers and for strategic designers. In postgraduate teaching on design (which is often taught to students who do not have a design background), it is vital to teach the fundamentals of design thinking. Design innovation is relevant for those postgraduate students who are in strategic design or in design management. They need to be prepared to push innovation in smaller and bigger organisations. I am very proud of one of my previous students from the Executive Master in Meaningful Innovation, who was originally trained in engineering and was a district councillor when he took the course, now profiling himself as a social artist and innovator on LinkedIn.

26  Introduction

1.5 Purpose and Perspectives This book originates from our experiences establishing, creating, and implementing design thinking programs across multiple highly ranked (global top 50) institutions, conversations with those who have led and implemented design programs in the best design schools in the world and research into design thinking programs worldwide. The issues and challenges surrounding these endeavours have sparked curiosity in this space and motivated the investigation into the absence of appropriate planning, the number of educators that are not qualified to teach in this space, and the lack of reflection on our teaching practices in this field. In this context, this book aims to explore the new role of the designer and the corresponding lack of pedagogy involved in training such an individual. As programs teaching design thinking continue to grow and spread at a rapid pace, future work in design thinking pedagogy is badly needed. In particular, more research is needed on its distinct pedagogical elements and their corresponding design graduate capabilities. We, the authors, are designers who have run large industry innovation projects that require the ability to make connections and think across interdisciplinary boundaries and have seen that it is this implementation phase that is where design can make the difference between successful, practical innovations and applications of design thinking as opposed to unimplementable plans that go nowhere inside organisations. In contrast to management consultants who sell and market design thinking as a process (like any other lean, agile business practice) in an abstract, nonlinear form, enabling them to develop a variety of outcomes for their client none of which they are accountable for implementing. In September 2020, the Australian Design Council released their design manifesto, calling for design to be embedded in the nation’s policy agenda and to advocate to government and industry leaders the role and value of design to help diversify Australia’s future economy. This call to action is not unique to Australia; globally, national design bodies are calling for design to be embedded within industry, business, and policy environments to keep pace with the accelerating global context and economy (e.g., the UK Design Council). With the rise of businesses and organisations adopting and implementing human- and user-centred design methodologies and processes, participatory design approaches have continued to evolve to integrate diverse perspectives and ideas in order to develop a shared and cohesive interpretation of problems and solutions. The rise of design thinking has seen contemporary co-design practices implementing design thinking that is collaborative in nature, drawing on interdisciplinary knowledge and skills, requiring expert facilitation practice. This evolution of design practice has seen an emergence of new professional design roles, which require a new set of design skills. With the rise of businesses and organisations adopting and implementing human- and user-centred design methodologies and processes, many design roles now advertised specify an ability and requirement of applicants to facilitate co-design processes, methodologies, and workshops with users and stakeholders. However, many of these roles within organisations do not require candidates

Introduction  27

to have any professional or tertiary-level design qualifications. Therefore, anyone and everyone in industry and professional practice can refer to and market themselves as a design thinking expert, with no education and relatively minimal experience. A narrow and shallow understanding of design thinking affects one’s ability to facilitate these design processes and ultimately impacts the outcome of the design intervention. Drawing on our experience and observations from working with large industry partners within the tertiary education sector, we have noticed a misalignment between industry practice, research, and education, as well as design thinking being rolled out through a “cookie-cutter” approach – a common methodology and process that doesn’t require contextual understanding and applications. Complex problems can only be solved through design facilitators with the expertise and experience to match the complexity level of that problem (Mosely, Wright, & Wrigley, 2018). Building this expertise and experience as a designer takes education, practice, failure, and time. It is from this lens that we present the material, case studies, and frameworks of this book.

1.6 Overview This book is situated within a tertiary education context and is structured in seven chapters, with each chapter featuring “sidebars” with a design thinking education expert within that chapter’s content. In this book, we invited experts from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, the People’s Republic of China, and Europe to comment on their vast design thinking education experience and knowledge. We encouraged them to reflect and report not only on their successful recollections and case studies of implementing a design thinking program but also on the lessons they learnt along the way. In reading these first-hand accounts, it is important to note how the cultural context of design education has changed and transformed over the years and decades, and how the rise of design thinking has enabled or influenced their own pedagogical approach. The purpose of these sidebars is to provide an international context within the book and present these experts’ perspectives based on decades of experience leading and teaching in the best design schools in the world. They speak from industry experience of implementing projects and learning from those projects and bring stories of success and failure from their teaching and learning practices (the collection of expert sidebars can be found in Appendix C). The knowledge provided and gained from these experts contributes to the evolving field of design thinking pedagogy. What is common across each sidebar is that all of the experts discuss adapting the practice of design thinking pedagogy in response to context and student engagement. We have written the book in such a way that assumes the reader will work through it sequentially or skip familiar sections to read the expert sidebars in isolation. It is also intended that the book’s chapters can be read in isolation if you have a specific interest in one area of curriculum over another. However, the core

28  Introduction

arguments, represented by the illustrations and in the frameworks, build upon each other, and these will need to be digested in sequence. Chapter 1 has set the problem context and explored the current situation in tertiary education. Chapter 2 develops the concept of design thinking pedagogy and integrates this concept into a novel framework that is expanded upon throughout the book and that underpins its investigations. From here, Chapters 3–6 detail the pedagogical implications of this framework across each of the different levels of tertiary education. The concluding chapter, Chapter 7, summarises the learnings from the book and draws conclusions and next steps from all of the previous chapters, finishing with a reflection on the future of design thinking pedagogy. Chapter 1:  Introduction has set the scene and context of the book. The shift in and reshaping of design education has been contextualised and key design thinking pedagogy concepts have been foregrounded along with epistemic fluency. Key 21st century graduate capabilities have been introduced to the context of design. This chapter hosts an expert sidebar from Professor Cees de Bont, dean of the School of Design and Creative Arts, Loughborough University, United Kingdom, who highlights this shift in design education over time and continents. Chapter 2:  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy examines the seminal theories associated with design thinking as well as key pedagogical frameworks in such contexts. This comprehensive literature review contextualises the research landscape and presents an expert sidebar from Dr Gjoko Muratovski, director, Ullman School of Design at the University of Cincinnati, who documents the impact design thinking has had on design education and the importance of design research rigour. Chapter 3:  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency investigates how design thinking is taught at an undergraduate level worldwide and how epistemic fluency impacts on design thinking pedagogy and education. The expert featured in this chapter’s sidebar is Dr Karla Straker, who was the program director for the Major in Design at The University of Sydney and who documents her reflections on students from different disciplinary backgrounds solving industry problems using a collaborative approach. Chapter 4:  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education explores design thinking programs across master’s and doctoral degrees while crossing academic and industry divides, examining areas such as design accreditation and design expertise. This is reflected in three expert sidebars, with two referring to the creation of new postgraduate design degrees: Dr Sylvia Lui focuses on Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s International Design and Business Management program and Professor Andy Dong, Sara Fenske Bahat, and Nathan Shedroff discuss the MBA in Design Strategy program at California College of the Arts. From a higher degree research perspective, Dr Judy Matthews examines academic and industry relationships through a supervised cohort pedagogical design model. Chapter 5:  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education looks at design thinking skills and capabilities obtained through free online platforms that are accessible to all. A global audit presents the inclusive pedagogy along with

Introduction  29

corporate design thinking education sponsored and deployed by large, lucrative organisations who can afford bespoke capability programs to be taught organisation wide. The chapter presents two expert sidebars. First, Professor Jeanne Liedtka discusses the importance of building design thinking awareness in the corporate sector through online platforms.This is followed by a case study from the Royal Australian Air Force, with the chapter concluding with a second expert sidebar provided by Dr Murray Simons from the Australian War College who discusses teaching design thinking in a military context and the application of boundary objects to enable military innovation and impact. Chapter 6:  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning presents a design thinking approach used to reimagine what an education provider might look like in the future as well as the learning ecology within an education provider. This chapter presents a different perspective on design thinking pedagogy, zooming out of the classroom to present a case study at the macro level of tertiary education. It examines the case study of TAFE NSW and features an expert sidebar from its then General Manager, Future and Innovation,Tom Key. The chapter also contains a second case study that looks at the micro level of tertiary education and explores the redesign of military education pedagogy inside the Australian Defence Force. Chapter 7:  Conclusion the closing chapter reflects collectively on the pedagogical approach adopted by all levels of tertiary education programs and the empirical case studies presented throughout the book. It also provides perspectives on the future of the field, including the characteristics of a design thinking educator, the future design academic, and the future of design accreditation. The final chapter additionally presents the outlook for the design education sector and concludes with a final expert sidebar featuring Professor Lorraine Justice, from the Rochester Institute of Technology, who speaks on the future of design and the changes coming to the design field.

2 RESEARCH ON DESIGN THINKING PEDAGOGY

2.1 Design Practice and the Design Profession With the industrial revolution at the beginning of the 20th century came the emergence of design as a professional practice. Originating as a trade, the design profession was associated with developing artefacts, environments, or objects that serve a purpose. Subsequently, design has expanded from the traditional forms of the 20th century to the development of new design disciplines and methodologies (Davis, 2017), enabling professional design to “operate within an expanded and increasingly complex field” (Kimbell, 2011, p. 286). As design practice and thinking have evolved, so have new design disciplines such as participatory design, user experience (UX) design, user interface (UI) design, human-centred design, strategic design, and service design (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Wilson & Zamberlan, 2015). The shifting landscape of design is also evident in the uptake of design by business and management fields. Characterising the reasons for this occurrence, Wilson and Zamberlan (2017) state, “the rapid development of these areas is propelled by a broad recognition of design thinking and practice as a significant driver of innovation with capacities to respond to contemporary global and societal challenges” (p. 106). Why is this the case? Because a fundamental aspect of design is related to problem-solving – in particular, complex problem-solving. Every industry, every organisation, and every discipline has its own set of problems to solve, and the suggestion that using a “design approach” to solve them could yield more innovative outcomes has been a dangling carrot for many.Yet as the demand for these new complex problem-solving skills grows, so too must the pedagogy that supports its delivery. Teaching methods and practices suited to develop these skills are more vital now than ever before to create the design professional of the future.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-2

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  31

2.1.1 Discourses Around Design Thinking Traditionally understood definitions of design are evolving. It is not only recognised as an artefact but also as a process. In order to determine the pedagogies appropriate for the teaching of design thinking, it is imperative to understand the different discourses surrounding design thinking, as different definitions of concepts lead to different teaching practices. John Heskett recognises the convoluted meanings around the term design, noting the use of design as both a noun and verb which have different meanings but are often used interchangeably without distinction (Heskett, 2001, p. 18). The term design is frequently used in an arbitrary manner with an assumed shared understanding that impacts its depiction and credibility. New forms of “design” require additional skills beyond visual communication and knowledge of materials and construction. However, despite the changes across the profession of design, the fundamental ability to conceptualise and represent ideas is still a core component of design practice and therefore design education. As Press and Cooper (2016) observe, “the skill to perceive a need or the imagination to develop an idea and then visualise a solution either two- or three-dimensionally has always been a central theme of design” (p. 170). The evolution of design as a way of thinking has led to the development of human-centred design principles and new tenets of design practice. Bruce and Bessant (2002) contend that “design is not only a process linked with production but also a powerful means of conveying persuasive ideas, attitudes and values” (p. 19). Designers across these different fields have core skills in visualisation and visual language that Norman (2016) argues assists in “integrating” both concepts of design, stating that we need “action-orientated” designers who are both thinkers and doers. Moreover, the Design Council (2018) states that designers use these key core skills to “augment their technical skills through their knowledge of the design process and their creative thinking” (p. 6). These concepts of design have assisted in the development of “new procedures and frameworks”, including contemporary understandings of “design thinking” (Davis, 2017; Norman, 2016). It is generally accepted by the discipline of design that Rowe (1987) was the first to use the term “design thinking”. He defines it as “the interior situational logic and decision-making processes of designers in action”, including the “theoretical dimensions that both account for and inform this kind of undertaking” (p. 2). However, there are many other design authorities in the literature that precede Rowe, as documented in Table 1.2, Chapter 1, such as Archer (1965), Simon (1969), and Schön (1983). These designers developed the theoretical foundations in design methodology that Rowe (1987) built on and named design thinking. This scholarly lineage must be acknowledged. It must be recognised that design thinking is the accumulated history of design theory, process methods, mindsets, and tools (Di Russo, 2016, p. 40). In a rare study where the work of Rowe (1987) is analysed in detail, Kimbell (2011) draws out two key ideas in Rowe’s (1987) Design Thinking: First, designers have an “episodic” way of approaching their work and secondly, the nature of the

32  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

problem-solving process shapes the outcome and solution (p. 291). Rowe discusses the procedural aspects of design thinking, linking it to how designers think and ultimately to how they solve problems. Although Rowe (1987) features in the top 10 most cited publications in Table 1.1, we have found that when publications do cite Rowe, it is only to indicate that he coined the term design thinking as opposed to referencing the theoretical contribution of his work to the field. The concept of design thinking has evolved over time and can represent a cognitive style (Cross, 1982, 2006; Lawson, 1997; Rowe, 1987), a method (Beckman & Barry, 2007), a way of thinking and working that is unique to designers and design practice (Buchanan, 1992), and an organisational resource and approach to innovation (Brown, 2008; Martin, 2009). In other words, the shift in design thinking through theory and practice has been from design as a science (Simon, 1969) to design as a mindset (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya, 2013). Since the publication of Rowe (1987), design thinking has been accepted more and more outside of the design field, especially over the last decade, due to its link to innovation and its ability to help solve the challenges that businesses face now and, in the future (Brown, 2008; Kimbell, 2011). These definitions and descriptions of design thinking raise an issue with regard to how convoluted the field is. Despite an overabundance of scholastic material, we still have yet to crystallise a firm understanding of the field in which we debate. Until we can address this discourse discrepancy, the debates will continue.

2.1.2 Design Thinking Education Landscape The widespread uptake of design thinking as a way to solve problems creatively (by disciplines outside the discipline of origin) has seen a demand for the development of a clear process and model, definition, and toolkit for teaching design thinking skills (Dorst, 2011). Process models commonly used include the Design Council’s double diamond, which uses divergent and convergent thinking (Design Council, 2015), the Stanford d.school model (d.school Stanford University, n.d.), and IDEO’s design thinking processes for educators (IDEO, 2012). This is discussed in more detail later in Section 2.2.3. Regardless of the method or framework that is selected, interpreted, and represented, the important aspect of skills development and a methodology to solve problems and develop solutions is the same.The adoption of design thinking beyond the field of design has been largely motivated by the need to innovate, and discussion of its application is widespread in both design and management circles. The discussion’s changed focus is on how business can use design thinking, and this focus is becoming somewhat of a trend in the executive and management research realm and the popular business press. This change is strongly supported by IDEO and the Stanford d.school, where design thinking is conceptualised as a specific way that non-designers evaluate and use design methods. As design thinking is adapted into the business landscape, universities are attempting to keep pace by teaching and supporting multidisciplinary approaches to solving problems. The first two schools dedicated to design thinking were the d.school at

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  33

Stanford University in California’s Silicon Valley and the d.school of the HassoPlattner-Institute in Potsdam, Germany. The d.school was designed to ignite creativity and collaboration. These schools educate students from different disciplines – such as engineering, medicine, business, the humanities, and education – to work together to solve big problems using a human-centred approach. Programs within the course bring together students from different universities for cross-disciplinary project work, are co-taught by professors from design and business departments, and involve collaboration with different entities such as companies, start-ups, schools, non-profits, and the government. Currently, many tertiary education institutions provide opportunities for students to develop professional understandings of design thinking through MBA programs, undergraduate degrees, and general courses. In addition to the d.schools, these institutions include, DesignWorks (Rotman School of Management), the California College of the Arts, the John Hopkins Carey Business School, and Parsons School of Design. Some institutions offer dual degrees in business administration and design, such as the Master of Design and Master of Business Administration (MBA) at Illinois Institute of Technology. Graduates from these institutions enter the workforce prepared to embark on careers with advanced design knowledge, skills, and experience, contributing design practice to business. Additionally, short courses on design thinking and innovation have also become popular and provide a sought-after mix of multidisciplinary skills. By allowing design students to experience working with business, science, technology, and engineering, the gaps in knowledge of individual team members are bridged.Working across faculties also provides more opportunities to engage in real-world projects that provide valuable practice and professional development through a deeper understanding of real-life project management, expectations, and professionalism.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 2.1:  DR GJOKO MURATOVSKI Director of the Ullman School of Design, University of Cincinnati, United States Dr Gjoko Muratovski is a university executive, awardwinning researcher, and innovation consultant working with a wide range of universities, Fortune 500 companies, NGOs, and various governments from around the world. Throughout Gjoko’s career, he has held numerous leadership and high-profile appointments at various academic and professional institutions. Gjoko is also the

34  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

endowed chair and director of the Ullman School of Design at the University of Cincinnati, the oldest public design school in the United States. In this expert sidebar, Gjoko makes observations on the shifting landscape of design and design education, discusses the underlying theory of design thinking pedagogy, and presents the importance of research informing design practice.

Design education has changed significantly from the mid-1990s when I first started my design education to now. I have spent 10 years studying design in traditional European art schools and academies, where design was experienced as a form of applied art. Research for design at the time was almost non-existent or highly superficial. The design critiques only revolved around the language of art, and apart from ergonomics and certain aspects related to manufacturing and production, there was very little else that was used to inform the design process. Fortunately, as designers, we no longer work in this manner, even though the residue of these times can still be found in many design programs around the world, especially in schools where design and art are still taught together. Evidence-based research is increasingly becoming recognised as important in the field of design today, and design is now more aligned with business than it is with the arts. This paradigm shift over the past 30 years in the field of design has been fascinating to observe. The rise of design thinking alongside the concept of design innovation has certainly changed the design education landscape. There is no question about it. We are now witnessing the segmentation of design education and, in many cases, a separation of design thinking from the schools of design. Even though the concept itself derives from design – or I should probably be more specific and say from product design – design thinking is a reasonably new idea. It’s not something that you would have found in a typical design school in the past. In theory, we can say, there is design in design thinking, but this is not what has really defined the field of design in the past. In fact, design thinking is anachronistic to the way traditional designers practised design. This concept belongs to the field of design in theory, but not really in practice – historically speaking. This is why business schools, rather than design schools, were much more open to embracing design thinking and introducing programs or courses aimed at teaching non-designers how to drive innovation by design. This is a very significant recent development, and I expect that new forms of design such as this will continue to be introduced in the future as well.

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  35

Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that traditional design education is somehow becoming obsolete. This is not an evolution by extinction; it is just growth. Industry still needs old-school designers and will continue to need them in the future as well. The only difference is that the world today needs human-centric leaders. And this is the game changer for our field. By being human-centric at their core, design thinking and design-led innovation can go beyond the “face value” that design in its original form can deliver. They can become tools for the next generation of leaders. I also believe that design pedagogy is essentially about empowering students to change the world. It shows students that nothing is permanent and that they have the power to rethink, envision, and transform everything around them – from the smallest objects to the biggest environments. When it comes to best practice design teaching and education, I believe that this is best done via experiential learning. This is a hands-on learning that happens when teaching shifts from a “process-based” to a “problem-based” model. In a problem-based model, students are asked to develop their own design briefs by conducting their own exploratory research. They must frame the problems, identify gaps in the market, determine new opportunities and challenges, and gain an in-depth understanding of the end users and their needs. There are no predetermined processes in place, and the primary principle is that research must always inform both the design process and the design solution. This model encourages students to exhibit curiosity, take initiative, and assume leadership roles at different stages of the project. By working in this way, they will develop their critical thinking skills and learn how to negotiate a solution within a group setting. This is how we can teach students to learn new things and adapt to new environments. Instead of focusing on individual instruction by teaching theoretically how things are done, experiential learning allows students working as a group to build knowledge by attempting to solve an open-ended, real-world problem. This way of teaching improves students’ problem-solving skills, enables them to take ownership of their learning, and creates a stronger sense of community in the class. This is also a great way of introducing research to students in a more meaningful way. Along these lines, I also must note that the concept of the classroom has been originally designed to prevent creative thinking, not to encourage it. For us to provide the highest quality of design education, we need to be innovative in the ways we interact and engage with our students. We need to convert our traditional classrooms into immersive and inclusive studio environments equipped with state-of-the-art technology. We need to work towards creating new learning and teaching environments that are inspiring, that challenge

36  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

existing conventions, and are future-focused. If we want to advance the field further, we first must raise the bar and set a new standard for how we should be delivering design education. Currently, we are using teaching models and environments that have evolved very little over the last two centuries. In the meantime, the way our society interacts, and the way industry operates, has changed dramatically. If we want our design students to become the future leaders of innovation, we need to reimagine how we teach design in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and we need to envision a new kind of learning experience for our students. In the past, people used to work in a very linear fashion. A typical work process used to be focused on efficiency by performing repetitive tasks that people could master. But driving innovation today requires a much different work style. The creative process that drives innovation is fluid and ideas evolve as designers iterate solutions both systematically and organically. To support this process, we need a new set of creative places and technologies. We need an immersive ecosystem that brings together space and technology to help people generate new ideas and move them forward. We need a balanced teaching and learning ecosystem that includes technology that is both mobile and integrated into the physical environment as well as modular workspaces designed for both individual and group use. We also need to create the conditions that will enable transdisciplinary research to take place. Transdisciplinary research is important because this is the only way we can drive transformative innovation forward. New and disruptive innovation can only be found in the intersection of disciplines. Siloed research can only lead to incremental innovation. Incremental innovation will still be necessary for maintaining ongoing improvements of day-to-day operations, but this is not something that will lead us to breakthrough discoveries. Design, in a contemporary context, is perhaps best positioned to facilitate transdisciplinary research. Design as a field has always sat at the intersection of disciplines, and design researchers capable of transcending disciplines by applying lateral thinking and grounded theory can be very effective in connecting disparate links together. This is a unique trait that design has, and most other academic disciplines don’t. Designers today should be unafraid to ask uncomfortable questions, challenge existing conventions, and try new approaches. Many of the old “rules-ofthumb” principles – albeit still valid in some situations – need to be set aside in order for real innovation to take place. This is the reason why we need design education that can teach designers how to conduct their own research in order to inform their practice.

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  37

2.2 Principles and Practices of Design Thinking Pedagogy As design thinking is used at an increasing rate in the teaching and learning process to develop these new skill sets of the future, more needs to be explored surrounding the design thinking attributes, boundary objects, and processes and methods enabling this to occur. All three are vital for identifying and synthesising information while considering problem constraints and also ensuring design thinking’s innovation context. This is required to develop a more transparent, repeatable, and rigorous approach to the way in which the field of design thinking grows and spreads through our teaching. The characteristics of design thinking that we believe are imperative to effectively teach design thinking within tertiary education settings are discussed in more detail in the section that follows.

2.2.1 Design Thinking Attributes Design thinking attributes and key characteristics have been discussed by multiple authorities over the years, many of whom have defined and characterised such attributes into larger principles. Brown (2008), for example, has put forward the following as key characteristics of a design thinker: empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism, and collaboration. Overall, there is a continuous debate regarding what constitutes the essential characteristics of design thinking, as reflected in Table 2.1. The scope in essential attributes has expanded and contracted over time, but what does this mean for education in the field of design thinking? We would suggest that the common elements of empathy, collaboration, creativity and curiosity, and abductive and integrative thinking encompass a large portion of the skills that must be taught to student-designers; however, we recommend that much stronger boundaries on these attributes are drawn in order to build design pedagogy.

2.2.2 Boundary Objects The term boundary objects describes a range of objects, notes, and concepts that are produced and shared between disciplines. These presentational forms are shared between communities, with each holding its own understanding of the representation (Star, 2010). Boundary objects enable connection and share focus between different groups. Boundary objects are said by Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) to act as “translational devices”, that enable cross-disciplinary collaboration (p. 112). They define boundary objects as, devices for transition and transformation of knowledge between different disciplinary worlds … They are objects that are created to make cross-disciplinary collaboration possible. These objects foreground differences and potential mismatches between the understandings and interests of different disciplines and/or collaborators, which need to be overcome in order to work jointly.

Owen (2007)

Brown (2008)

Oster (2008)

Baeck and Gremett (2012)

Micheli,Wilner, Bhatti, Mura, and Beverland (2019)



1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Abductive 2. Inclusive 3. Problem-based

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Creativity and innovation 2. User-centredness and involvement 3. Problem-solving 4. Iteration and experimentation 5. 5.Interdisciplinary collaboration 6. Ability to visualise 7. Gestalt view 8. Abductive reasoning 9. Tolerance of ambiguity and failure 10. Blending rationality and intuition 11. Design tools and methods

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Conditioned inventiveness Human-centred focus Environment-centred concern Ability to visualise Tempered optimism Bias for adaptability Predisposition towards multifunctionality Systemic vision Generalist view Ability to use language as a tool Affinity for teamwork Facility for avoiding the necessity of choice Self-governing practicality Ability to work systematically with qualitative information

Empathy Integrative thinking Optimism Experimentalism Collaboration

Ambiguity Collaboration Constructiveness Curiosity Empathy Holism Iteration Non-judgemental way Openness

38  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

TABLE 2.1  Design thinking attribute models, 2007–2019

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  39

Like material infrastructures, boundary objects are not the main purpose of the joint activity and innovation, rather they are enablers of it. (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017, p. 112) The concept of boundary objects has been adopted by many disciplines. For example, a study by Reilly, Dillon, and Guikema (2021) reveals that boundary objects in the form of agent-based models can help bridge the communication gap between interdisciplinary researchers. Sampalli, Shepherd, and Duffy (2011) note that communication between multidisciplinary clinicians can be improved by incorporating a standardised and controlled vocabulary, which acts as a boundary object. Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) designed technology-enhanced boundary objects to help the employees of a mortgage company develop a better understanding of the mathematics behind the mortgages they sold and improve communication with their customers. Boundary objects can play a crucial role in the creation of new products. The process of new product development involves the integrated efforts of different actors of an organisation. The outcome of this process therefore depends heavily on the compatibility of the viewpoints of these actors, which is enabled through interactions and communications. Carlile (2002) argues that knowledge in new product development is both a source of and a barrier to innovation. The knowledge that drives innovative problem-solving within one disciplinary function appears to be a hindrance when it comes to problem-solving across disciplinary functions. This is because knowledge within a disciplinary function is localised and embedded and hence is highly specialised. In these situations, boundary objects help represent and transform knowledge so as to resolve the consequences that exist at a given boundary.

2.2.3 Processes and Methods The popularity of design thinking can be viewed visually through a Google image search of design thinking processes and methods. Across all of these colourful images and frameworks, some common characteristics that integrate human, business, and technical factors are displayed for problem-solving using design (Leifer & Steinert, 2011). Originally, the design thinking process was visualised as circular in nature; in more recent years, contemporary process models for non-designers depict a linear representation. Among the most popular approach is the Stanford d.school design thinking process, which is depicted as five colourful hexagons representing (1) empathise, (2) define, (3) ideate, (4) prototype, and (5) test (Figure 2.1). The process typically begins with empathy, and understanding the diverse perspectives of users and stakeholders which underpins the design thinking process. In broad terms, empathy represents the human-centredness of the design thinking process: putting the who you are solving the problem for at the centre of the problem and process to ensure that you are solving the right problem. In order to gain insights into users and stakeholders, one must observe and engage with them

40  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

FIGURE 2.1 

ypical Stanford d.school design thinking process (d.school Stanford T University, n.d.)

through user interviews and observations of interactions and focus groups, and by developing personas and journey maps.These insights ultimately allow you to define, break down, and reframe the problem to develop a refined problem definition. From here, you ideate, generating and developing as many ideas and potential solutions to the problem as possible, through brainstorming, developing scenarios, and other methods, before evaluating and selecting ideas to prototype. Prototyping involves creating, often in low-fidelity design forms of ideas – this can be done through wireframing or storyboarding, for example – which are then tested with users and stakeholders. However, the process shouldn’t end after testing; as design thinking is an iterative process, the design should be refined based on the interactions with and feedback from users, then iterated upon and implemented. Another popular design thinking process is the UK Design Council’s double diamond (as seen in Figure 2.2). The process diverges and converges, moving through four key phases: discover, define, develop, and deliver. Similar to the d.school model, the first phase, discover, is divergent, focusing on opening up and unpacking the problem by obtaining insights through user research to identify the user’s needs. The second phase, define, seeks to converge on these findings through understanding how user insights align with the problem to define a revised problem that better meets user needs and requirements. The third phase opens up the revised problem to develop multiple ideas and solutions to the problem and prototype and test these ideas. The fourth phase, deliver, aims to narrow in on one solution to prepare it for implementation. Although these are only two of many design thinking processes and methods, what is common across them is their focus on defining a reframed problem by understanding the user, customer, and/or stakeholders and their needs, problems, and wants.

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  41

FIGURE 2.2 

 K Design Council’s double diamond design process (Design Council, U 2019)

2.2.4 Design Expertise In order to develop and build design expertise, specialist domain knowledge needs to be not only established but also integrated by developing design skills through undertaking projects of increasing complexity (Cross, Christiaans, & Dorst, 1994; Dorst & Reymen, 2004; Lawson & Dorst, 2009). This reinforces Cross (2004) in his work where he refers to expertise as more than simply possessing talent, as “it is the result of a dedicated application to a chosen field” (p. 428). Lawson and Dorst (2009) state that “acquiring design expertise is influenced by a complex array of factors”, which include skill acquisition, declarative knowledge, and relevant experiences (pp. 98–99). Interestingly, here the term “acquiring” has been used by Lawson and Dorst (2009), implying that expertise is an innate ability that one possesses, or something that could be “bought” off the shelf. Using more constructivist terms when referring to the development of expertise such as, develop, master, or learn, however, signals that expertise is able to be developed over time and enacted each time anew. Reimann and Markauskaite (2018) identify that expertise development is informed through different perspectives, including cognitive, socio-cultural, and situated perspectives. Cognitive science perspectives identify expertise through expert-novice comparison studies converging on four-key characteristics, “(i) expertise is domain specific, (ii) experts perceive larger perceptual units than novices, (iii) experts knowledge is organised differently from nonexperts, and (iv) experts solve routine problems differently from novices” (Reimann & Markauskaite, 2018, p. 54). Lawson and Dorst (2009) ascertain that increasing levels of design expertise are coupled with the ability to deal with open, complex, networked, and dynamic

42  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

problem situations. However, they warn that skill development is not the only factor of a successful designer. Building on Dreyfus’s (2004) expertise model, Lawson and Dorst distinguish between “seven ‘levels of design expertise’: ‘Naïve’, ‘Novice’, ‘Advanced Beginner’, ‘Competent’, ‘Expert’, ‘Master’ and ‘Visionary’”, which “correspond with seven different ways of operating in design practice, namely choice based, convention based, situation based, strategy based, experience based, creating new schemata and the redefinition of the field” (Dorst, 2011, p. 526). Each level is associated with its own specific practices (Dorst & Reymen, 2004; Lawson & Dorst, 2009, p. 102). These levels of expertise (as seen in Table 2.2) are beneficial when thinking through the development of expertise in a designer. The main differences between the highest and lowest levels of design expertise, expert, and novice are described below. Cross et al. (1994) describe four characteristics of expert designers: “Expert designers produce novel, unexpected solutions”, “tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information”, “apply imagination and constructive thought”, and “use drawings and other modelling media as means of problem-solving” (pp. 40–42). Comparably, novices, as Reilly (2008) states, are usually defined in relation to experts and therefore “tend to be portrayed as having more superficial knowledge networks, not picking up on the salient features of the problem, and therefore failing to develop an appropriate scheme for consideration” (p. 60). This presents a vast difference between the two and within the field of design. Clearly, the level of expertise brought to a problem can directly impact upon

TABLE 2.2  Design expertise levels

Design Expertise Levels Naïve Novice Advanced Beginner

Competent

Expert

Master

Visionary

Description Design done by everyday people, often through choosing from a set of prescribed solutions, is result-focused Explores what design is, and investigates design through a formal design process, is convention-based Understands that design problems are individual and situated and is able to react to them, starts to develop design language, is situation-based Actively steers the development of the design problem and sees the bigger picture, can handle common situations that occur within design domains, is strategy-based Has an implicit recognition of situations and a fluent, intuitive response, a set of values expressed through their work, is experience-based Pushes the boundaries of the field and their practice is at a level of innovation, publish work for others to study, develops new schemata Operates on the margins of their domain, paying attention to other domains as well, aims to redefine the design field through their work

(Synthesised from Dorst, 2015; Dreyfus, 2004; Lawson & Dorst, 2009)

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  43

a situation, application, and the outcomes (Dorst, 2011). As Cross (2004) suggests, design expertise contains aspects that vary significantly from expertise in other disciplines, such as problem framing, a “directed approach to gathering problem information and prioritising criteria”, and being solution-focused (p. 439). Additionally, different levels of design expertise have their own levels of design practice, including methods, skill set, and mode of reflection (Dorst, 2015, p. 58). Tan (2021) identifies four common models of expertise within design expertise consisting of four key models (1) skill acquisition, (2) deliberate practice, (3) reflective practice, and (4) communities of practice (Table 2.3). Tan (2021) argues, “none of these models can account on its own for the significant complexity within which expertise is developed, performed and constructed” (p. 22). She then goes on to suggest four key themes that could expand and integrate these models of design expertise, “experiential knowledge”, “adaptability”, “perceptiveness”, and “motivational support”. In addition to these four themes, we argue that a conceptual–theoretical understanding of the key principles and methods in the field of design thinking and its related areas is critical for developing design expertise (this can be seen more in 2.4).We argue there is a need for a fifth model – conceptual theory – to be added to the Tan’s four, with these then collectively integrated through knowledge from the learning sciences.

TABLE 2.3  Design expertise models

Design Expertise Models

Description

Skill Acquisition

Based on Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) developmental model of skill acquisition from novice to expert to represent and categorise design competency Developed by Ericsson and colleagues (Ericsson & Smith, 1991), the deliberate practice method theorises in order for individuals to improve performance they must undertake “a series of structured behaviours that induce a corresponding series of specific changes within a training period” (Tan, 2021, p. 9) often developed through working closely with mentors Based on Schön’s (1983) reflective practice model and is one of the most widely used design expertise models, theorising that reflective practice methods enable expertise development. The concept is “founded on experiential knowledge, which makes practical progress dependent on the range and amount of experience and knowledge, and difficult for objectively inexperienced individuals” (Tan, 2021, p. 12) Based on Wenger’s (2010) model of communities of practice, the expertise model “maps the fluid relationships that shape the experience of developing competence within professional environments” (Tan, 2021, p. 13)

Deliberate Practice

Reflective Practice

Communities of Practice

(Synthesised from Tan, 2021)

44  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

2.2.5 Design Facilitation The field of facilitation has a long history and generalist facilitators seek to encourage “open dialogue among individuals with different perspectives so that diverse assumptions and options may be explored” (Hogan, 2002, p. 10). While there are some shared characteristics between generalist and design facilitators (Body, Terrey, & Tergas, 2010), design facilitators focus on the design process and design thinking with a clear direction through the facilitation process towards a specific design outcome. The primary role of a “design facilitator” is to enable dialogue assisting in the development of ideas in relation to a problem (Mosely, Wright, & Wrigley, 2018). Design facilitators play an essential role in eliciting information and encouraging participation in the design process by combining the thoughts and opinions of heterogeneous audiences. Body et al. (2010) identify a difference between generalist facilitators and design facilitators, stating that design facilitators take “a group through a collaborative process of design thinking to create a picture of a future state that doesn’t yet exist” (pp. 63–64). Subsequent to the adoption of design thinking in business contexts, the role of the “design facilitator” or “designer as facilitator” has arisen due to the application and implementation of design thinking, co-design, and participatory design processes (Lee, 2008; Manzini, 2014; Wahl & Baxter, 2008). Facilitating these design processes has become an expected role for designers, requiring their design expertise, creativity and leadership skills in order to promote and enable interdisciplinary collaboration. That the role of designer as facilitator has now emerged, and that this role requires a new skill set, is well established in the literature. What is not well established, however, is the manner in which designers are taught facilitation skills, processes, and techniques which must be further examined. It has also not been recognised that some design disciplines prepare designers to facilitate design thinking better than others. Cross (2001) argues that despite the obvious differences between design fields, the same underlying design processes are employed by all design professionals. For Cross, all designers, regardless of their area of practice, possess the same design knowledge, awareness, and ability.This view assumes that all designers are created equal and implies that all are equally capable of facilitating a design workshop. Yet a basic understanding of design does not necessarily translate into a strong ability to facilitate the design thinking process. As Carvalho, Dong, and Maton (2009) point out, different “disciplines in the field of design practice design differently” (p. 499) and as much as design thinking is presented as a generic process, some design disciplines prepare designers to understand it and implement it better than others. Design expertise plays a role in effective design facilitation practice. Luck (2007) explores how design expertise impacts the performance of facilitation and conversational behaviour, arguing that facilitation expertise is performed and displayed during design talk and conversation. In terms of facilitation methods and processes, Aguirre,Agudelo, and Romm (2017) argue that successful design facilitation requires contextually designed facilitation tools that are different from generic, ready-made,

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  45

and templated design thinking tools such as Post-it notes, butcher’s paper, generic personas, and journey maps. Design facilitation does not just embody individual elements of practice; it is a holistic practice encompassing shared activities of the profession and the environment, making them highly relevant to design pedagogies (Mosely, Markauskaite, & Wrigley, 2021). In learning environment contexts, the design facilitator acts as the teacher and instructor in order to guide students through the design thinking process and for the student to witness design thinking in practice.

2.2.6 Design Problem Complexity In our previous work, we found that the complexity of the problem designers were tackling had a vast impact on the level of expertise required to facilitate an adequate solution (Mosely et al., 2018). Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) build on Schön (1983) “‘problem framing’ – running an experiment on the spot, detecting the consequences (p. 579). Much of the time considering the complexity of problems is taken for granted and as a result all problems are treated equally. What is not commonly recognised is that the complexity of a problem often shifts during the design process and this can have dramatic effects on the facilitation and pivot points in the design approach. The ability to identify these shifts separates the novice from the expert in skill, approach, and ability to use one’s design intuition. The expertise level of facilitators impacts the learning experiences of non-design students, as does the complexity of the problem.This implies that the complexity of the problem being posed needs to match the design thinking expertise of the facilitator teaching others how to approach solving it. It also implies that the complexity of the problem needs to fit with the level of design thinking knowledge of the participants (students) in the workshop (classroom). If the complexity of the problem does not match the level of expertise possessed by teachers and their students this can result in the inability to address the problem adequately leaving both parties unfulfilled. Snowden and Boone (2007) offer a categorisation framework, for classifying situational contexts and determining a problem-solving approach: (1) simple, (2) complicated, (3) complex, and (4) chaotic. Expert designers view problems differently from novices (Björklund, 2013).They are able to frame problems better, operate in contexts of ambiguity and complexity, and visualise the solution state. As such, Orr and Shreeve (2018) discuss the importance of teaching students ambiguity to enable them to understand multiple perspectives and hold competing views. To enable students to feel comfortable in ambiguity and uncertainty, they need to be in a safe environment where they are supported to take risks because, as Goodyear and Markauskaite (2019) state, “learning to work on wicked problems also involves constructing the right environment for the work” (p. 48). In order for students to feel comfortable approaching these complex problems, this learning environment must be both social and material, incorporating tools, infrastructure, people, and dialogue (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). In addition to teaching

46  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

students to feel comfortable with ambiguity, Hung, Mehl, and Holen (2013) suggest three key variables that enable students to engage in the problem-solving process: authenticity of the problem, the presence of people involved in the problem, and the location and temporal proximity of the student to the problem (p. 643).The authors state, in order for students to feel psychologically and emotionally attached to the problem at hand, not only does it need to be a real-world problem but ensuring students feel the relevance of the problem enhances the human element, increasing students’ motivation, engagement, and commitment. Problem-solving can be influenced by both internal factors such as domain knowledge and design expertise and experience and external factors including structuredness and situatedness of the problem, role of the problem context, complexity, domain specificity, and dynamicity (Jonassen, 2007, 2011). The term “problem structure” refers to a problem’s transparency, stability, and to the predictability of the problem space (Jonassen & Hung, 2008, p. 11), which can be scaled from well-structured to ill-structured. Jonassen and Hung (2008) state that problem complexity manifests “in terms of the breadth, attainment level, intricacy, and interrelatedness of the problem space” (p. 11). Design problems are often considered so wicked as they are both highly complex and ill-structured. Design problems possess multiple possible solutions, multiple solution paths, are dynamic (changing over time), and house unstated constraints (Jonassen, 2007, p. 13).

2.3 Theoretical Learning Foundations in Design Thinking Education Dzombak and Beckman (2020) bring together the following three theories as underpinning Beckman and Barry’s (2007) learning model for developing designled capability: Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory, Owen’s (2007) design thinking knowledge creation model, and Schön’s reflective practitioner. In the following section, we deconstruct these three prominent theories and describe in more detail the context for design thinking pedagogy. Each theory is mapped to a contextual component of design thinking pedagogy, the learner, the knowledge, or the teacher/facilitator, as demonstrated in Table 2.4.

2.3.1 Experiential Learning Theory Design thinking and experiential learning have been connected by many scholars (e.g., Beckman & Barry, 2007; Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018; Rauth, Köppen, Jobst, & Meinel, 2010). Kolb (1984) defines experiential learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p. 38). Kolb’s experiential learning theory describes learning as a cyclical process that commences with a real-life design intervention, along with feedback about the experience (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). As depicted in Figure 2.3, the learner moves through four phases: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation. As Campbell, Stockman, and Burns (2020) state, “the

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  47 TABLE 2.4  Underpinning theory for design thinking pedagogy

Context

Theory

Learner

Kolb (1984) Experiential learning theory Owen (2007) Design thinking knowledge creation model Schön (1983) The reflective practitioner

Knowledge Facilitator

FIGURE 2.3 

The cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984)

assertion is made that learning through concrete experience, augmented by reflection and abstraction to generic ideas and concepts, facilitates the process of active experimentation, and is in turn reinforced by further cycles through these four phases” (p. 113). Kolb’s cycle has been subject to a significant amount of criticism,

48  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

however, Moon (2004) has argued that these criticisms are founded on misunderstandings, explaining that as is “not unusual in academic writing, one of the main problems about the cycle lies not with Kolb’s work, but with the ways in which his work has been reinterpreted” (p. 115). Within experiential learning theory, learning is a holistic and cyclic process, where the learner cycles through the four phases of the model, drawing on the required learning abilities one after the other (Kolb, 1984; Tormey, Issac, Hardebolle, & Le Duc, 2022).Tormey, Issac, Hardebolle, & Le Duc (2022) illustrate this as learners cycling through having an experience, thinking about it, using that to build their concepts and understandings, and using those concepts to solve problems and ask questions of the world (p. 63). However, some critique this sequential interpretation of Kolb’s model, stating instead that the four phases should be experienced concurrently by the learner. As Exley, Dennick, and Fisher (2019) explain although the cyclical nature of these relationships is often emphasized, implying that there is a temporal sequence involved, Kolb emphasized that all four learning modes are present to the individual simultaneously. The learner can choose to focus on the outer world of raw experience or their inner world of mental representations; they can choose to reflect or act on either of these sources of experience. Effective learning requires the integration of these four abilities; the learner must constantly move between the concrete or the abstract and between activity or reflection at any moment. (p. 17) The process of learning and knowledge creation within design thinking education is highly iterative (Rauth et al., 2010), and we argue that tangible and practical design thinking experiences based in theory are central to learning design thinking. New knowledge creation is derived from challenging the boundaries of disciplines; however, this is simple in theory and much harder to do in practice.

2.3.2 Knowledge Creation: Inquiry and Application Owen’s (2007) design thinking knowledge creation model (Figure 2.4) demonstrates the creation of new knowledge through inquiry-based paradigms. As he states, “in any field, knowledge is generated and accumulated through action: the model is doing something and evaluating the results” (p. 19). Not that dissimilar from the efforts of design thinking in its pursuit of knowledge creation is “design thinking as knowledge building situated between analytic ‘finding’ and synthetic ‘making’ modes of cognition” (Withell & Haigh, 2013, p. 239). As Owen (2007) explains, knowledge building (values and measures) and knowledge using (needs or goals) “are deep foundation layers that direct and inform higher levels all the way to the level of overt procedure” (p. 20). In order to understand the differences among distinct disciplines, these foundations need to be examined. The difference between

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  49

FIGURE 2.4 

 oundations of design thinking knowledge: Paradigms of inquiry and appliF cation (Owen, 2007)

knowledge and knowing lies in the understanding that learning and knowing in theory are not the same as learning and knowing for doing: “Learning such knowledge is not only a matter of acquiring shared meanings but rather of developing capacities for establishing functional relationships between meanings, environment and activity” (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017, p. 75). On the left-hand side, in Figure 2.4, the realm of theory depicts the analytical inquiry paradigm and the building of knowledge through exploratory measures; on the right-hand side, the synthetic realm of practice depicts the application of this knowledge into principles of knowledge using the means of practice.

2.3.3 The Reflective Practitioner As education modes are changing from a teacher-led approach (that focuses on content delivery and assessable outcomes) to a learner-based approach (that encourages self-directed, peer-tutored, and cooperative learning; Biggs & Tang, 2007), new pedagogical approaches are required to integrate design thinking into the teaching of all disciplines. However, before we shift focus, we next discuss the teacher-led approach of a seminal authority – Donald Schön. Schön’s reflection-in-action paradigm is a teacher-led approach that says that studio learning should immerse students in an environment of reflective creative practice with the guidance of a practitioner/educator/facilitator (Schön, 1983).The theory known as “reflective practice” asserts that in the design disciplines (architecture in particular) a certain amount of “artistry” gained over time is required to solve complex, multifaceted, and ambiguous problems. Schön (1983) labels this as “tacit knowing” – that is, a capacity for “intuitive and spontaneous performance” (p. 21). The theory includes the use of design tools in the development of “artistry”, with the tacit knowledge Schön speaks of used in conjunction with these tools to create the practice (specifically architecture). The tools are used to facilitate the practice and Schön labels them as “reflection-in-action” (as seen in Figure 2.5).

50  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

FIGURE 2.5 

Schön’s reflective practitioner theory (Schön, 1983)

The strength of Schön’s theory is that it addresses the need for tertiary education providers to return to the master-apprentice model in some aspects of design thinking education – it views the design studio teacher as a “coach” who helps students associate with disciplinary norms and start to “think like a designer”. Mewburn (2012) presents another strength of Schön’s theory in that the “design pedagogy stems from the fact that Schön takes seriously the idea that there is a rational epistemology of architectural design practice that can be found by observing it in action” (p. 366). However, the weaknesses of Schön’s theory are significant and many have critiqued its validity and reliability in design research (Beck & Chiapello, 2016). Unfortunately, it has become a common design researchers’ go-to methodology of choice. Beck and Chiapello (2016) analysed 63 texts citing Schön collected from the proceedings of two consecutive Design Research Society conferences. They found most publications cited Schön for two purposes: either to support their research approach and method or to acknowledge the importance of Schön’s ideas.Very few publications critically engaged with Schön or built upon his ideas. Webster (2008) has disparaged academics for becoming “besotted” with Schön’s theories while failing to recognise their limitations and methodological errors (p. 65). Webster is critical of the teacher being an all-knowing and all-seeing authority when designing, drawing on the issues of power and authority within the design studio environment as touched on in Chapter 1. In addition, Schön’s theory suggests a one-way relationship, with the student playing a passive role rather than being an active participant in the partnership.That the use and importance of design tools in the design process does not focus more prominently is also a limitation of this theory. In a design thinking context, the term design facilitator is used (as mentioned above in Section 2.2.5), however, in the context of this book, we refer to them as a facilitator.

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  51

2.4 The Design Thinking Pedagogy Framework As discussed briefly in Section 2.3 of this chapter, the models of Schön, Owen, and Kolb lack the ability to cross disciplinary boundaries. This omission is evidence of the need for a new model that theoretically addresses this gap in practice and pedagogy, and one that incorporates boundary objects, problem complexity, expertise, and facilitation into its pedagogy. It is this need that has motivated the development of the design thinking pedagogy framework. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks discussed in Section 2.3, the design thinking pedagogy framework (as seen in Figure 2.6) is a conceptual model that illustrates not only the theory but also the practice of teaching design thinking. The framework synthesises the work of Schön (1983), Owen (2007), Kolb (1984), and Dzombak and Beckman (2020) and provides the theoretical context for unpacking the elements of design thinking pedagogy.Within this unpacking, we identify possibilities for integrating design thinking pedagogies

FIGURE 2.6 

Design thinking pedagogy framework

52  Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy

with traditional models such as experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), design thinking knowledge creation (Owen, 2007), and reflective practice (Schön, 1983). Individuals move through all four quadrants as they learn, oscillating through framing, inquiry, and discovery, through to co-creation, application, and making (Owen, 2007), by conceptualising these abstract concepts and foundational theories through the role of the reflective facilitator (practitioner) (Schön, 1983). As Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) state, the teacher’s responsibility is to set up an epistemic environment and processes that result in a productive expert-like inquiry; the learners’ responsibility is to learn their way through, and develop their capabilities to engage productively in, these kinds of disciplined and systematic inquiries, including the meta-skills for self-organising knowledge creation inquiry. (pp. 577–578) Both the reflective practitioner and active student interact interchangeably throughout the design thinking pedagogy process. The facilitator and the practitioner are the same – they learn from each other. In Figure 2.6, the framework’s dark circle depicts the iterative cycle(s) of experiential learning and practice and the process of design thinking. The process starts with problem complexity, where how one frames the inquiry and approach depends on the complexity of the problem. For example, a simple problem will require different design thinking practices and principles as opposed to a complex problem. The depiction and conceptualisation of ideas are formed and theorised through divergent design thinking processes, methods, and boundary objects. This creates knowledge where the same boundary objects help to frame the solution through a converging phase. This phase is done through the application of prototypes, to experiment and address the problem, culminating in measures to evaluate the solution against the problem context. The reflective facilitator as an active learner implements the ideas into innovative practice. Based on this experience, the active learner critiques and builds upon theory, which feeds into the next cycle. The cycle is, through its very nature, experiential where in order to learn design thinking, the active learner and the reflective facilitator are actively involved in the process (this is a process called co-creating), reflecting on and analysing their experiences through the problem-solving process to move their ideas and designs forward. Table 2.5 breaks down the elements in the design thinking pedagogy framework (Figure 2.6) and provides further descriptions of these elements. These elements have been synthesised from the design thinking and learning sciences fields, respectively. This framework is explored further throughout the book and deconstructed in each chapter with regards to its application in specific contexts.The design thinking pedagogy implications, what to watch out for and what to strive for, are provided for each level of tertiary education.

Research on Design Thinking Pedagogy  53 TABLE 2.5  Design thinking pedagogy framework breakdown

Design Thinking Process Empathise Ideate Prototype Test

To understand and share the feelings of users, stakeholders, and/ or others impacted by the problem through gaining insights To generate multiple possible creative concepts and ideas to the problem To develop an experimental proposed solution To validate ideas based on feedback from stakeholders

Reflective Facilitator Problem Complexity Conceptual Theory Boundary Object Innovation Practice

The degree of difficulty of the problem being addressed, this can range from simple, complicated, complex to chaotic Key leading and seminal principles, processes, and methods in the field of design thinking and its related areas An artefact, object, or tool used to communicate and break down the design thinking process and design collaboratively The process of introducing new ways of doing, methods into professional contexts

Active Learner Framing Inquiry/Discovery Co-Create Application/Making

To reposition a viewpoint or insight in order to better address the problem and create a desired outcome To be curious through probing, questioning, and challenging information To design jointly and collaboratively The action of putting design thinking into operation

The design thinking pedagogy framework provides a novel framework for examining design thinking education. The model presents the reflective facilitator and active learner as key actors within the learning environment. Design thinking expertise is driven by the ability to apply four key constructs: design concepts and theory, design inquiry, design application, and innovation practice. This model is underpinned by the assumption that the facilitator/practitioner must bring to the learning environment previous experience and expertise from various design thinking applications. As Goodyear and Markauskaite (2019) explain, wicked problems require a bespoke configuration of methods and tools for inquiry – no complex design problem can be solved by a replicated process. Therefore, such a facilitator must be a T-shaped designer, highlighting the importance of generalist designers, as described further in the next chapter.

3 DESIGN THINKING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION FOR EPISTEMIC FLUENCY

3.1 Contextualising Design Within Intra-, Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinarity Most universities worldwide offer a combination of undergraduate major and minor programs (different disciplines selecting common units). However, the rise of undergraduate design thinking majors and minors (taught at multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary levels) has only been established over the last few decades. The growing appeal of complementary combinations of study is in response to the need to acquire 21st century skills (as foregrounded earlier in Chapter 1). How to plan, create, construct, and execute such ambitious programs at some of the world’s largest universities, however, remains an open question. This chapter explores this question in the following sections. It is widely acknowledged that current ways of working are constantly changing and evolving, making it difficult to predict what the future of work will look like. Automation, globalisation, and technological advances are reshaping the way we collaborate. Transferable skills and interdisciplinarity are therefore now critical for navigating uncertain and unpredictable employment contexts (Foundation for Young Australians, 2015). This unpredictability has not only been amplified by the global pandemic, as the way we work and learn has needed to adapt, but also highlighted that graduates require these skills now, not only “in the future”. Workplaces of the future, and arguably workplaces now, consist of individuals who have a mix of different skills and capabilities and participate in self-directed lifelong learning (Design Council, 2010; Hajkowicz et al., 2016;Wyn, 2009).Although core professions in education, health, agriculture, engineering, and technical trades are crucial for a functioning society today (Jackson, 2018), national innovation is seen as an imperative for economic growth, enhanced productivity, future jobs, and competition in the global market now and into the future (ACOLA, 2016; Howard, 2016; Moyle, 2010). DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-3

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  55

Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) argue that prospering in a rapidly changing world requires more than a disposition for lifelong learning: it requires a deep understanding of how knowledge works, the capacity to participate in the creation of actionable knowledge and a sense of how to reconfigure the world in order to see what matters more clearly and enable oneself, and others, to act more knowledgeably. (p. 20) Now, more than ever, graduates need to have the skills to address the complex challenges they’ll face in professional work and in broader society. They need to think about the problems of today collaboratively, incorporate multiple perspectives, and facilitate and drive change. We can’t predict the jobs of the future, nor can we predict what the future will look like; therefore, education needs to provide its graduates with the skills to excel in uncertain times. When integrated across disciplines in either a multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinary manner, design is recognised as a proficiency that develops 21st century skills and builds innovative capability (Design Council, 2018).Within higher education, design processes give students the opportunity to develop the skills needed to identify a problem or need, consider options and constraints within that problem space, and plan, prototype, test, and iterate solutions to these problems. Melles (2020) acknowledges that “design thinking has found a place in multiple disciplines within and beyond faculties and schools of design” (p. 5). However, the role of the academic or facilitator guiding the design inquiry is crucial, as is the learning environment they create and foster while doing this. In this chapter, we contend that epistemic fluency, as conceived by Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017), has the potential to be built through design thinking pedagogy. The concept of design thinking pedagogy links to epistemic fluency by traversing the boundaries of domain-specific knowledge and challenging where these boundaries stop for formal education and bleed outside the curriculum of educational institutions. At an undergraduate level, building epistemic fluency should create empowered students with a willingness to be open to opportunities, free to challenge the future, and collaboratively build actions to create the world they want to live in. In this book, we argue that design helps students co-create the knowledge that is produced through collaborative pedagogies. The opportunity to explore this theory is explained further in this chapter through the concept of the T-shaped designer and also through the examples of undergraduate design programs in universities worldwide.

3.2 The T-Shaped Designer Just like the concept of epistemic fluency conceived by Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017), within the field of learning sciences, the design equivalent is popularly referred to as the “T-shaped designer” (Fleischmann, 2022). First conceived by Iansiti (1993), in

56  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

relation to the profile of successful integration teams for innovative product development, a t-shaped professional possesses deep, specified technical knowledge as well as an understanding of how their expertise affects others in their team and fits into the broader picture. Drawing on Iansiti (1993), in 2010, IDEO CEO Tim Brown, in conversation with Morten Hansen, identified the foundation of IDEO’s “collaborative culture” as T-shaped professionals (Brown, 2010). Brown (2010) states, T-shaped people have two kinds of characteristics, hence the use of the letter “T” to describe them. The vertical stroke of the “T” is a depth of skill that allows them to contribute to the creative process.That can be from any number of different fields: an industrial designer, an architect, a social scientist, a business specialist or a mechanical engineer. The horizontal stroke of the “T” is the disposition for collaboration across disciplines. (para. 1) As depicted in Figure 3.1, the breadth of knowledge and understanding across disciplines is facilitated through collaboration, composed of two characteristics: empathy

FIGURE 3.1 

The T-shaped design professional (Brown, 2010)

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  57

and enthusiasm (Brown, 2010). Empathy is required for understanding problems from alternative perspectives, and enthusiasm is important for understanding and engaging with other disciplines (Brown, 2010).These are two out of the five of Brown’s (2008) key design thinking characteristics. This rests upon a depth of expertise acquired within one core design discipline demonstrated through skills proficiency. In a manner that reflects Brown’s (2008) design thinking characteristics (as mentioned earlier in Chapter 2) – empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism, and collaboration – we argue that educating the designer of the 21st century requires a T-shaped skill set that couples deep disciplinary knowledge in a field of design (e.g., architecture, fashion design, industrial design) with a broad knowledge of design thinking that sits on top.As illustrated in Figure 3.2, the top of the T represents the skills developed through design thinking pedagogy. It backs on to the mirrored T of the depth of disciplinary knowledge outside the realms of design practice. This middle overlay supports the development of epistemic fluency, with those who are flexible with ways of knowing about the world. However, the question remains:Why is developing epistemic fluency in graduates from such undergraduate bachelor’s programs important?

FIGURE 3.2 

The T-shaped design thinkers

58  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

Undergraduate degrees based on the T-shaped design thinker seek to build key capabilities and attributes listed as follows: • • • • • • •

creativity and critical thinking skills problem-solving skills from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives technical skills in concept creation and delivery a foundational knowledge base of the history and theory of design a human-centred, empathetic perspective to understand the depth of complex problems communication skills (written, oral, and visual) ethnographic and anthropological research methods.

Design thinking pedagogy complements a student’s home disciplinary degree and provides an alternative approach to solving complex “wicked problems”. Davis (2015) talks about the design generalist, stating the most prominent argument for a general approach to education is today’s students having multiple careers within their lifetime requiring less specialised study that will enable them to work across disciplines throughout their employment (p. 19). Davis (2015) goes on to explain that design generalists can play an important role in interdisciplinary collaboration: they can expose the limitations of conventional methods and ways of thinking; translate concepts that are otherwise constrained by disciplinary jargon or methods of representation; position strategies within broader contexts than those of the immediate assignment; and identify intellectual resources that may be outside the professional knowledge of specialists. Like the general practitioner in medicine, they can focus on the quality of interactions among members of the team and advocate for the long-term benefits to users. But  eighteen- to twenty-year-olds do not acquire such skills and perspective outside a well-crafted curricular plan that targets these competencies as specific learning outcomes. Such a plan must be designed, not left to chance or constructed entirely from bits and pieces of coursework that serve entirely different purposes under the complex canons of discrete disciplines. (p. 20) Can these undergraduate students acquire the skills and complex understanding needed to appreciate design thinking at such a young age and does this create a design generalist as a result? What T-shaped designer are these programs creating?

3.3 Global Snapshot of Design Thinking Undergraduate Programs As a result of globalisation, and increased ease of international travel, education institutions around the world are required to compete internationally and, as such, innovation is required. Areas of innovation require new ways of working and new

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  59

approaches to teaching and learning. Universities are teaching in a global landscape, producing high-quality graduates who are prepared with the right skills and experience to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace. Design thinking is what has been looked to when responding to such a need. Design schools worldwide have realised that to capture more student revenue, and open the market up to larger student numbers in other areas of the university, they can repackage the core units already taught in undergraduate programs and create a “minor” specialisation in design. Design courses are being integrated into nondesign programs across schools and faculties. For example, new minor and major design programs have emerged that focus on multi- and transdisciplinary applications, with many offering interdisciplinary design projects that require authentic, hands-on projects, which tend to be self-directed and involve cooperative learning and design pedagogy. However, there is no common way to integrate design across curriculums – most institutions do it differently.Within our previous city of Sydney, Australia alone, three institutions offer “design” as an additional component to a degree and each have a different model. This section provides a snapshot of best practice undergraduate programs offered worldwide that incorporate transdisciplinary design thinking. The term transdisciplinary has been used to describe such programs as they cross many disciplinary bounds to create a holistic approach based on design thinking. These can be seen in detail in Table 3.1. Design thinking undergraduate programs have been categorised into four main types of programs: minors and majors, combined bachelor’s degrees, cross-faculty labs, and the multidisciplinary design degree. Examples from this table are described and discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1 University-Wide Minors and Majors In the context of this book, a university minor and/or a major is a secondary specialisation area other than the core bachelor the student is studying. The difference between the two is the amount of secondary subjects a student can elect to add to their core bachelor’s degree. Internationally, this may also be known as an elective, not constituting a collective major or minor. The number subjects selected for a minor or a major can vary greatly per institution. Over the period of the main specialist degree, 4–6 subjects may be selected for a minor; in the case of a major, 8–12 subjects may be selected. In some cases, the purpose of design minors and majors can be to introduce foundational principles of design, in addition to core design theory, history, and culture knowledge. Core design skills can also be taught, such as visual communication, design innovation, web and interface design, and visual storytelling. Education in more advanced subjects (usually only available to third-year students or once the foundational minor or major subjects have been completed) includes design approaches to innovation, where students learn how to apply design thinking to a range of contexts, in both physical and digital environments.

Type

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Combined degree

Parsons School of Design

United States

Parsons School of Design

Strategic Design and Management BBA

4 years

The Strategic Design and Management BBA is an interdisciplinary undergraduate program that combines design theory and research courses with business, management and entrepreneurial courses.

• •

The BXA: Interdisciplinary degree that seeks to integrate students’ exposure to the humanities, sciences, or computer science with design.

• • • •

Combined degree

Carnegie Mellon School of Design

United States

Design

BXA: 4 years Interdisciplinary Degree with Design Concentration

• • •

•

Design studio Professional practice (master teaching the apprentice model) Leading designers are hired to teach Client relationships Project-driven learning Practice-driven research Studio teaching Workshops Labs Project-based learning Capstone project

60  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

TABLE 3.1  Snapshot of design thinking undergraduate programs worldwide

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Cross-faculty labs

Stanford University

United States

The Stanford d.school

Elective courses

N/A

• • •

Combined degree

University of Technology Sydney

Australia

Transdisciplinary Innovation

Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation

1 year (Adds a year onto core program)

The d.school offers interdisciplinary design electives for Stanford students, in undergraduate, master’s, or research higher degrees. Students can choose from core classes and boost classes for credit or pop-out experiences for no credit. The Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation (BCII) is an additional degree that students combine with their core program to create a double degree. The BCII incorporates critical and creative thinking, invention, complexity, innovation, future scenario building, and entrepreneurship.

Design studio Learn-by-doing Teaching approach specific to the course and context • Design tools and methods • Community driven • Project-based • Real-world challenges • Design studio • Industry partners • Hackthons • Think tanks • Real problems with real clients • Cohort driven • Self-initiated proposals

(Continued)

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  61

Type

Type

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Major

National University of Singapore

Singapore

Engineering

Second Major in Innovation and Design

8–10 subjects

Open to engineering and nonengineering programs (arts and social sciences, BA, computer science, life sciences, physics), the Second Major in Innovation and Design seeks to develop an entrepreneurial mindset in students who can understand and apply innovation to solve problems. The Design Major aims to provide students from different programs across the university with design thinking skills that can be applied across a wide range of disciplines.

•

Major

The University of Sydney

Australia

Architecture, Design and Planning

Design Major

Over 3 years 8 subjects out of 12 subjects to be taken

• • •

• •

• • • • • •

Multidisciplinary project-based learning Real-world problems Internships Case studies

Interactive classes “Real-world” Industry and community projects Lectures Design studio Case studies Project-based learning Tutorials Small group exercises

62  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

TABLE 3.1 Continued

Type

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Multidisciplinary design degree

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

China

Poly U Design

BA (Hons) in Social 2 years Design

The University of Texas at Austin

United States

Centre for Integrated Design

Bridging Disciplines Program in Design Strategies

19 credit hours of coursework

Program Description

Pedagogies

The BA (Hons) in Social Design is an add on 2-year program that students integrate into a specialised undergraduate program in design or a design-related area. The program focuses on the “social” aspect of design through emphasising collaborative design practices, social engagement, and civic participation. The Bridging Disciplines Program (BDP) in Design Studies provides a multidisciplinary framework for undergraduate students to acquire design thinking skills outside of their core degree program.

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

Project-based learning Capstone project Interactive critiques Seminars Tutorials Lectures Workshops Independent study Study trips Teamwork Design Projects

Hands-on research Internship Creative experiences Capstone design project Forum seminar Integration essay Design studio

(Continued)

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  63

Cross-faculty labs

Duration

Type

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Multidisciplinary design degree

Lancaster University

United Kingdom

School of Design

Design BA Hons

3 years

The Design BA Hons recognises design as a “hybrid industry”. Students are exposed to and learn about design from a multidisciplinary perspective, gaining a broad knowledge of design processes and methods. The Design Minor seeks to develop design thinking skills based on an iterative design process for students to integrate into their broader degree program.

•

Minor

University of California San Diego

United States

Cognitive Science or Design Lab

Design Minor

Four subjects

• • •

• • •

Studio-based teaching Design studios Lectures Small-group seminars

Project-based learning Seminar Independent study

64  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

TABLE 3.1 Continued

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  65

The methods taught enable students to develop unique perspectives by working collaboratively in groups with other students from different core disciplinary bachelor’s degrees who are also enrolled in the same minor or major. In these groups, students explore multiple solutions to problems rather than trying to find the “right one”. Students learn how to tackle complex problems, clearly communicate ideas and strategies, critically assess current situations and environments, and develop strategies for innovation. In the later parts of some minors or majors, critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and research skills are taught and focused on in more detail through interactive classes and “real-world” assessments. Design minor and majors consist of subjects that have no prerequisites for the introductory units, however later units may have earlier units as prerequisites. Minors and majors are popular options for students as they allow for a short introduction to the foreign world of design while still enrolled in engineering, for example. These few subjects are able to be taken while not adding more time to the core degree. One of the advantages of design minor and major subjects is that they are taken from the already existing mainstream Bachelor of Design and thus based on the foundational year of a design degree. This can make for a rich student experience, immersing non-design students within a design studio environment enabling them to learn alongside design students. However, a disadvantage is that the subjects are not designed for a multidisciplinary context, potentially isolating non-design students, making them feel insecure within the learning environment. One driver for universities establishing design minor and majors is the ability to boost the enrolment numbers on a foundational unit in their mainstream Bachelor of Design, and this can be seen as an opportunity to increase the design school’s revenue with little effort. As student numbers rise from external faculties in the design minor, this can also put pressure on teaching resources for the students in the core degree. However, some universities approach design minors and majors in the opposite manner, where all subjects for such a minor and major are created for a bespoke program. This can also have a positive effect on the program that each student is experiencing design in a collaborative environment typically solving a problem using a design thinking process. Activities in class can be created for a novice or an expert audience depending on the learning outcome. This approach comes with the disadvantage, however, that there is little core design skill development and progression taught in such majors and minors, resulting in a lower quality of design outcomes. One example of a program that has embedded design thinking in an undergraduate interdisciplinary context is known as the Design Major, which is offered at The University of Sydney, Australia. The aim of this program is to provide students with a unique edge within their chosen core profession, allowing them to understand multiple perspectives. This major was created with a core boundary object – the design methods text book Design. Think. Make. Break. Repeat.: A Handbook of Methods (Tomitsch et al., 2018).The boundary object was created using the collective efforts of the teaching staff at The University of Sydney, who combined learning resources and shared

66  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

design tools across the department.This boundary object was conceived to aid students wishing to explore more design methods and tools in their projects. The Innovation & Design Programme at the National University of Singapore offers a Second Major in Innovation & Design for selected cohorts of students enrolled in engineering and non-engineering programs. This degree consists of a series of project-based modules, where students develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities in design and innovation in a cumulative manner throughout their candidature. The learning journey begins with lower-level modules that introduce students to basic concepts in innovation and design, and culminates in a major design project and a final-year project where students are expected to apply their design knowledge and skills to develop solutions to real problems. Students then build on this knowledge by taking up a number of electives in design, business, and entrepreneurship.

3.3.2 Combined Bachelor’s Degrees Combined bachelor’s degrees, or double degrees, combine two different disciplines and areas of specialisation into one degree program. In some cases, combined degrees follow a typical 5-year pathway or, as is the case for the Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation offered at the University of Technology Sydney, are taught as trimester holiday intensives with a final capstone year. This provides for two entire degrees to be fully executed in duration and concentration – unlike majors and minors, in which only the highlights of the degree are taught and much important knowledge and content is skipped or excluded. The downside of combined degrees can also be that in the classroom you may only be working alongside your peers of that discipline and not in a cross-/multidisciplinary team. Another example of a combined bachelor is the Parsons School of Design Strategic Design and Management BBA. Parsons (a QS world ranking No. 3 design school) in New York is a private art and design college – much like the original birthplace for design – the Bauhaus. The Strategic Design and Management BBA hosted at Parsons is interdisciplinary by nature and includes such foci as design-led research, design strategy, systems thinking, branding, product and service development, design innovation, law, finance, ethics, and sustainability. According to Parsons, the combination within the BBA program is to provide students with an interconnected approach to design and business. The BBA is taught by leading industry professionals across a 4-year timespan. The pedagogy employed by Parsons for this degree are mostly design studios that are project driven derived from industry briefs allowing for students to solve real-world problems for real clients. This approach enables the students to collaborate across the disciplines to gain an understanding of and how to develop responses to today’s complex problems and industry that are aiming to solve them. This pedogeological approach helps teach not only the design process and approaches to problem-solving but allows the professional practice skills to also develop. Professional practice is not always taught outside the classroom and hypothetical case studies, and as such can be a shock entering the workforce where

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  67

time pressures to produce creative outcomes and professional client relationships can be tough to navigate the first time around. The first year is foundational and common across all undergraduate programs at Parsons. It allows for students to learn the fundamental skills that are built upon in the later years and such industry projects described earlier. These skills consist of art and design concepts, skills, and critical practices, introducing them to design pedagogy, critique, and collaboration. In the second year, the students are exposed to subjects from business and management where these are integrated with art and design history and theory courses. Parsons promote their graduate capabilities through pedagogies beyond the classroom including internships, industry engagement, overseas study, and academic resources. At Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they host an interdisciplinary Degree with Design Concentration. It is an intercollege degree program that seeks to “enable students the freedom to individualise their educational experience by promoting integration, balance and innovation” (Carnegie Mellon University, 2021, para. 2). The degree is titled BXA, and the X within the title represents the intersections of the disciplines and changes depending on the program the student is enrolled in. Students can be completing a Bachelor of Humanities and Arts, Bachelor of Science and Arts, Bachelor of Computer Science and Arts, or an engineering and arts major while undertaking a BXA. Here, students complete courses in their broader program (i.e., science or engineering), their College of Fine Arts concentration, as well as BXA-specific courses. This allows students to focus on an area and develop a solid disciplinary foundation, which they can then go on to integrate with design knowledge, and utilise in interdisciplinary projects. These units help foster student creativity by applying innovative methods while exploring solutions in a multidisciplinary context. The mix of disciplinary students consist of the arts, computer science, engineering, natural sciences, and the humanities. The BXA students in these collaborative units challenge assumptions surrounding problems and the degree is said to produce a graduate with well-rounded scholarship, independence, and motivation due to the unique nature of the BXA. These skills, along with the objectives of the program, are not dissimilar to that of The University of Sydney Design Major and the University of Singapore major. They all seek to prepare graduates for careers in which they will draw upon their creative and academic skills to create, educate, communicate, and innovate within disciplines (e.g., engineering) or across disciplines. The University of Technology Sydney’s flagship degree, the Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation (BCII), is another example of a combined bachelor’s degree. The degree has been promoted as a world-first at UTS, encapsulating its unique position as a world-leading university of technology, where graduates have a reputation for thinking beyond their discipline to drive cross-disciplinary, industry, and social change. The degree has been promoted as a world-first and world-leading degree that’s attracting the attention of students, global academic institutions, industry, and future employers. The transdisciplinary nature of this degree makes it unique and among the most ambitious programs of its kind worldwide. The BCII is marketed as going beyond common design-thinking programs to examine how

68  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

innovation is led from multiple disciplinary perspectives. It extends beyond the artsbased approach to creative thinking, too, by including the sciences, IT, engineering, health, business, and law in its field of enquiry. It is not offered as a separate degree but is completed only in combination with another professional degree program. BCII subjects are undertaken in accelerated form, during session breaks for the first 3 years, and through 1 year of study after completion of the professional degree. Students in the BCII participate in hackathons, think tanks, and hot housing days in a creative lab environment in their winter and summer schools. In their final years, they realise projects, initiate start-ups, run symposiums on creativity and innovation, and work with a broad range of academics and real-world clients. Students work on industry projects with real briefs and real stakeholders.

3.3.3 Cross-Faculty Labs Cross-faculty labs or centres, as seen at Stanford d.school, San Diego Design Lab, MIT D-Lab, and the Center for Integrated Design at The University of Texas at Austin, enable students from different disciplines across an institution to work together in a physical environment that simulates a design studio practice to solve complex problems. Courses are taught by academics from different faculties and schools, bringing students together for cross-disciplinary work. Working with multidisciplinary teams is necessary for developing and sharing skill sets. The BDP Design Strategies at The University of Texas at Austin is offered through the Center for Integrated Design, which seeks to bring design thinking into the core of curriculum at the university. The design process is taught throughout the curriculum and includes research and insights, creative problem-solving, prototyping and testing, and implementation and presentation. This process when applied in the student’s learning environment allows for a critical lens of the social, political, and environmental context and impact their solutions will have in the world. Through these foundational units of study students in the multidisciplinary BDP Design Strategies use a peer-to-peer learning model to explore various other disciplinary approaches to human-centred design.These courses build on knowledge and complexity. Flexible course structure can be selected by the students in the form of a 5-week intensive course, full semester course, and studio course. The BDP hosts a final year capstone project where students reflectively present major works throughout their degree. This reflective practice reinforces the multidisciplinary learning throughout the design thinking curriculum. Stanford d.school’s philosophy is that everyone has the capacity and ability to be creative, and design is an avenue to enable everyone to be so. The d.school offers electives for all types of students at Stanford, and only students who want to be there, are there. Students work on real-world projects and unbounded problems, exposing them to the realisation that there is no single correct answer to a complex problem – solutions are often unclear and full of uncertainty.The school emphasises eight core abilities (d.school Stanford University, 2021a) that it wants its students to acquire building on Brown’s (2008) T-shaped design thinker characteristics:

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  69

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

navigate ambiguity learn from others (people and contexts) synthesise information experiment rapidly move between concrete and abstract build and craft intentionally communicate deliberately design your design work.

All the learnings are project-based, and experiential classes bring together students from all seven schools at Stanford to collaborate and tackle real-world challenges. This extends the peer-to-peer learnings as students are from all disciplinary backgrounds but also education ability levels (bachelor’s, master’s, or research higher degrees). Classes are student-centred with an emphasis on building and promoting the nature of the studio pedagogy experience. These courses are opt-in for students – they only do them if they really want to – making them all immersive and exposing students to the culture of the design studio. Within the d.school, teachers are able to teach classes based on what they are interested in, not just their professional expertise. Stanford prides itself in designing learning experiences based on the fundamental characteristics that they teach. Teaching staff are encouraged and supported to continuously reflect on and improve their practice despite having taught the same content many times before (d.school Stanford University, 2021b).

3.3.4 Multidisciplinary Design Degrees Multidisciplinary design degrees seek to expose students to multiple and complementary design disciplines and methods within the one degree. They offer numerous courses from many different design fields. This can create a more generalist designer without a disciplinary specialisation. An example of a multidisciplinary design degree is Lancaster University’s Design BA (Hons), which recognises that today’s designers are required to solve complex business and societal problems. Students are introduced to design as a multidisciplinary profession, exploring design thinking, design and business, design and technology, and design and society. They study design through four different lenses: materials, people, products, and places. This is taught in the first year through a studio-based pedagogy as well as a critical analysis of design history and theory. In their second year, students can select modules in either design interactions, design visualisation, or design management in addition to the core design studio. The final year consists of a dissertation and group-based consultancy project. Students work in design studios, installation spaces, and fully equipped workshops where they have access to fabrication equipment. There are a variety of assessment methods including essays, presentations, practical projects, and research dissertations. At The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the Bachelor of Social Design is a 2-year top-up program intended for students from a range of different areas of

70  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

design as well as other social and service fields. The field of social design is transdisciplinary and as such this program accepts students from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds spanning design to other social service fields. The aim of the program is to produce graduates who will go on to make change in the community for the social good and wellbeing of society. It aims to promote and challenge the current scope of design bound by commercialised professional practices.With the ambitious goal of designing for the social good and servicing social needs of the society this program orients design thinking towards community participation and collaborative social engagements to design outcomes. The program employs a design thinking approach to explore social and cultural sustainability for social innovation and civic goals. First year students in the program learn how to research and apply their knowledge and skills learnt. By broadening their analytical skills through critique involved in the research activities and the design thinking process they can then use these skills to generate novel ideas and concepts for projects and opportunities. The second year involves building additional skills such as collaboration, initiative, and resourcefulness. Students explore these skills through projects focused on societal issues with the intention of making an impact. To complete the program students focus on a societal issue in collaboration with various government and non-forprofit stakeholders. Here students develop professional practice skills and learn what is expected within the issues critical to societal change.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 3.1:  DR KARLA STRAKER Program Director, Design Major, The University of Sydney, Australia

Dr Karla Straker is currently senior research fellow at The University of Queensland. Prior to this, she was program director of the Design Major at The University of Sydney (2018–2021). During this time, Karla led the growth of the program from 59 students in 2018 to 139 students in 2020. Offering 12 units to students from 17 different degrees, the purpose of the program was to enable students to combine their expertise and work collectively on a range of projects by applying a design thinking approach. Karla has extensive experience working on industry-led research projects, applying and adopting design innovation methods to drive innovative

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  71

solutions. In this expert sidebar, Karla discusses undergraduate design thinking pedagogy, particularly the use of industry partnerships to enable students to work on real-world problems and the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary teamwork. The Major in Design at The University of Sydney introduces students from across the university to design and design thinking, bringing them into the design studio and exposing them to design as a method for solving complex, non-linear problems. The structure of the program introduces students to the principles of design gradually, covering theory, approaches, and methods, as well as techniques for using design as an innovation method. This ensures that the units, taken in particular combinations, will add value to a complementary major or undergraduate degree. The original motivation for offering the Major in Design was to prepare graduates to approach complex problems in alternative ways and gain the necessary skills to communicate and collaborate with a range of different stakeholders, as well as across disciplines. As we are living in an increasingly complex world, design and design thinking are becoming essential capabilities for our graduates across a wide range of disciplines. The methods taught through the units in the design major seek to enable students to: • • • • • •

develop alternative points of view explore multiple solutions iteratively understand ways to approach “wicked problems” clearly communicate ideas and strategies critically assess current situations and environments synthesise strategies for innovation.

My approach to teaching students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is to focus on the skills required in the field of design through industry projects. I believe students should not only “hear” course content through lectures and discussion but also “experience” those concepts through experiential learning assignments. To do this, I try to provide a “real” work environment, either through field trips or by bringing in industry professionals. Skill development in such an environment provides a space for rapid application of theoretical concepts in a practical situation. Having a “real” work environment also requires students to develop other “soft” skills, such as professional conduct, which otherwise may not be provided in a classroom environment. In addition to providing real work environments, students have also highlighted the use of case studies from my own industry research collaborations

72  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

to explain the implementation of the knowledge they are obtaining as useful. Having a deeper knowledge of a case study and being able to comment from experience on the reality of implementing or working with a client resonated well with students. I believe students are more open to acquiring these skills when they are able to make connections to how they will use them and this results in a greater appreciation of the course material. By providing diverse case studies and asking students to place themselves into different contexts, the requirement of their skills to be adaptable and relate to the task is illustrated. While bringing industry into the classroom is very important, it is also hard work and can at times be challenging. Industry has different expectations and standards from those we can provide in the classroom, particularly at an undergraduate level. The complexity of the industry problem being tackled also needs to be aligned with the student skill level as well as the capabilities of the teaching staff. The more complex the problem, the more experience and knowledge is required to not only understand the problem content but also challenge the proposed solutions from the students. Industry partners should be reserved for projects in higher levels of study, as these usually require students to understand and apply the theories and methods from previous units of study before applying them to an industry project. Interdisciplinary teamwork is an increasingly important part of design practice and pedagogy, as well as an increasingly important graduate capability. Interdisciplinary collaboration is broadly recognised as being important for realising creative and effective responses to complex problems facing society in the 21st century. However, there are barriers to learning that can hinder students realising the benefits of interdisciplinary teamwork in higher education settings. A current issue faced by students in the classroom is embracing the skills that other students bring to the team. I’ve observed that students generally select team members based on personality or friendship instead of the discipline-specific expertise they have. I believe this is largely driven by prior experiences (comfort) and being unsure of the skills that other disciplines provide. I explored how this could be overcome by introducing new class activities that allowed students to gain an understanding of each other’s skills and passions. A requirement of groupwork included a diverse team, meaning that they could not all be designers or business students. There was strong pushback from the design students, who were used to working in the same groups; however, at the end of the semester they provided positive feedback on working with students from other disciplines. When starting a project that had a complex problem, I was surprised to experience students outside of design coming up with more novel solutions, being willing to explore more, and spending time researching different areas of

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  73

interests. Design students, in contrast, tended to fall back on a process implemented for different projects and saw the development of an idea formulated early in the process. Students from business and science enjoyed being able to question the brief, create their own approach, and have the time to test different ideas, which they may not have experienced in their own disciplines. There is a benefit of being able to teach the same unit multiple times, to have time to reflect and make changes; however, this is not always the case in academia. My classes evolved with my understanding of teaching in a multidisciplinary context. My biggest learning was teaching less but in multiple ways. I learnt the different ways students wanted to learn and what worked for different levels of design understanding. The challenge was teaching for those who had no knowledge or experience of design but also engaging design students who already had completed 2 years of their degree. When I first started teaching in these units, I had not considered the variety of understanding of the unit content. I believe this is the difference between an average and a great design program. Skills and knowledge need to be scaffolded, developed, and empowered through a set process. A fundamental design skill, such as sketching, was one that I felt was missing from the program and needed to be integrated within all units in the program rather than taught in isolation. Small activities that I believed were fundamental skills were designed and introduced throughout the unit, to demonstrate their purpose across the entire design process. In terms of the design process, the majority of students struggle with the idea of iteration – doing something more than once. The process of starting again or not following a step-by-step process is something that needs to be broken down in each class. Ambiguity is hated; freedom in a design brief is also something that is often challenged. It is less of a struggle to teach parts of the design process but engaging and empowering to teach students to create (and question) their own approach to a problem. Many students have been taught a set process and tend to copy and paste the same methods for each unit, thinking this will get them the intended solution (or grade). Therefore, in studio classes, a lot of time is spent discussing the project within groups of three to four students, questioning how they think about the problem space they are designing for. This requires a lot of prompting questions and pushing students to think beyond obvious answers.

3.4 Undergraduate Design Thinking Pedagogy As the world continues to evolve at a rapid pace due to technological, economic, social, and political drivers, new pedagogical approaches are necessary to provide students with the skills and attitudes that are required and now valued so that they can contribute to the workforce and society at large. Wrigley and Straker (2017)

74  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

present a design thinking pedagogy framework that has a holistic classification of design thinking educational content – an approach that can be seen as the first step in developing a multidisciplinary design thinking curriculum. This framework is titled the educational design ladder, as it provides structure for, and classification of, the key stages in a cross-disciplinary undergraduate curriculum. As previously discussed, undergraduate design thinking programs are gaining in popularity, and creating these units and the overarching course structure is not straightforward. The educational design ladder provides a scaffold when designing multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary courses. However, this scaffold is only useful once the required T-shaped configuration (as seen in Figure 3.3) of the graduate has been agreed upon. Figure 3.3 demonstrates the variety these undergraduate programs (as seen by the categorisation in Table 3.1) can play in the type of designer’s and non-designer’s graduate competencies. This raises the question: Does the configuration of the “T” matter? And if so, why? Overall, at an undergraduate level, there are different types of design thinking programs that exist as evidenced in Table 3.1. There is no one preferred type as it is highly dependent upon many institutional factors for successful set up and delivery. Just as there are different types of programs there are also different configurations for the T-shaped designer. For each of these different configurations, there are different pedagogical approaches that are best suited and matched to the overall structure and context in which the undergraduate capabilities are derived. Conceptually designing the best undergraduate design thinking program is only one part of the puzzle, the roll out of such a large endeavour is met with many barriers when working with existing teaching staff, managing student cohort numbers, timetabling, complying with overall institution degree structures, and developing industry partnership opportunities.

FIGURE 3.3 

Different configurations of T-shaped design thinkers

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  75

For example, developing a design thinking major by building upon the educational design ladder theory (Wrigley & Straker, 2017) involves Säljö’s (1979) conceptions of learning, foundational design knowledge, and applied design knowledge increasing in complexity over the years of the course. However, the practicalities of conforming to an institutional pre-existing model of majors across the university could mean that any student can take any subject at any time within the design thinking major. As such, courses cannot be structured so that their content relies upon a sequential order of knowledge and skill building. Generally, across all the undergraduate programs in Table 3.1 the fundamental design thinking method or human-centred approach (empathise, ideate, prototype, test) taught to students is the same. As discussed earlier, selecting the best undergraduate degree structure for the institutional constraints is key. What works well at one institution may not fit others. However, it is not currently known which design thinking pedagogy best fits with which degree type. This requires further exploration. Interestingly, many of the degree types are aiming to produce similar graduate capabilities such as multidisciplinary teamwork and communication skills, problem-solving for the real world, critical and creative thinking, and confident wellgrounded individuals who take initiative. The common pedagogical approaches to undergraduate design thinking programs are; multidisciplinary peer-to-peer learning, the design studio model solving real-world problems, the design crit, intensive workshops, facilitation, and boundary objects. These are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Most of these undergraduate programs were encouraging of the multidisciplinary student configurations in the units of study. The same can be said for multidisciplinary design thinking programs. The main purpose of these programs is to develop creativity in students and expose them to different ways of seeing and working on problems. Encouraging students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds across the institution to engage with each other to solve problems prepares them for the workforce and develops graduates with the skills to talk to each other from different disciplinary backgrounds. It could be argued that at an undergraduate level, before students have formed a deep experiential disciplinary knowledge base, they are more malleable and willing to challenge disciplinary norms. At this stage in their “educational journey” they are still forming their perceptions and beliefs around disciplines so they are not impeded in their ability to effectively collaborate across disciplines by preconceived notions. Many of these programs stay true to the design studio pedagogy model and offer project-based units solving real-world (albeit simple) problems. Students are given a real-world project brief to design an innovative solution for within a set time period.These real-world problems need to involve authentic, hands-on tasks; possess clearly defined outcomes that allow for multiple solutions; promote multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary collaborative work and higher order thinking; and allow for multiple design iterations to improve the outcome (Wrigley & Straker, 2017). At the end of the course, students present back to the class and, in some programs, also

76  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency

the industry partners who have sponsored the problems. This presentation forms the “design crit” where fellow peers and teaching staff can constructively criticise the concept and solution presented (including the idea, concept, process, and design novelty). As Karla Straker indicates in her sidebar, involving industry partners at the undergraduate stage is not always prudent as many students do not possess the level of maturity that is required by professional working relationships. A common misconception (explored further in Chapter 5) is that design and design thinking can be taught well in a few hours during an intensive workshop or in a few short sessions. Cross-faculty labs seek to expose students throughout the university to design thinking and a design approach to creativity and solving complex problems. However, a student who is non-design cognate and is engaging in only one course on design thinking will only get an introductory level of understanding and skill application. This in itself can still be of value to the student and their work within their home discipline but this approach provides students with only a limited view of what design thinking is and what it can do. The different design thinking pedagogical approaches highlight the importance of the design academic (as discussed more in Chapter 6). The greatest risk to these programs is offering design outside of a design school or hiring non-designers to teach these programs. Some institutions house design thinking programs within schools other than design, resulting in non-design trained academics teaching design. Therefore, if this is the case, it is more important to hire the right people rather than where the courses are housed within the institution.This raises the question: What is a good designer versus a design academic? Education-focused roles are becoming more commonplace in the tertiary sector. Educators may come from industry with accredited skills, experience, and networks and can carry a higher teaching load while research and more theoretical aspects are left up to the academics in the department. Required design materials for design thinking subjects (also known as a boundary object) are usually centred around methods of practice such as Design. Think. Make. Break. Repeat: A Handbook of Methods (Tomitsch et al., 2018). Other key design thinking method texts include 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization by Kumar (2012), Universal Principles of Design by Lidwell, Holden, and Butler (2003), and This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases by Stickdorn and Schneider (2011). Nonetheless, students can find these cumbersome if they are required to use specific tools and methods to meet the assessment criteria rather than using them to explore their own individual design process. These resources on methods and approaches can be a great help to multidisciplinary students; however, they have the potential to be just as difficult and distracting, as the choice and use of a particular approach can and should change depending on the context and situation, and students at an undergraduate level are not always able to discern the difference. Building on the design thinking pedagogy framework (as presented in Chapter 2), we have synthesised the following findings from the global snapshot completed

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  77

and practice considerations. These framework elements are presented as design thinking pedagogy implications and are described in Table 3.2. As the last few years have shown, there is a push in tertiary education to teach online, which, in a design context, leads to less interaction with your facilitator than would normally occur. This emulates the shift from a teacher-led approach (that focuses on content delivery) to a learner-based approach (that encourages selfdirected peer to peer learning) (Biggs & Tang, 2007). Developing new approaches to

TABLE 3.2  Undergraduate design thinking pedagogy implications

Design Thinking Process Empathise

Ideate

Prototype

Test

• Empathising with themselves, friends or family is the simplest and easiest way to get students engaged and started in the design thinking process when they have never done it before. This also provides students with the opportunity to conduct user or customer interviews and observations, which undergraduate students rarely have the opportunity to undertake in real-world contexts. • At this level, students possess a basic understanding of how to conduct user research, ask questions, and unpack problems. • Institutional ethics approval may be required for students to conduct user interviews and observations (with family, friends, or customers); if so, students will not have the opportunity to practise these research methods. • During this phase, students might validate their ideas not on the basis of their distinctness and uniqueness, but rather on the basis of their similarity to the ideas of their peers. • To meet grading criteria, students might generate a high quantity of ideas, rather than focusing on their quality and exploring the most innovative concept fit for the problem. • Students should be encouraged to synthesise and evaluate the best components across concepts to merge into a final idea to take into prototyping. • Students often do not have a lot of time within the confines of the course duration to develop many iterations of their solution. Prototypes are therefore often minimal and low-fidelity. Due to this, students need to be encouraged or pushed to utilise the prototyping phase for learning not just presentation. • Prototyping should be encouraged so that students learn how to redesign their solutions. • Testing occurs within the confines of a classroom environment due to constraints of access and inexperience, as well as time constraints imposed by assessment schedules. • Ensure that the lessons learnt from test feed back into the design thinking process. • Encourage testing with friends and family. (Continued)

78  Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency TABLE 3.2 Continued

Reflective Facilitator Problem Complexity • Problem complexity in undergraduate design thinking programs needs to align with students’ knowledge and understanding. • Problems need to be authentic and real for students so that they engage with them and take ownership of the difference their solution can make to the world. Conceptual Theory • The complexity of the design history, theory, and design thinking courses taught to students should increase as students’ design thinking understanding advances. • These theoretical subjects need to be taught in conjunction with core design theories, for example, human-centred design principles and participatory design, to enable a deeper understanding of the design process and context of the field in general. Boundary Object • At this level, there is a strong focus on toolkits, methods, book templates, and resources for different disciplinary contexts. This can assist students from non-design backgrounds to engage with, and understand more about, the design process. • Facilitators should avoid making a specific quantity of boundary objects a component of assessment as it stifles creativity. Innovation Practice • As students’ professional experience grows this can allow for more industry involvement in units of study. However, it is important to be mindful of the fact that students’ professional practice in design thinking is basic and that they may be unable to meet the expectations of industry partners. Active Learner Framing

• It is important to be aware of the tendency of students to jump to a solution, rather than consider different ways of understanding a problem, which can cause conflict in teams with students from different disciplinary backgrounds. Inquiry/Discovery • Students should be assessed on their willingness to take risks and to try new things, not a check box or quantity metric for the completion of a certain number of design methods and tools. • It is important to reward students for their exploration and interrogation of ideas as it is through this that they learn more about the design thinking process. Co-Create • A peer learning and teaching approach should be encouraged that immerses students in an environment of reflective creative practice, with the guidance of a teacher/facilitator. • Immersing students in problem contexts, so that they work not only with their peers but also with industry stakeholders, enables and assists the co-creation of solutions. Application/Making • Students learn through doing and hands-on projects; they need to be encouraged to actively participate in the process. • This phase can be a foreign concept for non-design students.

Design Thinking Undergraduate Education for Epistemic Fluency  79

undergraduate design thinking pedagogy that are within a learner-based approach are required if we are to achieve the learning objectives and deliver graduates to a higher standard.

3.5 Summary In this chapter, the findings from the global snapshot were examined to look deeper into design thinking pedagogy in an undergraduate setting. Four thematic areas of configuration were derived from this analysis: (1) university-wide majors and minors, (2) combined bachelor’s degrees, (3) cross-faculty labs, and (4) multidisciplinary design degrees.These different configurations pose the question concerning the future of undergraduate design thinking, might a new approach and model be required? McCoy (1990) proposes one such new structural model. She writes: A pre-design undergraduate curriculum, similar to pre-law or pre-med, may be the best course for the future education of designers. In this undergraduate curriculum, a student would study liberal arts and sciences, art and design history, design theory and ethics, and have some initial basic design experiences. (McCoy, 1990, p. 21) However, this proposal also poses other questions: What is the need and desire for the design generalist versus the design specialist? Is there room for both? Where does design thinking fit here and how has it changed to T-shaped designers? It has been only in the past few decades, and within the last decade in Australia, that we have witnessed the rise of these new kinds of undergraduate design degrees. Those who did not have the opportunity to be exposed to these types of undergraduate degrees have started engaging in postgraduate programs in design thinking to complement their traditional degree.

4 MASTERING DESIGN THINKING IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

4.1 The Nexus of Design Practice, Postgraduate Education and Research Postgraduate design education today is undergoing continual change that has been largely influenced by the sudden interest in design thinking and innovation from the business world.The work of the designer has shifted from creating purely physical artefacts to developing systems that enable users to curate their own experiences (Norman, 2016; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Design’s conceptual and methodological frameworks are broadening to envelop other disciplines and practice (Rodgers & Bremner, 2017). As a result, the professional practice of design is “not well supported by a twentieth-century, craft-based model of design education that presumes a designer is occupied primarily with the issues of form and the mass production of identical objects” (Davis, 2012, p. 114). The traditional design degree was craft and skills based, taught through a master and apprentice model, and strongly associated with fine arts. However, today’s designers require many different skill sets, and move within and across different disciplines. Contemporary design education is therefore tasked with providing students with the skills to design in these new multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contexts. As foregrounded across the previous three chapters, the continuing shift of design practice and research has moved the boundaries of design beyond the single discipline to include many disciplinary perspectives (Rodgers & Bremner, 2017). This changing landscape has required the tertiary education sector to consider new perspectives and applications for postgraduate design education. Manzini (2020) argues that current design education must consider four factors: the complex nature of contemporary design, the variety of fields in which design is now operating, the variety of artefacts designers can contribute to, and the speed at which designers’ roles and capabilities have changed and continue to change (p. 114). These factors DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-4

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  81

not only impact curriculum content but they also affect design thinking pedagogy. In response, Meyer and Norman (2020) call for design educators to follow “the transformational spirit of the early Bauhaus to modify design pedagogy to accommodate the many different styles and goals of 21st century design” (p. 22). Career pathways that integrate design thinking are critical for creating the future workforce; however, what are the skills, behaviours, and competencies that might be associated with a design thinking professional? Ambiguity around professional identity when integrating design thinking can lead to confusion in practice as organisations aim to cultivate design mindsets, toolkits, and skill sets but lack the ability to determine when to use a particular tool or approach, or to justify why it should be used (Adams, Daly, Mann, & Dall’Alba, 2011). This confusion around professional identity and how education programs should prepare individuals for the workforce makes it difficult to redesign curriculums. In 1990, McCoy proposed a new structural design education model, which she described as “a reciprocal cycle that connects practice to education to research and back to practice, with each cycle interacting with and enriching the others” (McCoy, 1990, p. 20). This is evident at the nexus of postgraduate design education, where more and more of these three key elements – design practice, design education, and design research – are woven together in the curriculum set-up. Figure 4.1 demonstrates this nexus. In this model, design practice represents industry and action, design education characterises culture and learning, and design research embodies innovation, experimentation, and knowledge. As McCoy (1990) illustrated in her research, design graduate studies were meant to generate research through experimentation. This is achieved

FIGURE 4.1 

 elationship between design practice, education, and research (synthesised R from McCoy, 1990)

82  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

with industry sponsorship (to find research), which in turn enriches the design profession: “experimental and theoretical ideas are worthless without their effective application to the real needs of professional practice, building a bridge between design theory and practice” (McCoy, 1990, p. 20). We argue that, within a postgraduate context, design thinking pedagogy connects design practice, education, and research. In coursework design master’s degrees, design thinking pedagogy connects design practice and design education, and in higher degree research design programs, design thinking pedagogy connects design practice and design research. However, that is not to say that design research does not inform design education, and vice versa. We believe, in agreement with McCoy (1990), that design practice, education, and research should all inform each other, and this idea is explored further throughout the chapter. Postgraduate design thinking education must be responsive to a changed context for professional design practice (Chalmers, 2001). Worldwide, master’s degrees in design have taken a variety of different program titles: Master of Fine Arts (MFA), Master of Arts (MA), Master of Design (MDes), and Master of Science (MS/MSc). Traditionally, postgraduate design education programs existed to enable students, with an undergraduate degree in the same area, to specialise and develop deep expertise in discrete design disciplines. These design degrees, predominantly MFAs, blurred the boundaries of art and design due to their location of delivery within schools of art (Meyer & Norman, 2020). MA and MS degrees are alternatives to the MFA, generally shorter in duration, with the degree title often depending on the school or faculty in which it is located (Singh, 2016). The MDes is an established degree title in countries such as Australia. Over time, as design has developed and design thinking has become associated with innovation, strategy, and management, MDes programs have evolved.This new breed of program often integrates design, engineering, and business, educating students with diverse backgrounds to apply design processes to address real, current problems (O’Keefe & Rottenberg, 2017). Further to this, most highly ranked MBA programs go beyond just offering design thinking courses within their programs (Matthews & Wrigley, 2011) to offering joint MBA and MDes tracks for students (O’Keefe & Rottenberg, 2017). The introduction of these new programs has affected the entry requirements and undergraduate degrees required for prospective students. Often, students applying for these postgraduate programs are not required to have an undergraduate degree in design. Meyer and Norman (2020) argue an undergraduate degree in a “traditional university subject” with a minor in design would be more prudent for contemporary design practice. Further to this, they suggest that MDes programs should perhaps be similar to the MBA programs hosted at leading business schools, arguing that many of these schools do not offer undergraduate degrees in business, and students come to an MBA from a diverse range of backgrounds, such as science and engineering (Meyer & Norman, 2020, p. 38).

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  83

In contrast, some design disciplines such as architecture and interior design are becoming increasingly regulated by licensing requirements, which places greater importance on the role of education (particularly postgraduate education) in developing design expertise (Smith, 2015, p. 77). Architecture specifically requires both an undergraduate and postgraduate degree before passing testing requirements to register and be able to practise in industry. Higher education “credentials” signify that the “holder has acquired demonstrable knowledge” and understanding at a certain level “in a domain of expertise” (Phelan & Glackin, 2021, p. 262). However, the argument surrounding expertise in this new era of design is debatable. As MDes programs are no longer purely for those with background and experience in design but now also encouraged for those from business, management, health, psychology, engineering, IT, and education, the purpose of MDes programs is changing. Meredith Davis as cited in Frascara (2020) argues that good postgraduate design programs need to be “clearly distinct from undergraduate study, responsive to the complex challenges of emergent conditions, and well positioned for intellectual leadership” (p. 112). In order to achieve this, graduate design education must be responsive to professional practice and observations about the field in industry (Wrigley, 2016), requiring collaboration within the field to set an educational path for the future. Arguably, the role of the MDes has never been more important to educate professional designers and develop design expertise. Design research appears to have little impact on education (Sanders, 2017). As such, it is important to examine postgraduate master’s programs to identify how design practice, education, and research can feed into each other. In response to professional practice, design programs in higher education are continuing to evolve. Traditionally, postgraduate design degrees develop student’s depth of knowledge in one’s specific discipline of specialisation. Comparatively, we now see a shift to that of a divergent interdisciplinary skill set being sought and taught in postgraduate design programs worldwide. In order to address the interdisciplinary nature of these new design programs, faculties such as business and engineering are hosting such degrees within institutions. As design disciplines have developed so rapidly in response to industry and practice over the past 2 decades, higher education, specifically master’s programs, have attempted to keep up with this change; however, there is no uniformity worldwide, both in the master’s title and the degree specialisation. Additionally, this response to industry has developed a contemporary design master’s, which engages students in the design process to address complex industry and societal problems and seeks to develop broad expertise across design disciplines. This approach differs greatly from traditional programs that develop deep expertise within one specialisation. What does this shift mean for developing expertise in design, particularly as contemporary design programs do not require an undergraduate degree in design or much exposure to the discipline? Further to this, as many programs do not sit solely

84  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

within design schools, what training and qualifications do design academics require to teach within these programs? Within the United States, a master’s degree is considered a “terminal professional degree”, which enables graduates to teach and work in design practice (Singh, 2016); however, in Australia and the United Kingdom, a PhD in design or a design-related area is usually required to teach at universities. Academics teaching these programs need to have exposure to industry and work on industry projects. That knowledge, expertise, and experience is incorporated into teaching and learning practices.

4.2 Global Snapshot of Design Thinking Postgraduate Coursework Programs Figure 4.2 introduces the relationship between education and practice, with design thinking pedagogy interlinking and feeding both. This is done through guest lectures and inviting industry practitioners into the classroom, as well as industry briefs and projects for students to answer and explore through new theories. Considering this, a snapshot of postgraduate design thinking programs demonstrates that a wide and diverse range of MDes programs are offered worldwide. These programs have shifted from traditional design disciplines, where students centre on craft-based practices, to a focus on the transformative aspect of design for solving complex

FIGURE 4.2 

Relationship between design practice and design education

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  85

societal problems and promoting innovation across diverse contexts. Two emerging streams of design thinking postgraduate degree agendas are innovation, strategy, and management and design for transformation.

4.2.1 Innovation, Strategy, and Management Master’s Programs Innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs focus on design’s role in society; however, they concentrate on developing strategic and innovative design thinking skills needed for entrepreneurship and developing and maintaining innovation within business and management settings. Other programs centre on innovative applications of technology, engineering, and manufacturing processes for the design of objects, systems, or services. Additionally, these programs have a strong connection to industry practice, incorporating project-based learning into the curriculum. These programs highlight the unique insights designers can bring to specific fields through learning about strategic innovation and understanding user insights to drive research and entrepreneurial practices. They predominantly comprise of MSc, MDes, and MBA programs. Interestingly, these kinds of programs do not usually require an undergraduate design degree for entry; those that do are programs that focus on advanced design techniques and applications. A snapshot of these programs is presented in Table 4.1. Dr Sylvia Lui from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University discusses their International Design and Business Management master’s program in more depth in Expert Sidebar 4.1.

4.2.2 Design for Transformation Master’s Programs Design for transformation master’s programs (Table 4.2) have a strong focus on interdisciplinary work, solving problems, and self-reflection, with a concentration on engaging with complex current and future social challenges through researchbased design approaches. Programs focus on the transformative nature of design and how design can be used to promote change across industries and social, political, economic, and environmental contexts. Programs range in their design disciplinary content from product, industrial, graphic, service, and communication design through to environmental and sustainable design, and transdisciplinary design.These programs all have a focus on reimagining futures through the application of design processes and the “social” responsibility of designers. Program entry requirements across this typology vary from requiring an undergraduate degree in design or a design-related field to no undergraduate design degree or courses. Most programs in the United States require a personal essay (statement of purpose), recommendation letter, and portfolio to be eligible for admission.

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Hong Kong

PolyU Design

International Design and Business Management (ID&BM)

1 year

ID&BM is a multidisciplinary degree based on an integrative design thinking approach. It integrates professional knowledge from design, business, and technological fields within an international business setting.

• • • • • • • • • •

California College of the Arts

United States

N/A

MBA in Design Strategy

2 years

The MBA in Design Strategy is aimed at future-focused designers, business strategists, educators, and engineers who want to frame the world in entirely new ways. It is based on the human-centric core values of design and its role within business. The MBA in Design Strategy is a full-time program that follows a lowresidency schedule and takes 2 years (four semesters) to complete.

• • • • • • •

Studio teaching Industry partners Lectures Visiting Lecturers Design projects Lectures Seminars Workshops Interactive critiques Individual and team-based work Studio teaching Design Studio space Fabrication labs and workshops spaces Seminars Labs (Data, ethics story, leadership) Collaborative service project Low-residency schedule

86  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

TABLE 4.1  Global snapshot of innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Royal Danish Academy of Arts (KADK)

Denmark

Royal Danish Academy – Architecture, Design, Conservation

Master of Design (Strategic Design and Entrepreneurship)

2 years

The Master of Design (Strategic Design and Entrepreneurship) program aims to create change through a deeper understanding of the strategic aspects of design and architecture. This is done through project-based modules where students work with organisations and real-world challenges in collaboration with students of social science from Copenhagen Business School.

• Studio work • Project-based modules • Collaborative projects • Real-world challenges • Industry partners • Seminar • Lectures • Supervision • Studio teaching • Exercises • Workshops • Fieldwork • Group work • Process documentation • Presentations (Continued)

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  87

Institution

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Aalto University

Finland

School of Arts, Design and Architecture

MA International Design Business Management (IDBM)

2 years

• • • • • •

Loughborough University

United Kingdom

Institute for Design Innovation

MSc Design Innovation Management

1 year

The IDBM integrates design and technology with global business development through transdisciplinary teamwork and real-life business challenges with industry partners. IDBM is the only program offered in all six schools at Aalto, allowing program graduates to earn a master’s degree in either business, design, or technology. This interdisciplinary master’s combines design and management courses. In this degree students develop critical approaches and practices to enhance their effectiveness as a designer through theoretical and practical modules on a range of topics. Students also learn the value of collaborative behaviour and teamwork and gaining an insight into the inner workings and pressures facing real-world contexts.

Industry Projects Case studies Workshops Keynotes Guest Lectures Challenge-based learning • Practice orientated

• • • • • • •

Lectures Independent study Practical sessions Seminars Group work Tutorials Workshops

88  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

TABLE 4.1 Continued

TABLE 4.2  Snapshot of design transformation programs

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

University of Michigan

United States

STAMPS School of Art & Design

MDes in Integrative Design

2 years

Through an integrative design approach, the MDes in Integrative Design specifically focuses on “real-world” problems through partnering with corporate industry and non-profit sectors. The program is a projectbased curriculum that blurs the traditional boundaries between design research and practice to create a new process-oriented curriculum.

• Pro-bono design research studio • Hands-on projectbased learning • Industry and nonprofit partners • Studio space • Physical and Digital fabrication lab • Fieldwork studio • Team-based research • Independent • Individual studio space

(Continued)

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  89

Institution

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Royal College of Art

United Kingdom

Coordinated by Imperial School of Design

MA/MSc (Global Innovation Design)

2 years

The MA/MSc (Global Innovation Design), or GID, program aims to provide students with an international perspective on economic and social advancement through innovative design. Students develop innovative ideas that demonstrate an awareness of cultural differences and global and local challenges while considering their commercial, social, and environmental impact.

• • • • • • • • •

Design studio Workshops Labs Partner residency Exhibition Lectures Visiting Lecturers Dissertation Real-world challenges • Commercial, public, and not-for-profit industry partners • Team-based projects

90  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

TABLE 4.2 Continued

Country

RMIT University

Australia

Stanford University

United States

Faculty/School

School of Engineering

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Master of Design Futures

1 Year

The Master of Design Futures admits both design cognate and non-design cognate applicants who are seeking to learn about new design practices and advance in strategic leadership roles.

MS in Engineering, Design Impact

2 years

The MS in Engineering, Design Impact program is project-based, highly immersive, and is built on the design thinking process developed at Stanford. Students are taught the processes, mindsets, and skills needed to lead highimpact design teams to tackle big, “wicked” problems facing society today.

• Industry connections • Delivered online • Online video meetings • Chat channels • Visiting lecturers • Real-world problem briefs • Group and solo work • Major research project • Presentations • Reports • “The Loft” – Studio space • Project-based • Teamwork • Independent • Hands-on design project • Real-world design challenges • Case Studies • Visiting lecturers • Student-led projects • Lectures (Continued)

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  91

Institution

Institution

Country

Faculty/School

Program

Duration

Program Description

Pedagogies

Emily Carr University of Art + Design

Canada

Jake Kerr Faculty of Graduate Studies

MDes (Interdisciplinary)

2 years

The MDes (Interdisciplinary) gives students the tools to explore and challenge ways of addressing an ever-changing world through engaging in the social structures of place while seeking to support and establish viable, empathetic, dynamic relations in, for, and with communities.

• Studio teaching • Independent projects • Research seminars • Individual and group critiques • Design studio space • Integrated studios • Labs • Workshops

92  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

TABLE 4.2 Continued

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  93

EXPERT SIDEBAR 4.1:  DR SYLVIA LUI Specialism Leader MDes (International Design and Business Management), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Dr Sylvia Xihui Liu has a strong mix of academic and industrial experience. In November 2011, she was appointed as visiting assistant professor to the School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, where she obtained her PhD degree in 2010 under the supervision of Professor John Heskett. Since then, she is responsible for teaching design and businessrelated subjects in the school at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. During 2011 and 2012, she was involved in the design for the new International Design and Business Management (ID&BM) master’s program, of which she has been program leader since 2017. More recently, Sylvia has led a team tasked with designing the new Innovative Business Design (IBD) postgraduate program, to be launched in 2022. Prior to her academic career, Sylvia had immense industry experience, most notably as design manager of Nova Design, the largest design team in the Chinese-speaking world. Sylvia has also consulted for leading brands such as Siemens, General Motors, Yamaha, Suzuki, Faw, Electrolux, BBK, Media, and Konka. In this expert sidebar, Sylvia reflects on the creation, context, and content of two master’s degrees hosted by one of the leading design schools in the world. The International Design and Business Management program (ID&BM) was launched in 2013. This program was designed within an emerging trend during the popular rise of design thinking where design graduates sought to play a leading role in a product development process. To echo the trend, the ID&BM was created specifically to focus on design-centric curriculum integrated with business and management for both design graduates as well as graduates from other diverse disciplines. Yearly cohorts are made up of diverse disciplines including those from design, business, technology and engineering, and the humanities.

94  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

ID&BM is a multidisciplinary program based on an integrative design thinking approach. The specialism underpins applying theories and concepts of the three domains: design, business, and technology. To nurture “T-shaped professionals”, domain knowledge of every student is identified as their vertical dimension. Based on that, students expand their horizontal dimension through participating in at least three projects, ranging from local, to regional and global. The program also takes advantages of the geographical location of Hong Kong and its strong focus on mass production supplied globally. Hong Kong is famous for being a melting pot of cultures from the West and East, and as a result Hong Kong is home to many multi-cultural business head offices, providing a rich social context for students in the ID&BM. Over the course of the program we have found that students are attracted to the ID&BM for three main reasons, first students have an awareness of the future trend of work which requires working in multidisciplinary teams. Second, they want to learn integrated knowledge across three domains as opposed to undertaking an MBA in a business school and finally, students want to develop their business in Asia or China, particularly those international students who have established ventures. The program focuses on studio-based and projectbased learning as opposed to lectures, assignments, and examinations. We developed our curriculum in line with targeted student graduate abilities, based on an understanding of and an ability to perform the integrative design thinking role of a T-shaped professional in contemporary business environments. The program also develops students’ abilities to review, frame, and resolve design issues by adopting multiple perspectives and participating effectively in the design, implementation, and comprehensive evaluation of design projects involving multidisciplinary and multicultural teams. Teaching staff include academics from the School of Design and Faculty of Business at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. A number of visiting international scholars renowned for their areas of expertise across design and business, for example, Kees Dorst on Frame Creation are invited to provide perspectives to students, to expose them to industry knowledge and understanding. A number of unique subjects have also been created based on discipline-specific knowledge from the core teaching team, such as Value Creation Theory by John Heskett, Innovation on Lifestyle by Benny Leong, and Cross-Cultural Management by Michael Bond. The program has a small cohort size of 18–30 students. Selected based on different criteria including different cultural backgrounds, work experience, age, gender, and domestic or international. This increases the complexity and challenges of team work. The program is taught full-time, face to face, over 1 year with three semesters, through lectures, workshops, and projects (Figure 4.3). The first semester is for building the basic cognition on design leadership, integrative design thinking, and multidisciplinary and crossculture management. There is a series of compulsory subjects that covers

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  95

FIGURE 4.3 

ID&BM program structure

extensively diverse aspects of the program. Over the 13 weeks, students join at least two projects to work on in conjunction with industry partners. During the second semester, students apply theory and method (learnt during their first semester) through participating in a large-scale multidisciplinary project with a leading international industry partner. This is a unique challenge that is specifically brought into the ID&BM program as the industry partner has not been able to previously solve their problem internally though an existing team or through a management consultancy. The third semester, the summer term, is focused on an individually defined reflective thesis. This is customised learning content to support students’ future career paths and is based on their individual goals. They have three options to select from. Firstly, working on an industrial report to develop their expertise in a particular industrial sector or topic. Secondly, developing their academic writing with a PhD research proposal. Thirdly, preparing a business plan for their start-up project or idea. Overall the conceptual changes in design have seen it break from the traditional disciplinary boundaries from the industrial revolution. Instead of contributing to certain stages of a value chain, design now positions itself up-stream with the understanding of users and foresight to the down-stream of implementation. The traditional linear process of design has also changed to an iterative one, which engages various stakeholders through co-creation. Resulting in the dynamic capability of business within the uncertainty of the external environment – it is here that the new role of design education should focus. Design education has been transformed from multi- and cross-disciplinary to inter- and transdisciplinary. Rather than simply combining content from design and business into one subject or program, we now see a shift where programs are newly developed to integrate a mix of multiple disciplines, particularly from entrepreneurship, design, and business fields. Reflecting on these changes to the context and content of design and design education, our ID&BM program is currently being reformed with this in mind.

96  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

4.3 Postgraduate Coursework Design Thinking Pedagogy These two streams of design thinking master’s programs – innovation, strategy, and management, and design for transformation – are part of a larger trend in postgraduate design degrees moving beyond traditional design disciplines and silos towards the contemporary context of design. Most of these programs are project based, with connections to industry, exploring real-world problems. The MBA in Design Strategy offered at the California College of the Arts has multiple dedicated studio spaces for everything from ideation to fabrication, including a formal space for industry presentations (this is useful as many real-world projects are sponsored in the MBA course). Here, students can choose to take on one of four key courses involving clients, Market Insight Studio, Business Models and Stakeholders, and Operations and Systems. In the same spirit as the MBA, the Master of Design (Strategic Design and Entrepreneurship) at the Royal Danish Academy of Arts (KADK) provides course content of design within an entrepreneurship framework. Course content (knowledge, theory, and methods) is delivered through seminars, lectures, supervision, studio teaching, exercises, and workshops. Students also gain valuable experience through collaborative fieldwork, observations, user studies, sketching, design interventions, project framing, concept development, and prototyping. In the KADK there is a strong focus on critical reflective practice. This is done by encouraging the student to document the design process and present on lessons learnt in meta-reflection sessions. Both the KADK and MBA from the California College of the Arts have a business mindset and similar approaches to design outcomes. Similarly, at Aalto University, students undertaking the MA International Design Business Management (ID&BM) program are tasked with solving complex, real-life challenges using a multidisciplinary design thinking approach to arrive at holistic solutions to the problem. The program is structured around a design thinking methodology as well using it as a mindset and a competitive advantage. The focus of the design outcomes pertains to a product, a service, and business design, or can include at times a technology, and innovation management plan. This is also similar to that of the MS in Engineering, Design Impact at Stanford where they teach students to design products and services that go from idea to implementation. Students have access to The Loft (a design studio space on campus specifically for master’s students in this program). The Loft is a collaborative learning space, where students engage in peer-to-peer learning as the space seeks to promote a culture for creativity and to explore design in an experimental and risk-free way. Generally, across these programs, pedagogy is centred around design studios and collaborative studios, seminars, tutorials, independent study, fieldwork studios, professional practice, labs and workshops, and presentations. Students are immersed in experiential learning practices that assist them to develop design thinking skills. The majority of programs in these two typologies do not specifically require an undergraduate degree in design for entry, which encourages students from a diverse range of backgrounds (for example, business, engineering, IT, social sciences, and psychology) to apply, although applicants are usually required to submit a portfolio

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  97

of work, personal essay, and letters of recommendation for entry. If applicants make it to the final round of admission, they are often also invited for an interview to be accepted into the program. Design portfolio requirements vary across institutions, from program-specific portfolios (which demonstrate specific skills and understanding for that discipline) to a collection of visual material that demonstrates creative aptitude and approaches through drawings, documentation of studio-based work, or sketchbook development. For example, School of the Art Institute of Chicago requires portfolios to visually document a minimum of five different projects, but applicants with no design experience can submit a critical or visual essay addressing an area of design that is of personal interest to the applicant. Some institutions offer 1-year introductory Master of Arts in Design programs for non-designers before they enter an MDes program or variations on the duration of the program based on the applicant’s experience with design, but this is uncommon. Although a mix of design experience in applicants diversifies the cohort of the programs, in terms of student background, knowledge, and expertise, it changes the role and purpose of the MDes. It is no longer solely for individuals wanting to perfect their design craft and material practice; instead, the MDes is available to anyone wanting to change career paths, engage in social innovation, or evolve their practice within their current discipline. This is in response to both industry practice and the rise of non-accredited providers and universities seeking to increase student enrolment to drive up revenue. Furthermore, unlike architecture, most design disciplines do not have an accreditation body regulating strict entry requirements and requiring both an undergraduate and graduate degree to practice in industry. Demonstrating Meyer and Norman’s (2020) assertion that there is no global uniformity in the degree titles of Master of Design programs, both within and across typologies, degree titles range from MFA, MA, MDes, and MSc. Further to this, the specialisations of degrees are almost all different. For example, within innovation, strategy, and management there is global innovation design, design management, innovation management, strategic design and management, systems design and management, innovation systems design, and design leadership, to name a few. This finding is similar to that of Herbst and McDonagh (2017), who found, in their investigation of design management master’s degrees, 32 different degree names out of 35 institutions all relating to the same core subject matter. This raises questions for contemporary design professions around convoluted degree titles that all produce graduates with a variation on the same capabilities. Do design master’s degrees require educational standards or a worldwide regulatory body, similar to architecture, to maintain consistency and make it easier for industry when hiring designers? (Herbst & McDonagh, 2017). Although programs have different titles, descriptions of each program discuss similar aims and objectives. An investigation into the structure of these programs, the curriculum content taught, and how it is taught would provide further insight and clarity into the similarities and differences of programs. Table 4.3 presents the design thinking pedagogy implications from a postgraduate coursework perspective synthesised from the global audit and practice considerations.

98  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education TABLE 4.3  Postgraduate coursework design thinking pedagogy implications

Design Thinking Process Empathise

Ideate

Prototype

Test

• At this level, students often have the ability to empathise with real users and/or customers from their workplace, which provides context to the activities at hand. • Additional reflective relevancy is seen by students who have professional experience. • Developing ideas is not usually the difficult part for students at this level as they usually have many – they rather struggle with creativity blockers (a million reasons why it cannot be done) as they have more workplace and industry experience than undergraduate students. • At this level, students are encouraged to develop low-fidelity prototypes to develop their solutions and a final high-fidelity prototype for the final design crit. • Prototypes (particularly for capstone design projects) are important for inclusion in portfolios, which are often a requirement of job applications. • There is a stronger emphasis at this level on testing as students come from a professional background where metrics, key performance indicators (KPIs) and evaluation are common workplace practice. • At this level, students should have insight into what experiments could look like in the field of practice, which provides perspectives on what solutions could look like in the real world.

Reflective Practitioner Problem • Problems need to be authentic, relevant, and real to students’ contexts. Complexity • There needs to be more choice given to students to self-initiate their own problems. For example, students can pick a problem in their workplace that they have intimate knowledge of. Due to this, problems are usually complicated or complex at this level. Conceptual • At a postgraduate level, the theory is more complex in nature as there is Theory a higher level of cognitive comprehension. • In this context, there is not as much time to develop an in depth understanding of the background knowledge surrounding the theory and history of design, therefore, the theory taught should focus more on the application, implementation, and integration of design thinking. Boundary • At this level, the use of boundary objects is not as prescriptive as at the Object undergraduate level, and students should not be as reliant on them; they are used to scaffold the design rather than instruct it. • They are also used to enable communication and collaboration within group work through creating a shared dialogue between students from different disciplines. Innovation • As students often have a good understanding of organisational Practice constraints and the realities of getting things started, they appreciate the difficulty in enacting design thinking activities in the workplace. • Generally, students have a deeper level of comprehension and awareness as they operate at a higher level of cognition, which enables them to reflect on their experience in the industry. (Continued)

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  99 TABLE 4.3 Continued

Active Participant Framing

Inquiry/ Discovery

Co-Create

Application/ Making

• More time should be spent framing and unpacking the problem at this level as problems are more complex than at an undergraduate level and understanding the problem is more difficult. • Students are able to appreciate different frames presented from different stakeholders. • Students are self-motivated to acquire knowledge elsewhere to address the problem at hand. • Often students have a genuine desire and passion for the problem area’s context. • Student-initiated process, with a high level of learner autonomy. • Students have solid collaborations across the industry (problem set) at this level and engage with the community and organisation at hand. • Strong peer-to peer collaborations and learning between students within a cohort-driven environment should be encouraged. • Students have a strong drive to action and implement the outcomes in business, in addition to a desire to make a difference and impact on the world. • This application phase requires real projects to be conducted to allow students to learn via doing and encounter all the nuisances and messiness of design firsthand.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 4.2:  PROFESSOR ANDY DONG, SARA FENSKE BAHAT, AND NATHAN SHEDROFF MBA in Design Strategy, California College of the Arts, United States

Professor Andy Dong (AD) is the head of the Oregon State University School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, a professor of mechanical engineering, and was the MBA in Design Strategy (DMBA) chair from 2017 to 2020. His research addresses strategy in the design and innovation of engineered products and systems and aims to explain the impact of design strategy on productivity and the betterment potential of new products.

100  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

Sara Fenske Bahat (SFB) is the current chair of the DMBA. At California College of the Arts (CCA) Sara uses her experience with social systems, economics, and iterative problem-solving to sustain art and culture ecosystems and foster mutually productive partnerships. Nathan Shedroff (NS) is the founding chair of the groundbreaking DMBA at CCA. Nathan is a pioneer in experience design, interaction design, and information design, is a serial entrepreneur, and researches, speaks, and teaches internationally about meaning, strategic innovation, and science fiction interfaces. In this expert sidebar, Andy, Sara, and Nathan discuss the unique DMBA program through reflecting on the creation and development of the program as well as the pedagogical approaches required to teach design to non-designers. 1.

Why was the DMBA created and what was the purpose of the degree? NS: The MBA in Design Strategy (DMBA) was created as a new approach to MBA education, specifically taking the best parts of a traditional MBA and expanding it with training in design thinking, systems thinking, and sustainability, as well as new approaches to leadership and business (what we termed “new business”). The problems created in the 20th century are not solvable with the same approaches and tools from that era. We created the DMBA with a new curriculum, combined with a new pedagogy, to teach students new ways of solving big challenges. We knew that students would need to better understand and navigate systems, understand that value was more than just money and features, and integrate their values into business whether they were approaching a solution from a forprofit or non-profit perspective. The intent was never to create an “MBA for designers” but to create an “MBA for the 21st century”. From the beginning, we attracted non-designers and celebrated their participation. SFB: In many ways, the DMBA was ahead of its time. It’s far more evident today than it was 14 years ago that the world needs new approaches that traditional MBAs do not offer. We see ourselves as very well positioned to develop the leadership potential of students who are willing to think creatively about the worlds they want to create and inhabit. AD: I am overgeneralising, but I think I can safely say that most business schools prepare students to hone their deductive thinking. They start from economic theory and very specific business strategy theories, most of which were derived from industrial and organisational economic theory, and then use these theories to analyse their way into business solutions. I love theory, but this theory-heavy educational

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  101

2.

approach can get in the way of creatively thinking through to what we call “best possibilities”. The other important difference is the lowresidency structure of the program. In this structure, students need to be on campus 4 days per month only. First, this supports the nonstereotyped graduate business student who is single and has no family obligations and can afford to go to graduate school. Second, this structure supports creativity! Students can spend more time thinking through a problem, formulating and reformulating the problem statement, prototyping, getting feedback from clients, peers, and faculty over a longer period of time before returning to campus to present their ideas for further critique and development. The students don’t have case analyses due every week! The whole cadence of the program is so different from a conventional MBA program. Finally, we cannot say enough about the visual quality of the presentation of the students’ work. The DMBA students produce absolutely beautiful and intellectually lucid “reports”. I have to put the word “reports” into quotation marks because they’re not double-spaced 12-page reports. They incorporate visuals, diagrams, and cartoons – beautifully executed, of course – data visualisations, and often some sort of physical prototype. The students challenge and support each other to bring an idea to life with aesthetic perfection. This culture is never going to be reproduced at an MBA school that is not ensconced in an art and design school. What do you think sets the DMBA apart from other design master’s degrees? NS: On the curricular side, an integrated approach throughout all of the classes, with qualitative design techniques, systems thinking, and an understanding and appreciation for employees and customers both as people and not “consumers”. Effective communications, an overview of sustainability, and an emphasis on leadership were core to every class. In this way, we never needed a separate “ethics” class because topics like these are “baked into” every class (which is the most effective way to teach). On the pedagogical side, we made full use of collaborative teams and project-oriented learning, pairing student teams with outside organisations (companies and organisations of all types) to explore and generate solutions to all kinds of challenges. The curriculum was designed to reinforce these skills through several “studio” courses that built on past course skills while layering new ones onto them. In this way, students left not only with a resumé or vitae but also with an actual portfolio of solutions they could present and discuss in a job interview. DMBA students are taught to build organisations and strategies that don’t require leaving personal values at the door (and how to convince others that this is an option) as well as being able to translate

102  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

3.

between traditional factions – engineers, designers, leadership, management, customers, and partners/vendors – that don’t intercommunicate well. The things we hear most from companies that work with or hire our students is “I didn’t know that people like this existed”. SFB: We have a separate ethics class now! All that Nathan has offered is true, but also … adaptation. From my perspective, the most important way we can approach this curriculum is to make sure it’s responsive to the moment and designed that way. The approaches we took 14 years ago are no longer current! Under Andy, we added a lab component to our studio courses. We’ve formalised those – data, ethics (including AI), story, and leadership labs – to give students an opportunity to practise these critical skill sets, in line with the curriculum aims for the semesters in which they are offered. AD: First, I think it’s important to emphasise that the DMBA is a business degree. Full stop. It’s not a design degree. Something we talk much less about are the constraints on the curriculum for MBA programs set by the well-known bodies that accredit business programs. The most important decision we have taken is that in order to have a different kind of MBA program, we had to be willing to eschew the conventional accrediting bodies and the constraints they impose. The DMBA is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, but, importantly, not accredited by Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs, for example. Releasing ourselves from this constraint opened up the possibilities for the curriculum tremendously. The program does educate students in finance, accounting, marketing, and the legal aspects of business, and we teach topics in the core such as futures studies. Other business schools cannot do this due to the constraints of accreditation and how much they can squeeze into their core curriculum. The program has created a unique niche in the application of design skills that include design thinking into the core of graduate business education. What background do students come from in the degree and why do they choose a program such as this? NS: I can’t speak for the program now, but for the first 10 years, about two-thirds of our student body had a design background (from a variety of fields, including architecture, product design, graphic design, interaction design, car design, even fashion design) and the other third from engineering, business management, non-profits, etc. – even commodities trading and a medical doctor. We always tried to grow this balance closer to 50/50 but, as a program within an art and design school, we could only expect so much. Ideally, this approach to MBA education could be very successful (and likely more diverse) at a more general college or university. We constantly hear from students

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  103

4.

“I wasn’t looking for an MBA program but when I saw this, I knew it was for me”. In this way, the DMBA attracted people who wanted to build solutions and solve problems, but traditional business school curricula, values, and approaches didn’t appeal to them. SFB: Right now, we’re attracting people who want to be involved with reimagining how systems work, who see change as necessary and inevitable. We see a lot of interest from the social sector, as well as from creative disciplines. In many ways, our residency at a college of art and design has become an asset, not a liability, in that it’s very clear that creativity is necessary for the reimagining we are going for. And as we’ve pushed into the narrative that we can train people who see the world as needing change, our class of students has become more diverse. AD: There are so many reasons to be turned off by business school, and let’s be honest, arrogance and elitism are at the top of the list. I think the culture of seeking best possibilities, figuring out the way that businesses, for- or non-profit, can be part of making a world that we want to live in, is incredibly attractive. There is such a pragmatic social justice perspective too. Whether it’s figuring out a way to increase venture capital funding to women or incubating minority-founded start-ups, or helping people from different linguistic backgrounds to communicate more effectively, or designing better maternity bras, I think, ultimately, students choose this program because they want to be a part of a sanctuary for pragmatic, progressive organisations that at worst won’t make the world any worse and at best will make positive meaningful change that matters with a community (or market). How do you teach this degree? NS: Integral to the program was a hybrid low-residency structure. Not only did this allow us to pull students from a much wider, even international, geographic region (we had students regularly commute, once a month, from Canada, the East Coast, Southern California, etc.) but it also required students to use the skills they were learning in their communications and leadership class. It was integral to the pedagogy that they learn to work both in person and remotely in order to be effective, and school was a great crucible to try new things since it didn’t impact their status as an employee (as it might be working in a company). We knew that this was the “future of work”, but, obviously, that’s accelerated under the COVID-19 pandemic. Also core to the pedagogy was teaching in projects and in teams. Most of the students’ work was team-oriented because they could do more as a group than as an individual and would need to learn to collaborate. Not every course was this way, but we didn’t want students to think they could do it all on their own. It wasn’t uncommon to have some very high-functioning individuals have to confront the

104  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

5.

fact that, although they COULD do others’ work themselves, the skills they needed to learn were to help others better perform and trust others to succeed. SFB: Recently, we reorganised the curriculum to reflect themes by semester. Every student is essentially on a journey to ask great questions (Semester 1), examine complexity (Semester 2), create both physically and creatively (Semester 3), and then lead with those skills (Semester 4). We applied what we teach to what we do, and this has really helped to clarify that every individual is on a journey here, in collaboration with the group. AD: We have a unique mix of full-time and adjunct faculty, many of whom are “pracademics” – highly skilled practitioners with graduate degrees who return to a college environment to teach and share their knowledge, skills, experience, and professional networks. In turn, they get to reflect upon and update their knowledge while working with incredibly capable, creative, and compassionate students. How does pedagogy need to change to teach students from non-design backgrounds? NS: Aside from what’s above, the three biggest learnings for the nondesigners were to accept critique, to communicate visually, and to value qualitative data. Those without a design or art degree don’t usually understand the purpose or process of critique. They tend to take critique personally and don’t realise that no single person has enough perspective or experience to create a successful and complete solution. Understanding both how to TAKE critique in the spirit in which it’s offered as well as how to GIVE appropriate and helpful critique is critical. Next, in the beginning, we expected students from a design background to come to us asking for help with the “numbers” courses. What we didn’t expect were the non-designers coming to us asking about increasing their drawing and visual communications skills. In the very first semester of the first cohort, we had a student from a business background come to us asking to take a sketching class because her visual communication skills weren’t on-par with her peers. Visual communication can be powerful and can differentiate someone’s communication skills. Having both visual and verbal skills is more powerful still. Last, traditional business overvalues quantitative data, thinking that it “tells the story” and not realising that it only tells part of the story. Too many businesses ignore other kinds of value and, specifically, a qualitative understanding of people (customers). Design and design thinking is a strong approach to professionally using qualitative data to develop solutions that work not only for people but also for markets and industries as well. The most important value created and exchanged between people, and between people and

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  105

6.

organisations, is actually on the qualitative side – and it’s the most differentiable. So, having our students understand and be comfortable with this was critical to what and how we taught them. SFB: I would argue that critique is the most unique thing about the DMBA. In braving out in the spaces of new and better ways of doing things, it’s critical to both listen wholeheartedly and offer feedback in a way that sends the maker of the thing back to work, excited about what they will do next. This is a crucial leadership skill, ESPECIALLY on diverse teams doing hard things. We really bring that to life and are constantly evaluating our approach. AD: The DMBA curriculum structure itself embodies a narrative, as Sara stated. That is so powerful and so different from the way most degrees are structured, which is typically around scaffolding concepts into higher levels of complexity. The students pick upon the narrative structure of the degree. In turn, this is reflected inside the course pedagogy. Across all the courses, we teach the students by telling, and asking them to tell, compelling stories – that, yes, contain qualitative and quantitative data, and also emotion, narrative structure, ethics, consequences, history, theory, and a vision for best possibilities. We do this even in the managerial economics class! Economics is not just a set of theories and models. Economics is a set of stories about the exchange of goods and ideas. What are your thoughts on the future of design education? What does the future designer need to look like? NS: The DMBA program was started from the supposition that “business was the future of design and sustainability was the future of business”. I’ll reiterate that this was never a program to teach business to designers. ALL businesspeople need to understand these “new” topics and techniques in addition to rethinking how traditional business education has approached business in the past. I’m more concerned with rethinking business education than design education because it’s in far more need of re-evaluation. Traditional business education has clearly fallen short of training people to be responsible corporate citizens or being capable of successfully solving our biggest challenges. This is where we need to focus our efforts at rethinking education. SFB: I wholeheartedly agree with Nathan that our interest is not in design education but business education and raising a generation of inspired and inspiring business leaders. AD: The DMBA is an MBA. The MBA began because of an industrialising economy. The DMBA is growing because an of economy that is not creating enough value for everyone. That economy is a long way away from where we are today. The DMBA and its graduates have a lot of work to do!

106  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

4.4 Case Study: HDR Design Catalysts This section reflects on the supervision of a cohort of higher degree research (HDR), industry-based design professionals undertaking a role originally named “design innovation catalyst” by Wrigley (2017) and later shortened to “design catalyst” by Straker, Wrigley, and Nusem (2021). This role is becoming more common globally in research strategies in design and was made possible through the financial sponsorship of HDR students by the firms in which they were placed by their HDR supervisor as “catalysts”, allowing them a full-time commitment to their study (Wrigley, 2016). Here, the design catalyst aims to translate and facilitate design thinking across and within an organisation using design thinking methods such as observation, gathering empathetic insights, reframing, and experimenting with boundary objects in all facets of the organisation. The firms all sought to embed design within the company to see the fundamental shift design could provide. Catalysts during the program developed a deep understanding of the organisation they were embedded within and much tacit customer knowledge in relation to their needs and desires, and preferences in business offerings (Wrigley, 2016).The HDR catalyst was conducting design thinking research related to the most complex challenging problems the organisations had at the time. Problems that current business processes were unable to tackle. Embedding students in these organisations allowed them to gain industry experience through their positions in the firms, where they built discipline-specific knowledge and generic higher learning skills (Wrigley, Wolifson, and Matthews, 2021).The structure of this HDR design program can be seen in Figure 4.4 where the student traversed between design practice and design research boundaries – the dotted line representing the student’s epistemic fluency. The dotted line in Figure 4.4 also represents the oscillation of the HDR design catalyst across the research and industry divide, here the design thinking pedagogy framework is reflected through, problem complexity, innovation practice, inquiry/ discovery, and application/making. Such elements scaffold the HDR journey and are supported by the pedagogical approaches described in Section 4.5 allowing the design catalyst to reconfigure the strategy of the embedded firm. These design catalysts required certain capabilities and skills throughout their HDR program.Wrigley (2016) identifies six capabilities the design catalyst needs to exhibit: design knowledge and skills, business knowledge and understanding, cognitive abilities, customer and stakeholder centricity, personal qualities, and research knowledge and skills. Straker et al. (2021) build on Wrigley (2016) to identify six emergent design catalyst capabilities, as outlined in Table 4.4. Additionally, managing communities of learning practice is a difficult and timeconsuming process that requires much organisation and dedication by staff and supervisors, including small-group teaching and cohort seminars (Figure 4.5). Content needs to be relevant and engaging, as well as this, catalysts need to be shown how to facilitate design methods inside an industry project. In the cohort model of supervision, however, catalysts were successful in providing the organisation with different perspectives and ways to address the problem not because they were embedded in company but rather because they had the support from their

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  107

FIGURE 4.4 

 DR design catalyst relationship between research and practice (Adapted H from Wrigley et al., 2021)

TABLE 4.4  Design catalyst capabilities (Straker et al., 2021, p. 160)

Design Catalyst Capability

Description

Customer Centred Research Rigour

Empathetic mindset and understanding, with a facility to put the customer first, and understand and empathise with their latent needs Strong understanding of research skills and process, with an ability to uncover relevant information and knowledge to understand, investigate, synthesise, and critique findings into useful applications for the organisation Strong understanding of design processes and methods, the ability to apply them instinctively, as well as to visualise, translate ideas, and prototype concepts Able to build relationships to stimulate, provoke, encourage, inspire, lead, and motivate others, and create conditions for collaboration and co-creation Possess fundamental business knowledge and understanding including strategy, new product development, business model innovation, organisational change, marketing, innovation processes, and entrepreneurial awareness Able to tolerate ambiguity and challenge assumptions and current ways of working within the organisation to reframe problems

Design Intuition Agile Facilitation Business Acumen

Rule Breaker

other fellow catalysts in their cohort. This allowed for cross-pollination between projects and industries permeating a peer-to-peer learning model (Wrigley et al., 2021) and cultivating critical thinking, reflexivity, the capacity to analyse and evaluate complex information, synthesise facts, and create new ways of working for the organisation. In the following Expert Sidebar 4.3, Dr Judy Matthews comments on her supervision of this case study cohort in more detail.

108  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

FIGURE 4.5 

HDR design catalyst cohort engaging in a seminar discussion

EXPERT SIDEBAR 4.3:  DR JUDY MATTHEWS Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Dr Judy Matthews commenced her career as a full-time academic after 15 years in human resource development and management in higher education, industry, and community development. Prior to joining the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in January 2007, she was a senior lecturer in the School of Management, Marketing and International Business in the College of Business and Economics at the Australian National University (ANU) and from 2002 to 2005 was the director of Master of Management

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  109

program at the National Graduate School of Management at ANU. At QUT she teaches problem framing, creative action, and humancentred design to MBA students. In this expert sidebar Judy draws on her experience supervising a cohort of design innovation HDR students to discuss the underlying design thinking pedagogical approach based on a collaborative partnership between research and industry. Design thinking and design innovation have a long and distinguished history. In the last couple of decades, both have become better known and their contribution is now better recognised in disciplines outside design such as business and management, health, education, and defence. Many organisations are hiring designers and design teams in an effort to capture designers’ deeper understanding of customers and users and the value that design thinking and design innovation delivers to organisations. Design academics are found in multiple contexts, from architecture and urban design to industrial design, interaction design, and graphic design. The designers I have worked most closely with are industrial designers who are grounded in a perspective that is strongly user-centred and context relevant. These designers are comfortable with exploring business and design challenges by creating, prototyping, testing, refining, and implementing new desired solutions. Design academics are now working more closely with diverse groups of non-designers and developing ways of engaging and collaborating with them to introduce new perspectives and implement new solutions to existing challenges. To my knowledge, most design thinking/design innovation doctoral programs still focus on developing the design skills of individual students. Examples of intensive master’s and doctoral programs that require students to practise design thinking and design innovation in a business context are uncommon. As such, I was a joint developer and supervisor of a “new-to-the-world”, intensive, cohort model “design catalyst” master’s/doctoral research program, with an experienced industrial designer, for design HDRs working with industry. Before supervising this cohort, I had previously supervised action research projects. I am a strong advocate for action research/action learning programs because they use rigorous academic and industry-related knowledge to bring about contextually relevant change. I had observed the supervision of PhD students as a cohort and noted the generous sharing of research and knowledge, rich group discussions, the joint publication benefits, and the supportive community of practice that developed. We used a cohort model for all these reasons. Our design catalyst research process was based on students working on industry-related challenges in their industry context for 2 to 3 days a week, and to meet as a cohort for 1 to 2 days per week on campus in a space established for these HDR students, known as the Design-Led Innovation (DLI) Lab.

110  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

Our weekly meetings included weekly check-ins of students on the progress of their diverse industry projects, discussion of the challenges they were facing, and their successes along the way, as well as presentations by guest speakers on related topics. I was responsible for action research, so I invited a local national expert in action research to present to our students. I ensured that the students had access to relevant action research resources before and after the presentation. The advantage of a cohort was that all students were engaged in the challenging and uncertain process of higher education research, were working in an industry with no prior experience, and exploring this industry context for relevant challenges and issues. All students were engaged in the common experience of exploring and experimenting with the DLI framework and learning new ways of working. With research colleagues who were experiencing similar challenges in different contexts and collaborating to share sources of research and knowledge to identify and solve problems, HDR students developed a very positive community of practice for discussion, support, and joint publications. Supervision of the DLI cohort was based on a structured design approach with a clear DLI framework, not previously known to these students, joint academic and industry contexts, weekly supervision by academics and from an industry champion, all within an engaging, collaborative supportive environment. A structured approach can provide strong scaffolding for academic development for HDR students. This was certainly the case for the HDR students engaged in DLI research projects in industry settings. I believe best practice in design teaching and education builds on the notion that design is a team sport; that people have to experience design to understand at a social, emotional, kinaesthetic, and physical level some of the powerful processes that human-centred designing can engender in individuals and with others. Experiencing design goes beyond stimulating lots of ideas and shaping those ideas through prototyping. Design must include the context and the stakeholders in generating new possibilities and solutions, where solutions are not just a new product or service but are also ways of exploring and working. Hence, the cohort model of higher degree research supervision delivers best practice in design teaching and education through developing safe, collaborative relationships with colleagues who are engaged in similar challenging projects, providing the highest potential for experimentation and learning. This collaborative model is further reflected in strong industry engagement, developing strong, positive respectful relationships, and collaboratively experimenting, challenging, progressing, and refining ways of working. These essential factors of trusting relationships need to be developed and nurtured over time for the designer to act as a catalyst and bring about any forms of change.

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  111

4.5 Higher Degree Research Design Thinking Pedagogy Higher degree research (HDR) typically encompasses supervised postgraduate research projects, master’s by research, Master of Philosophy, or doctoral degrees, which are either research or profession based (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013). Research doctoral degrees are typically referred to as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Within the HDR context, the role of the design catalyst has been explored (Section 4.4 and Expert Sidebar 4.3). The value of a design catalyst to an organisation is critical, and a major characteristic of the catalyst is their regular interaction with research (knowledge) and practice (action) (Figure 4.6). Universities give incentives for an internship model in HDR, embedding HDR candidates in industry to learn from the firm and the firm to learn from the HDR candidate.Additionally, having a cohort of HDR candidates embedded in firms at the same time enables those candidates to learn from each other, implementing design processes and methods for different problems in different industry contexts. This is in stark opposition to the professional doctorate, where demands on the student are far greater as they manage contrasting priorities (usually full-time employment in addition to part-time study) – the HDR cohort model (as discussed in Expert Sidebar 4.3) integrates industry employment and study, collaborating with both entities though the research project. HDR cohort models have been identified as a good way to cross the industry-academic divide by those conducting action research in particular as they are constantly bridging this divide (Barnett & Muth, 2008). As most HDR programs of study are self-disciplined solo journeys of many years of study, it is no surprise that this process is increasingly being re-examined in order

FIGURE 4.6 

Relationship between design practice and design research

112  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education

to improve completion rates and various initiatives to support the student experience. (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). The case study presented in Section 4.4 represents the shift away for the individual one-on-one approach to learning and towards a new cohort-based program. The benefits of cohort approaches are evident in multiple authorities in literature (Choy, Delahaye, & Saggers, 2015; Kiley & Wisker, 2009; McKenna, 2017; Wallgren & Dahlgren, 2007; Wisker, Robinson, & Shacham, 2007). In cohort approaches people work together to build and transfer knowledge within the cohort community. In the HDR cohort case study the design catalyst model built a collaborative, communal engagement between students in the research culture of the cohort where they felt a sense of belonging. Here the group came together as a project team to “engage around a particular problem area and draw on a shared theoretical framework” (McKenna, 2017, p. 458). Each design catalyst explored the challenges and opportunities of a design-led approach within their specific organisation. In HDR contexts, design thinking pedagogy connects knowledge and action through design research and design practice in industry. It therefore fulfils the requirements of professional learning set out by Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017), who state that “professional learning, at its core, needs to connect knowledge and action – it needs to connect ‘expert concepts’ and experiential ‘everyday concepts’” (p. 142). In order to make connections between knowledge and action,“both have to be in place” (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017, p.142).With the HDR student acting as a design catalyst in industry, they discover knowledge and theory while learning to critique and question existing research and case studies within a learning environment. They then challenge current ways of working within organisations and generate discussion, debate, and tensions to explore new possibilities. The results occur when the findings of the project are disseminated and contribute to the academic research field (Wrigley, 2016). As Wrigley, Wolifson, and Matthews (2021) explain, Embedding research students at the frontline of disciplinary evolution, expertly guided by the supervisors, meant that both the students’ development and their outputs were leading edge. Catalysts acted as intermediaries between (iterative) research and (iterative) practice. (p. 1186) Another key component to the success of HDR design thinking pedagogy is the supervisor as the expert facilitator. In the cohort model presented, the supervisor must not only be extremely organised in the placement, guidance, and direction of all industry-based cohorts at once but also directly impart knowledge by facilitating skills of learner autonomy and emancipation. In this model, the supervisor plays a key role in encouraging supportive stages of the cohort processes, including facilitating and empowering students to engage in dialogue with each other and the published work in the field (Wisker et al., 2007, p. 304). Pedagogies enabling cohort collaboration include skill-based workshops, residential training, online discussions, and seminars where key literature is debated.

Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education  113

Additionally, informal learning environments, such as Facebook groups and social gatherings, are also critical.These should be staged across the candidature timeframe to encourage and maintain engagement in the cohort culture. These educational elements occur separately to that of the work within an individual student’s thesis. Drawing on the HDR cohort case study as well as experience supervising design catalysts in industry, Table 4.5 presents the design thinking pedagogy implications associated with higher degree research in design thinking.

TABLE 4.5  Higher degree research design thinking pedagogy implications

Design Thinking Process Empathise

Ideate

Prototype

Test

• Students are embedded within organisations, enabling greater and immediate access to users, customers, and stakeholders. • Insights gained are more in depth, richer, and anthropological in nature, due to students’ ethnographic absorption. • Students have a richer understanding of research methods and practices and the ability to ask deeper questions to probe for more useful insights. • Students are able to develop more insightful, novel designs and ideas based on the deep insights gained from a longer more enduring study period and should be encouraged to immerse themselves into the detail and complexity of the problem. • The ideation phase should allow enough time for quality outcomes to emerge. • At this level, due to the length and intensity of HDR programs, students have more time for iteration and redevelopment as they are able to go through the design thinking process multiple times. • This phase should be engaged with quickly, as businesses do not have time to delay if the student is embedded in or working with industry. • Students are able to develop solid measures to test and report on due to their integration with industry. • There can be rigorous research methods tied to this phase. As such, it is important to not to let this phase consume the project.

Reflective Practitioner Problem Complexity

Conceptual Theory

• Students at this level address “wicked” problems which have the potential to have global impact due to research outputs. • Due to this level of complexity, these problems take time to make sense of and students need to be immersed in them. • Students possess a comprehensive and advanced understanding of design thinking and related topics. • Students should be encouraged to create and document the new knowledge they create by contributing to the field with their own research publication and dissemination strategy. (Continued)

114  Mastering Design Thinking in Postgraduate Education TABLE 4.5 Continued

Boundary Object

Innovation Practice

• If students use boundary objects, they are self-created and designed for a specific purpose. • Students should be encouraged to disseminate and share such artefacts at conferences and with each other in their peer-to-peer communities of practice. • Students have practical application and implementation experience if embedded or sponsored within industry. • Research outputs from their study reach audiences to make change globally.

Active Participant Framing

Inquiry/Discovery

Co-Create Application/Making

• Students possess an in-depth knowledge of the problem space, they know how to look for root causes to issues, juggle multiple perspectives to problems, and prioritise features and criteria. • Through the cohort community they can co-create joint knowledge and design practice to develop a better understanding of the design thinking process. • Students can co-create with their peers as well as industry to absorb and disseminate research outcomes and design practice. • Students should be encouraged to generate new knowledge as well as new ways of working in practice. • The HDR context allows for both application and making to be explored simultaneously.

4.6 Summary In this chapter, postgraduate design thinking pedagogy has been explored in detail. This global representation depicts the future indicators of the field. As such, the slight nudging of the research boundaries pushes the assumptions on what we know as a field and propels it forward. Coursework postgraduate studies in design are the vehicle in which learnings are put into practice.This impact can resonate on a larger scale. So, what does this mean for the future of postgraduate design study in terms of both coursework and HDR pedagogy? Some key points to consider are the role of the educator, their expertise and their experience; the role of the active student, who they are and how they learn; the collaborative/non-competitive learning environment in which these students sit; and the collaborative, mutually beneficial relationship they (the educator and student) gain. This drives a cohort and catalyst mentality surrounding design thinking pedagogy in postgraduate education.

5 DIGITAL AND PROFESSIONAL DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

5.1 Everyone as a Design Thinker, Design Thinking for Everyone Access to education in design has never been more convenient or easier due to new technologies, platforms, and online outlets that allow for design thinking knowledge to be freely accessible to the masses. In addition to face-to-face design thinking courses offered by tertiary education institutions, online educational platforms (also known as massive open online courses or MOOCs) are providing such content to a wider audience online (Taheri & Meinel, 2015; Wrigley et al., 2018). Additionally, private, for-profit education providers from all around the globe offer education on design thinking. Both individuals and organisations are engaging with these online platforms in search of a new set of multidisciplinary tools and skills to enable innovation within the fields of business, management, leadership, creativity, and design (Howard, 2016). As the appeal and appetite for these courses and programs grow, the higher education sector has transitioned into online course offerings to enable their content to be accessible and available to a wider, global audience. This has resulted in a significant growth in recent years (Matkin, 2013). MOOCs in particular are contributing to the popularity and demand for micro-credentialing for individuals to remain competitive in the current employment climate (Mulligan & Kennedy, 2017). Micro-credentials are accredited certificates provided for short courses in various disciplinary areas and they are predominantly aimed at developing skills and knowledge in focused areas that are both relevant and timely to fill a need in the market. For example, a number of providers are now offering micro-credentials in artificial intelligence as its impact on various sectors continues to rise. Microcredentials are popular within many organisations looking to upskill and reskill their workforce quickly and efficiently.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-5

116  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

Developing micro-credentials is appealing to tertiary institutions as their short duration is recognised as requiring less commitment than established qualifications such as a graduate certificate, diploma, or master’s program. As traditional courses take large tertiary institutions some years to develop, by which time rapidly changing fields such as artificial intelligence have advanced, this new model of micro-­credentialling allows for a more efficient pathway to educational delivery. The learning design behind micro-credentials is also reflective of the shift to a learner-centric model (previously discussed in Chapter 2) as these courses provide active learners with timely and relevant content to their sector or business in need. Micro-credentials are often provided by organisations to the employee as part of a broader cultural change program where the employer is seeking to train a workforce at large. Micro-credentials can also be a part of a broader government initiative such as the growth of a targeted sector or industry that needs extra support in a timely manner. Design thinking in particular is being taught across tertiary, business, and other education providers through various micro-credentials. These programs have contextual appeal as they can be specifically designed for the sector, organisation, audience at hand. Many institutions are offering micro-credentials in design thinking. These are being hosted not only in design schools but also in business faculties.The most famous design thinking micro-credential is the Stanford d.school Design Thinking Bootcamp where, over a week-long course and a short post program, students can apply the popular design thinking process (empathy, define, ideate, prototype, test) along with skills, tools, and methods to create and build a design portfolio of work to showcase. A primary driver of the learning-on-demand model can be linked to the increased application of design to a diverse range of contexts and disciplines outside of the field of design. It is this non-designer audience with an appetite to remain competitive in the job market that are seeking professional development through such flexible education services. Due to this demand, education providers are developing digital courses to encourage people to see the value of design thinking and to introduce them to foundational theories and methods (Wrigley et al., 2018). Some providers also see the production of these foundational digital courses as an investment to attract future students into their programs, with some even using them to provide credit towards postgraduate degrees. For example, Rochester Institute of Technology’s MicroMasters program in Design Thinking can be used as credit towards a master’s degree at RIT. Design thinking in this context appeals to almost every sector as all industries have recognised the need to innovate to remain competitive in the current market. This chapter focuses on digital and professional design thinking education and as such, is broken into Part I, digital design thinking education and Part II, professional design thinking education. Part I centres on the digital environment and online teaching of design thinking, while Part II concentrates on organisational training and micro-credentialing in design thinking based on industry and government demand.

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  117

Part I: Digital Design Thinking Education 5.2 Teaching Design Thinking Online and in a Digital Environment As discussed in the introductory chapters, the design studio is a common pedagogical approach across all levels of tertiary education, however, how can this studiobased model incorporating experiential learning, group collaboration, and idea development be replicated online? Many scholars have discussed the benefits and challenges of teaching design thinking online, such as Lloyd (2013) who suggests that it has the potential to facilitate interactivity and collaboration among a multidisciplinary cohort. In comparison, Wrigley et al. (2018) argue that only foundational knowledge relating to the design thinking process and theories can be taught online, as learning the application of the process requires face-to-face interaction and collaboration. One study exploring teaching design thinking online,Taheri and Meinel (2015), examined best practice pedagogical frameworks through the seminal work of Chickering and Gamsons (1987) and their seven principles for good practice pedagogy in overall undergraduate education. Taheri and Meinel (2015) concluded that design thinking MOOCs are a “positive movement in demystifying and introducing the potential of design thinking methodology to a broader ­audience” (p. 480). At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities around the world immediately had to cancel face-to-face classes to avoid the spread of this highly infectious disease. Transitioning these classes to an online environment was the only option to ensure the continuation of courses, programs, and degrees. However, as authorities have identified, teaching through digital conferencing platforms is not the same as online education. Building on the work of Anderson (2011), Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear, Guàrdia and Koole (2020) identify four key components of online learning, (1) the learner is at a distance from the tutor/instructor, (2) the learner uses some form of technology to access the learning materials, (3) the learner uses technology to interact with the tutor/instructor and with other learners and (4) some kind of support is provided to learners. (p. 925) The difference between teaching tertiary education courses online and the courses hosted by online education organisations such as Coursera, Edx, Udemy, and Canvas, Future Learn, and Udacity is that in the case of the online education organisations, the courses were designed to be taught online from the beginning. These courses use resources and skills specifically related to this type of education – digital ­learning – and receive largely positive reviews. This contrasts with the experiences of students at tertiary institutions throughout 2020, who reported feelings of isolation, as well as the experiences of academics who were unsatisfied with this mode of delivery. As COVID-19 forced educators into the digital environment, there is still

118  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

much to learn from the way in which this global pandemic has led to innovations within the digital pedagogy of the design thinking classroom. As mentioned above, it has been argued by Wrigley et al. (2018) that digital design thinking courses should be used to offer learners fundamental theories, methods, and case studies, providing context and insight within a professional practice that although alluring can at times seem confusing. These fundamental theories of design thinking require a significant amount of time to be critically analysed, explored, and understood in depth. Applying design thinking methods and tools can be challenging online as much of this work demands physical materiality which is dependent on the problem being addressed.This concurs with the findings of Taheri and Meinel (2015), where online courses are identified as playing a strong role in demystifying and exposing people to design thinking, while failing to provide opportunities to develop design ability and apply methods. The quality of learning outcomes in teaching design thinking online in comparison to face-to-face environments needs future investigation. Questions arise such as: • •

Can online education providers deliver the same learning outcomes as effectively in a digital environment as a design-studio setting? How do we measure design thinking learning outcomes and do they need to be changed in an online environment?

5.3 Global Snapshot of Digital Design Thinking Courses A global snapshot of digital design thinking courses demonstrates that a diverse range of online programs are offered easily and conveniently worldwide. In this snapshot, many of these courses provide numerous methods and processes for various audiences ranging from entrepreneurs to leadership, management, and business strategy design professionals through to social innovators and educators. As research demonstrates, foundational knowledge transfer of design thinking processes and methods is the limitation of design thinking courses online (Taheri & Meinel, 2015; Wrigley et al., 2018).There are a plethora of design thinking online courses available but based on the research discussed surrounding foundational knowledge transfer we have elected to explore introductory design thinking courses to understand the common pedagogical approaches. These are presented in Table 5.1. Furthermore, as all the courses are introductory in nature, they are discussed collectively.

5.4 Digital Design Thinking Pedagogy What is obvious across this global snapshot, as seen in Table 5.1, is the self-paced nature and short duration of all the courses in order to be convenient and engaging. Interestingly, foundational knowledge on design thinking within a university course is traditionally taught over a 12- to 14-week period, questioning the quality and depth of content when it is reduced down to a few hours. Worth noting is the lack of top 10 art and design schools from QS world rankings (QS World University

TABLE 5.1  Summary snapshot of global digital design thinking courses

Institution

Country

Platform

Program

Program Description

Duration

Pedagogies

University of Virginia

United States

Coursera

Design Thinking for Innovation

Duration: Approximately 6 hours to complete

• • • •

Rochester Institute of Technology

United States

Edx

Design Thinking Fundamentals

This course provides an introductory overview of self-paced learning covering the following topics; What is design thinking? preparing your mind for innovation, idea, generation, and experimentation. There is one final culminating assessment. This course provides an introduction to the foundational activities related to design thinking focusing on the process end-to-end. Students must identify the key processes and methods and define and solve problems. The course enhances skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problemsolving, and analytical skills

Duration: Approximately 48–72 Contact hours per week: 8–12 Number of weeks: 6

• Self-paced • Videos

Self-paced Videos Readings Stories (Case Studies)

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  119

(Continued)

Institution

Country

Platform

Program

Program Description

Duration

Pedagogies

University of Sydney

Australia

Coursera

Innovation Through Design: Think, Make, Break, Repeat

This course presents design as a way of thinking for strategic and innovative advantage within various professions. Over 5 weeks, students explore, apply, and practise the design process: think, make, break, and repeat. By introducing theoretical concepts and examining industry case studies with leading Australian design firms, students learn about design thinking, prototypes, and testing.

Duration: Approximately 16 hours to complete

• • • • • •

Self-paced Required readings Videos Quizzes Case studies Self-critique

120  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

TABLE 5.1 Continued

Country

Platform

Program

Program Description

Duration

Pedagogies

IDEO

United States

IDEO U

Hello Design Thinking

Duration: Approximately 2–5 hours to complete

• Self-paced • Video lessons • Activities

University of Leeds

United Kingdom

Future Learn

Get Creative with People to Solve Problems

This course introduces non-designers to the concepts of the design thinking process through activities and case studies with IDEO experts. Students learn how design thinking works and begin to apply methods and tools taught in their own environment. This course introduces students to humancentred design, focusing, on understanding the needs of people who have problems to solve. Students are introduced to the five-stage process and have the opportunity to try each stage by taking part in practical activities.

Total number of hours: 6 Contact hours per week: 3 Number of weeks: 2

• Self-paced • Videos from industry experts

(Continued)

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  121

Institution

Institution

Country

Platform

Program

Program Description

Duration

Pedagogies

University of California San Diego

United States

Udacity

Intro to the Design of Everyday Things

Duration: Approximately 2 weeks

• Self-paced • Instructor Videos “taught by industry pros” • Learn by doing exercises

KAIST

Hong Kong

Coursera

Design Thinking and Global Startup

This course provides a summary of key concepts from the first two chapters of The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman. It teaches the role of design and basic design principles such as affordances, signifiers and conceptual models. This course is based off the Stanford Design Thinking methodology for preparing global start-ups. The course is structured as EmpathyDefine-IdeationPrototype-Test for building a start-up that is customer focused.

Duration: Approximately 8 hours to complete

• Self-paced • Videos • Practical exercises

122  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

TABLE 5.1 Continued

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  123

Rankings, 2021) offering online design thinking courses. What is evident from this global snapshot of digital design thinking courses is common pedagogies and practices, lower to higher orders of thinking and practice, their role within the tertiary design education landscape, and their entertainment value to the learner. Overall, design thinking is taught through a number of key pedagogies across these courses. The University of Virginia’s Design Thinking for Innovation course uses videos, case studies, readings, and other activities, with a combination of assessment practices, including reflection, peer reviews and assessment, and a final assignment item. Similarly, IDEO’s course Hello Design Thinking uses video lessons and activities. The Get Creative With People to Solve Problems course, provided by the University of Leeds, also uses videos, activities, peer reviews, quizzes, and tests to validate learning. Across each course, common ways of teaching design thinking include videos, readings, practical exercises, activities, quizzes, tests, discussion/community boards, and self- and peer assessment. Lastly, it is worth noting the case studies that are used to showcase practical design thinking applications to real-world problems in these courses are presented as narratives, which not only inform but also entertain the learner. These can be extremely valuable for participants in the course creating a richer learning experience.

5.4.1 Boundary Objects To support these pedagogies, learning resources are also a common teaching strategy. Kimbell and Sloane (2020) identify various digital, web-based design thinking educational resources. Drawing inspiration from these we have synthesised this list utilised by the global snapshot of introductory programs. These are listed in Table 5.2. Within these design thinking learning resources specific boundary objects (see Chapter 2) are utilised by some of the audited digital design thinking programs (Table 5.1). These include the learning resource book Designing for Growth: a design thinking toolkit for managers by Liedtka and Ogilvie (2011) and The designing for growth field book: a step-by-step project guide, by Liedtka, Ogilvie and Brozenske (2019) used in the online course Design Thinking for Innovation. Not only do these resources support the learning experience, as the student can complete them while following along with the online course, but they also provide additional physical work sheets and activities to be completed. These additional resources reinforce the unique design thinking process being taught in the course as they are structured in the same easy to follow stages. The University of Sydney’s Innovation Through Design: Think, Make, Break, Repeat (Tomitsch, et al., 2018) learning resource toolkit also comes with a link to a website where all the templates of the tools (boundary objects) are free to download (along with instructions) for use by the active learner after the course has completed. The objective here is to encourage the learner to continually apply this process in their innovation projects as well as scaffold the newly learnt content around real world applications.

124  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education TABLE 5.2  Design thinking online learning resources

Design Thinking Resources

Description

Toolkit

Downloadable PDF or resource of design thinking tools (exercises, techniques, or methods) A compilation of design thinking methods presented in the form of playing cards Website with downloadable design thinking resources and an online discussion forum Non-accredited workshops run by non-higher education providers (e.g., consultancies) A research output on design thinking that is (hopefully of the highest quality) and used for content in the online course Collaborative presentation, lecture, or seminar on design thinking conducted online A piece of opinion or reflective writing published on a blog with no peer review Existing social media (e.g., Facebook groups) is utilised for sharing resources, tools, promoting events, and discussing recent publications Online platforms that enable teams to work together collaboratively, for example, Zoom and Miro

Card deck Website Professional training/ Informal learning Required Reading

Webinar Blog post Social media platforms

Digital Collaborative Platform

(synthesised from Kimbell & Sloane, 2020)

5.4.2 Reflective Expert Facilitator The University of California San Diego has an introductory course to design based on the book by Donald Norman (2013) The Design of Everyday Things. It focuses on the conceptual rigour at the foundation of the discipline as it is understood by Norman (2013), a seminal author in this area. Similarly, The University of Sydney teaches Norman’s conceptual theory surrounding affordances in its course “Innovation Through Design: Think, Make, Break, Repeat”, but encourages learners to go and find examples in the real-world. Like the University of Sydney course, The Rochester Institute of Technology delivers Design Thinking Fundamentals as the first course in their Design Thinking MicroMasters program, including expert instructors to present design thinking from the field. In addition, The University of Leeds course “Get Creative with People to Solve Problems” is the second in their Problem Solving in the Digital Age Expert Track program. In this course, students learn from industry design experts to discover how to solve problems and design for user needs. Many of the courses are established and designed by seminal authors in the field as well as founded in the published and widely disseminated theory of design thinking. The success of these courses is evident in the large numbers of student enrolments.

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  125

5.4.3 Knowledge Offering These introductory courses by nature contain only basic design thinking knowledge, content, theory, and methods, although each design thinking course presents this basic knowledge in its own way. For example, the University of Virginia’s Design Thinking for Innovation introduces design thinking and design thinking concepts over five topic areas based on their process, “What is? What if? What wows? What works” (Liedtka, & Ogilvie, 2011). The course is self-paced and takes 6 hours to complete. As such, the level of understanding and knowledge that is able to be obtained through the course is limited. In comparison, other disciplines that host digital online courses, such as computer science, offer intermediate and advanced courses that follow on in progression from introductory courses that present key concepts and skills. Our position on this is that preliminary design thinking digital courses should introduce active learners to design thinking concepts at a basic level, and that the progression to modules offering practical skills, that should be taught face to face, could assess how well students have integrated what they have learned.

5.4.4 Learning Outcomes Versus Educational Engagement The point can be made that the online platform is a solid vehicle for universities who seek to secure undergraduate and postgraduate students in a competitive market. Digital courses effectively function as educational teasers for longer undergraduate or postgraduate level qualifications, thus helping to position schools on the global market. However, with this also comes high reputational risk if the quality of content is not up to the standards of the prestigious institution (in terms of their global ranking). It can also be said that these introductory online courses aim to entertain as opposed to educate. As these courses are commonly self-paced, have large student numbers, and are often free to complete (unless the student elects to obtain a certificate for a fee), assessing students can be difficult and is often redundant. Checklist assessment measures are put into place, such as automatically graded, multiple-choice quizzes, and peer-to-peer critique to enable the student to receive a certificate. But as these courses are not formally assessed, they need to be interactive and captivating to ensure learners remain engaged as it is this promotional performance that is used to potentially “get the sale” from the prospective learner. Comparably, design consultancies offering courses engage learners for a similar purpose, just with a different motive. “Getting the sale” in this context means securing any future consulting engagements as well as defining their presence and leadership within the industry. That being said, in order to establish an online course without university accreditation the design consultancy must hold a strong background in the implementation and application of design thinking to develop a well-designed student experience. An easy to understand and follow design thinking process is required to structure and organise the overall design of the learning experience and student journey.

126  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

However, the intensity and pace of the course needs to be intersected with lively and engaging video content. As design thinking is presented as a heuristic model, each step needs to be explained in detail and easily applicable to new ideas and an industry perspective.The course cannot be too theoretical; it needs to present a fine balance between abstract theory and concepts and easy-to-follow practical examples that demonstrate how design thinking can be applied for innovative outcomes.

5.4.5 Student Experience As Taheri and Meinel (2015) and Wrigley et al. (2018) suggest, introductory digital courses on design thinking should teach foundational knowledge and theory by delivering content in an engaging and entertaining way. This may be achieved through using relevant industry case studies, stories, and examples, as well as exciting videos showcasing an insight into the world of design. Digital courses are successful at developing entertaining content, offering experiential value, and using fun to maintain the interest of students. Delivering foundational content in this manner assists in retaining students until the end of the course. In addition, the reputational value of the institution or industry organisation in the field adds to the students’ experience and motivation to complete the course. In digital design thinking courses such as these, learners have connections to some of the world-leading experts in the field through curated video content and case studies. They are able to access “behind the scenes” of global design organisations, which is something learners would rarely have in a campus-based program. This relates to the instructor and developer of the course (facilitator), and their corresponding expertise and standing in the field to rally these leading experts. These reflections on their practice and narratives from the field are explained with enthusiasm and passion for design. This is infectious to the viewer as they comprise engaging videos and animations. The entertainment value in digital courses is vital to holding the retention rate of learners and preventing high attrition rates that most digital design thinking (or indeed all) online courses face. The digital design thinking pedagogy is detailed in Table 5.3 and presents the overall implications of the design thinking pedagogy framework within the context of the digital environment. These have been synthesised from the global snapshot as well as practice considerations. TABLE 5.3  Digital design thinking pedagogy implications

Design Thinking Process Empathise

Ideate

• Students have the ability to gain insights through colleagues while working on an organisational problem. • As they have only recently been introduced to this perspective there is limited depth in empathy and how to gain it. • In this digital context, ideation is strongly scaffolded through boundary objects as there is limited time and no assumed knowledge or educational base to start from. (Continued)

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  127 TABLE 5.3 Continued

Prototype

Test

• As everything is online and there are no resources such as fabrication labs or workshops that can be accessed, minimal prototyping can only be expected. • Try to encourage students to make use of what is around and already existing to them – a very low fidelity prototype of the solution can have similar educational benefits opposed to not building and testing anything at all. • As students have a limited timeframe on such courses the final phase “test” is not always reached therefore, it is important to make sure that it is acknowledged.

Reflective Facilitator Problem Complexity

Conceptual Theory

Boundary Object Innovation Practice

• Here the problems are very basic and simple due to many reasons: time, educational level, past experiences, and differences.You can’t make any assumptions as the cohort is so diverse. The purpose of this level of education is to give learners a foundational understanding of the process. • Even the basic foundational theory on design thinking can be missed in these courses. • Popular press design thinking articles are engaging at this level as they appeal to all audiences that may be enrolled in this course. Additionally, they are usually shorter in length and easier to comprehend. • Scaffolding from boundary objects signposts the course structure and connects theory to practice – also known as boundary crossing. • Due to the online nature of delivery much of this is observed in video form to see what/how design thinking is used in practice. • If done well, the online content will engage and excite through videos showcasing best practice in industry.

Active Learner Framing

Inquiry/ Discovery Co-Create

Application/ Making

• At this level students will use insights to validate their problem, not necessarily to reframe it. • The ability to reframe comes with practice and experience that online, first time students (novice) will not have had the opportunity to engage in. • This limited depth of understanding in the process will limit the level and depth of inquiry in addition to the time constraints held by the course and the amount of exposure students will have to the process. • This can be difficult for students who work through the course alone, hence limited opportunity to collaborate with others. • This can be encouraged though online global networks made in the online cohort and in some cases encouraging the physical meet up in various cities to discuss the online course – only achievable if you have the numbers to back the online course up. • This is again difficult to achieve online however the observational awareness of this process is made possible through instructional videos. • Try to make this compelling and exciting for students as they don’t get to apply or make anything themselves at this time, hence the necessity of communicating the value of application and making.

128  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

EXPERT SIDEBAR 5.1:  PROFESSOR JEANNE LIEDTKA Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, United States Professor Jeanne Liedtka is a faculty member at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and former chief learning officer at United Technologies Corporation, where she was responsible for overseeing all activities associated with corporate learning and development for the Fortune 50 corporation, including executive education, career development processes, employer-sponsored education, and learning portal and web-based activities. Currently at Darden, Jeanne works with both MBAs and executives in the areas of design thinking, innovation, and leading growth. Jeanne’s Coursera MOOC, Design Thinking for Innovation, has had over 350,000 enrolments since the course was established in 2015. In this expert sidebar, Jeanne discusses how to structure, develop, and teach online and digital design thinking courses for non-designers and highlights the importance of engaging as many people as possible in foundational design thinking understanding. Online and digital design thinking courses are about students feeling a sense of success. The heart of the MOOC’s success for me is having rich stories to tell. As they are non-designers and it is their first interaction with design, we really guide students through the process. The MOOC is an overview of the design thinking process, which started with four questions and 10 tools to guide and supplement that process. However, while guiding students through the process, we recognised that they were getting lost in between the questions, so we developed transitional templates that would help them capture what they learnt and direct them towards the next question in the process. I drew on my industry experience working with organisations to translate my case study research into online stories to demonstrate the different stages of the process and tools. The core notion of the four questions and 10 tools was developed in collaboration with Tim Ogilvie, who is an experienced designer. Tim had the designer’s understanding and I translated it into a more

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  129

business-friendly, artificially linear process. Our aim was to keep it as simple as possible, as the design thinking process can be ambiguous and intimidating for non-designers, and having a straightforward process is enormously reassuring for people who don’t have a designer’s understanding of ambiguity and messiness. We have incrementally made changes over time based on our observations of where students get lost. For example, coming out of the exploration stage, we created an explicit set of design criteria. This was so that students would list insights and explicitly translate an insight into design criteria and carry that criteria into the brainstorming and concept development stage. That linking was really very critical to real competency building. After we had refined the process, we realised that at the front end students were actually selecting the wrong kinds of problems for the course. They were scoping the problems badly, picking problems that were far too complex for their expertise level and understanding, and were starting with solutions instead of areas of opportunity. I would never have figured that out if I hadn’t watched students struggle in the face-to-face class. That experience and understanding is really what allows you to up the probability that online students will be successful. When you’re in the room with students, you can get their attention and guide them along, but you’re unable to do that online, so you need to be able to replace that ability. In online courses, you lose students so easily. Even with all the care and attention we’ve taken to develop the course we probably lose at least 50% of the students, which you can’t do much about. However, I think this means that you need to lock down those transition points, as every transition point is where it’s more likely that someone will give up and stop. With design thinking online courses, it’s important that you don’t lose people at these challenging points. The certificate program learning sequence is based on the Designing for Growth toolkit and field book. Students work through the online course and the templates and tools in the book. The core success of the certificate course is the templates – these allow students to create something that gives you a basis of engagement with them through peer assessment and the coaches on the course. We have more resources on the certificate course to provide a richer assessment through rigorous feedback from peers and the community, with our coaches providing lots of opportunity to give feedback, as you’ve got the materials and templates to assess. As students don’t use the book for the Coursera course – and it is difficult to assess the sheer volume of students – the benefit of that course is more awareness building about what design thinking is and can do, as I don’t believe that students will build real design thinking competencies without the field book to work through alongside the online course. Academics from the design world have a very different approach to teaching design than academics from the business world. I think it would be harder for designers to move teaching content online because it is less structured. There is more comfort with ambiguity that designers have relative to non-designers

130  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

or people with a business background, and so that ambiguity gets you into more trouble online than it does face to face. It is more difficult to intervene online, and it is harder to know when students are having trouble and how to help them get back on track. I only work with non-designers; students with a design background don’t take my classes as they are too foundational. When you have a homogenous group in terms of learning needs, it makes it easier to design curriculum content and delivery. Much more so than face to face in the classroom, digital and online design thinking teaching and learning needs a strong underlying structure of process guiding curriculum. In developing our online courses over the years, we’ve continued to evolve and refine our curriculum because it was clear there wasn’t enough process for non-designers. For me, what is absolutely critical is that students have that experience of success in the first project they do going through the course, whether that is face to face or online. If that first project they attempt doesn’t feel like a breakthrough to them, the odds that they will go to the trouble of using this awkward new approach goes down. If they feel good about it and feel that it stretched them to new ways of thinking and new tools, then the odds that they will use it and continue to get better at it goes way up. It’s always preferable to teach face to face – getting to know and build relationships with students, affirming who they are, and convincing them they can do it. The human dimension is more effective face to face – that isn’t scalable. Teaching online doesn’t feel as fun, but it is cheaper, efficient, and scalable if you want to reach a lot of people. Coursera is free and a fantastic way to reach a broad audience. Our online certificate course is a cheap alternative to put everyone through at all levels of an organisation, which adds value for that organisation. I think design thinking is revolutionary – it can change the world – so we should be trying to at least give basic literacy in design thinking to as many people as we possibly can, and online platforms are a fantastic avenue with which to do so.

Part II: Professional Design Thinking Education 5.5 Bespoke Training in Design Thinking In addition to the individuals seeking out an institution for micro-credentialing, as seen in the previous examples, organisations also look to support their workforce by engaging their staff as a cohort in short courses of training in design thinking. Designing bespoke training for the organisation at hand can be advantageous for some organisations. Doing this enables them to get the core design thinking skills and understanding they want to instil in their staff taught in the context (sector or competitive landscape) of the firm. This bespoke model of design allows for the process to be adjusted by expert designers to make the content relevant and valuable

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  131

to the participants (students) in the program. The purpose of these programs isn’t always necessarily to upskill staff in design thinking; the organisation may want to change their culture or thinking, be more open to customer feedback, or put their customer at the centre of the organisation. In order to do this, the employees of the organisation need to be on board and open to this change, which bespoke design thinking training can help to achieve. One example of this is a study conducted by Nusem,Wrigley, and Matthews (2017).They delivered a customised design thinking program across an organisation, taking over 2 years, to a not-for-profit to foster an organisational design capability. Their research found that building an appetite for and awareness of design was the first step towards demonstrating the value design could offer the organisation as a whole. In this 2-year study, this particular organisation looked to their in-house design team to help scaffold the training over the period, whereas other organisations look outside to bring people in to train their staff in a much shorter time frame and on a larger scale. The motivation behind these endeavours is to increase and enhance the perception of the value design can offer as an approach to problem-solving, in addition to changing the culture within the organisation (Nusem, Matthews, and Wrigley, 2019).

5.6 Government Initiatives and Professional Training As contemporary design thinking has been popularised by IDEO and the Stanford d.school, large companies and businesses have been inspired to adopt design thinking as a new method to solve their complex problems in innovative ways (Brown, 2008). Due to this capability to innovate, design thinking has been referred to as the latest competitive advantage for businesses (Martin, 2009), and design agencies are increasingly being acquired by large innovation and management consultancies. For example, as Bongiovanni and Louis (2021) highlight, design agency Lunar was acquired by McKinsey (McKinsey & Company, 2015), Fjord and MATTER by Accenture (Accenture, 2013), and Love Agency by KPMG Australia (Tadros, 2019). In addition to private organisations embedding design for innovation, so too are public services. The Australian Taxation Office has become a global leader in design since its implementation of design thinking in the early 1990s to streamline services and increase tax compliance among Australians (Di Russo, 2016). Within the Australian Taxation Office, “design was recognized as the potential bridge between strategy and action” (Body, 2008, p. 56). This heralded hope for many organisations looking to use design within their organisations moving forward. Many government initiatives worldwide have embarked upon business improvement programs using design thinking as an approach to shape strategy, organisational behaviour, product innovation, market development, and customer experience and interaction. An example of a business improvement program is New Zealand’s Better by Design, which was established by New Zealand government Trade and Enterprise agency. Better by Design works with New Zealand companies to help them use design as part of their business (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, 2021). This program houses many initiatives such as company, competitor, and capability

132  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

audits; design sprints; and peer-to-peer cohort learning; as well as a CEO summit. Of particular interest is the design sprint (an intensive short-term workshop to learn about design thinking process and methods as they apply to the problems at hand) and its pedagogical approach to professional learning. Here the design sprint constitutes an education program provided to New Zealand businesses in order to raise awareness of the fundamentals and value of design thinking with the aim of building this capability across the cohort of participating businesses. The sprints have evolved over the years from reflective practice to focus on the needs of the New Zealand business community. Within this program, courses are taught by business professionals who have extensive industry experience, and are experts in their line of work. Although this is appreciated in this context, and gives relevance and credibility to the content, it can also be detrimental to the learning experience if the pedagogical approach to such training is absent. A key to facilitating in this context is providing content that is relevant to the audience and using case studies from the real world for both evidentiary and engagement purposes. Just as vitally important is understanding the audience and their motivations. Breaking the content down into small bitesize learnings and having workshop activities to reinforce the application of the theory and content is paramount to achieving this. It is also important to end the sprint with a reflective mindset on how these learnings will impact the participants own business. The following example is of a professional micro-credential program developed and delivered with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian War College. Beginning with the conception of Edgy Air Force – an Air Force accelerator program that uses design thinking to teach airmen how to solve problems innovatively. The following case study (Section 5.7) and Expert Sidebar 5.2 reflect these recent engagements.

5.7 Case Study: Edgy Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force The RAAF launched the “Edge Strategy” in 2019 to explore and exploit the fifthgeneration capabilities being introduced into service. The use of the phrase “fifth generation” within military circles implies the latest in cutting-edge technologies, such as advanced materials for stealth, cognitive processing and complex sensors, and data fusion.The Air Force directorate responsible for the Edge Strategy, Plan Jericho, used design thinking throughout the development. Plan Jericho was established in 2015 to realise the RAAF’s fifth-generation ambition using a design-led approach to translate and accelerate high-value academic knowledge into Defence capability. The Air Force identified the need to act by applying non-traditional methods to creatively develop and test new theories concerning decisive adversarial advantage. The challenge set for the Plan Jericho team represented a shift in strategy from the traditional focus and reliance on exquisite aircraft and aviators – towards building an exquisite system of air power. As the At The Edge strategy states,

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  133

In a capability sense, Air Force must deliberately explore the edges of the fifth-generation force to find and exploit opportunities for advantage that come from new ideas and new technologies (Royal Australian Air Force, n.d., para. 7) From the beginning, Plan Jericho was charged with preparing the Air Force for a new and uncharted future.The Plan Jericho team was designed to be agile, having a small number of hand-picked staff, with a lean hierarchical structure. This structure permitted the team to move and act outside of the Air Force’s traditional chain of command, which was an important distinction that set the Plan Jericho team apart and set the tone to behave differently. At the commencement of the Edge Strategy development, the Plan Jericho team already had experience working with university partners and external consultancies on design-led projects in a wide range of focus areas. The Plan Jericho team had built a base of design knowledge that was being used to regularly examine Air Force gaps and opportunities. The design-led problem-framing and user-centred perspectives provided new vantage points that broke away from traditional Air Force problem-solving approaches. A broader mass dissemination strategy of empowering all airmen needed to be formed and the concept of Edgy Air Force was created. Edgy Air Force set out to utilise design thinking through an educational program that endeavoured to transform the organisation from the bottom up. The Edgy Air Force program was designed to be delivered face-to-face, targeting Air Force staff that were new to the organisation. This target audience, identified during the design phase of the Edgy Air Force program, was expected to provide fresh insight into the Air Force’s problems as well as being pliable and receptive to cultural change. Figure 5.1 depicts the activities held on base to encourage novel, creative thinking and attract participants to the design thinking course to be offered on base in the future. Edgy Air Force aimed to ideate and develop a professional training package to accelerate bottom-up innovation across Defence. The Edgy Air Force program would experience a number of challenges throughout its development and delivery that were a direct result of changes in project owners. The conception of the Edgy Air Force education program (Wrigley, Mosely, Gill & Reid, 2019) was based on the following learning objectives: • • • • • • • •

accelerated learning by doing tailored (RAAF/Defence) methods and style of delivery accelerated making/prototyping (through fast/safe failure) accelerated intrinsic/extrinsic rewards accelerated culture change and storytelling end-user-centric exploration accelerated prototyping “for understanding” for Air Force projects maker products systematically integrated

134  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

FIGURE 5.1 

Edgy Air Force base visit

Previous years of working with the Air Force had informed the team that “mainstream” design thinking methods were largely rejected by defence personnel. To overcome this barrier, a bespoke framework was designed and produced to build an understanding inside the RAAF as well as the broader Australian Defence Force (Wrigley, Rana, Hinton, and Mosely, 2021). Based off a systematic literature review of the field (Wrigley, Mosely & Mosely, 2021), the Defence by Design framework was conceived consisting of a six-stage model including scout, empathise, interrogate, design, build, and break and deploy (Figure 5.2). The framework aims to break down traditional linear problem-solving methods prevalent in deductive disciplines such as science and military planning (Wrigley et al., 2021). To date, it has been employed throughout a range of service problems and command levels.This broad implementation demonstrates the wide applicability of design thinking to the Defence context. The framework was then embedded as a boundary object within the teaching program context. The purpose was to walk the active learner through a Defence problem using design thinking methods, incorporating the framework (Figure 5.2).The boundary objects were designed to break down the steps of the framework, proposing questions that need to be addressed collaboratively. Key to the successful reception of the design approach has been a facilitator skilled in design thinking, who can navigate users through the process. As defence personnel were new to design thinking, and research suggests that problem complexity needs to be matched to participant and facilitation design expertise (Mosely et al., 2018) problems were developed to ensure that solutions could be addressed using the framework and to give participants a sense of accomplishment completing the process.

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  135

FIGURE 5.2 

Defence by Design framework (Wrigley et al., 2021)

The program revealed three key takeaways for the practice of facilitation. These takeaways were not anticipated but instead emerged throughout the process. Takeaway 1:  Communicating the Purpose The first takeaway was in relation to the mismatched purpose of the program between the current project owners and the project predecessors. The original purpose of the program was cultural transformation through a different way of thinking that provided a cognitive advantage to the warfighter – military design thinking (Wrigley, Mosely, and Mosely, 2021). Through the development of the program the purpose shifted to an activity that focused on complimentary pathways for product launch into the defence running system requiring far more hands-on training than education. This is the fundamental takeaway – Why? Then, for who? Then, how? Rigorous adherence to this why-who-how frame will ensure the process stays true to the original purpose of the program. Takeaway 2:  Know your Audience The second takeaway from the Edgy Air Force case study was the distinction that the course will educate or create, but not achieve both equally. The concept of creating cultural change through education at the grassroots level implies a level of introductory interaction. At this basic level, the student does not have a sufficient grasp on the organisation to deliver effective solutions beyond tailored educational examples. The kind of course required to reveal capability enhancements cannot fit all students, as it must be targeted towards individuals who are already immersed in the culture of the Air Force. The in-service delivery of the course faced several challenges. The most significant challenge was the retention of the key design features throughout multiple Defence leadership and project owner changes. Each new project owner sought to modify the scope and intent of the Edgy Air Force course. This constant flux diluted the original design strengths, creating a course that needed to both educate and discover capability. This reality provided the perspective to understand the second key takeaway: the choice to educate OR create.

136  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

Takeaway 3:  Use of Boundary Objects The final takeaway relates to the boundary objects employed within the Edgy Air Force program. Early attempts to realise efficiencies by utilising boundary objects from other courses proved flawed due to the fact that they were civilian in design and not fit for a military purpose. The facilitator, the content, and the boundary objects are intrinsically linked. Practical skills learnt and codified in students rely on boundary objects that are contextual to the culture. This realisation reveals a hidden cost in the design of the course: that of the creation of suitable, contextual boundary objects which are matched to the student and the experience. Developing these boundary objects requires time and knowledge of the context. Additionally, the boundary object should act as a course takeaway for use when back in the organisation which can be referred to or used on their own.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 5.2:  DR MURRAY SIMONS Australian Australia

Defence

College,

ACT,

Dr Murray Simons served 30 years in the New Zealand Defence Force where he completed a number of roles in educational, staff, command, and operational appointments. During that time Murray served overseas on deployments, exercises, and exchanges in 21 countries and was a frequent presenter at various international conferences. Murray researches and teaches in advanced military education courses in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore. Murray’s research explores how design thinking related approaches could enhance the development of strategic artists for senior military appointments. In this expert sidebar, Murray reflects on the deployment of design thinking in not just the Australian War College but all the leading colleges of Western militaries. While much of the following is reinforced by personal observations and research, the assertions are supported in the academic literature. The Australian War College (AWC) ranks among the best in the world. In fact, for the size of its military and modest budget, it does remarkably well. As

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  137

with all things though, there is always room for improvement and the one area where the greatest impact could be achieved is actually cost neutral – probably even cheaper. This simple change would allow them to realise their hashtag: #intellectualedge. Having acknowledged their size and technological limitations, the Australian Defence Force are increasingly aware that their competitive advantage will come down to cognitive ability. While the marketing phase of the intellectual edge is now complete, the concept needs to be matched with tangible changes in their course design. To date, there has been no revolution in content, nor academic philosophy, since the new campaign began. To be fair, social media and a host of Professional Military Education (PME) blogs are penetrating the minds of those who have caught the bug, but the potential to achieve greatness in the formal courses is still an under-developed force multiplier. Exploiting formal learning is actually quite simple. The two flag-ship courses (Staff Course and Strategic Studies) remain largely content-centric, with very conventional assessment regimes that are largely imposed by the partner universities. While the desire to award civilian recognition remains strong, universities are not averse to recognising scholarly research. In fact, sandstone universities hold trivium education in the highest regard. This means military institutes, such as the Australian War College, could have their cake and eat it too. Militaries want their emerging leaders to not only develop cognitive abilities, but also gain a body of knowledge. These goals are not mutually exclusive. The trick is to reduce the hours spent in didactic lectures and increase the opportunity to explore, trial, and improve cognitive techniques that complement the convergent thinking systems that are inculcated from enlistment. While rigid adherence to doctrinal process is necessary at the relatively complicated level of tactical operations, emerging strategic thinkers need to “turn the map around”. The complex world of international engagement presents wicked problems where single right answers are elusive. Exposing military students to the uncomfortable world of divergent thinking must start earlier (Bryant & Harrison, 2021). Design thinking, is of course, an umbrella term for a host of philosophies, approaches, and theories. By progressively exposing students to a selection of these, the parallel curriculum of declarative knowledge can be acquired simultaneously. The learners will employ their growing skill set of both critical and creative thinking methods in their exploration of international relations, leadership theories, and operational planning. The sustained use of design thinking throughout the year will ensure graduates return to the workplace with a habitual hunger for improvement. Design thinking, with all its ancillary metacognitive techniques, could propel the Australian Defence Force onto the world stage as a global leader in growing polymaths.

138  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

Introducing design thinking is one of many levers we need to pull if the Australian Defence Force is going to truly embrace alternate thinking strategies to solve future problems. The appeal of design thinking is its diverse applicability, agnostic emphasis, and scalability. When employed correctly, it helps overcome unconscious biases and legacy solutions in its relentless pursuit for improved outcomes. It is unshackled from the self-imposed barriers that traditionally hinder military problem-solving and it exploits the power of collaborative brainpower. While superficial exposure to it can result in regression back to more familiar linear approaches, a deeper understanding leads to habitual mindset shifts where broader options are continuously sought. The challenge is to go beyond mere awareness briefs. Learning approaches for design thinking need to be immersive and tolerant of failure. By definition, design courses need to reflect the same epistemological approach they advocate, namely, they need to be open to diverse options and approaches. To lock design courses into a single paradigm with specified traits would be antithetical. Having said that, there are some general concepts that provide a starting point to explore the field. Design courses need to provide learners a safe place to fail. Diversity and radical thinking need to not only survive but also thrive in the appropriate phases of a design activity. Although the role of convergent thinking also has a place, my experience is that many subject matter experts who are brought into a design team are typically from a positivist background – products of linear, logical, and convergent thinking disciplines where one right answer will exist. It is therefore necessary to break down their barriers and allow them to discover more open mindsets. Academic philosophers refer to this as moving from dialogic to dialectic thinking. Learning facilitators need to place greater effort in creating a welcoming atmosphere of trust and freedom to explore. To date, the Australian War College has experimented with isolated design thinking models but without any deeper exploration of its principles. Various design thinking models trailed so far span popular civilian design thinking processes such as IDEO and Kaospilot, however minimal success was achieved during these sessions. The learners typically fail to make the necessary mindset shifts after such a short introduction when the activity is so time-constrained. Retroduction studies show the participants typically reverted to solutionising the problem without exploring divergent thinking. Two key solutions have been identified to address this problem; the first being greater time allocated to understanding its value and second, speeding up the rate of learning. While the former is a strategic goal, the latter can be addressed by the design thinking facilitators themselves. Emerging from the creative shed of an inspired thinker, a new design thinking concept burst into military classrooms. The Defence by Design

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  139

FIGURE 5.3 

Defence by Design at Australian War College

framework became an instant success within various Defence circles and has even made an early impact at the Defence College. The language used in each step is not only intuitive, but there is a comfortable sense of connection for military personnel. This epitomises human-centred design over usercentred. It has been crafted with the learner and practitioners in mind, not just the process. Once comfortable with the foundations of design, learners should have an appreciation of the philosophical approaches (with consideration of both strengths and weaknesses) and lexicon before exploring the main methods currently in vogue (as seen in Figure 5.3). From there, the pedagogical approach will shift from a knowledge-centric to a learner-centric immersion experience. The final phase would be to encourage the learners to design a new approach to design thinking by contesting current paradigms and improving on weaknesses. Within the AWC, we employed design thinking to develop the Facilitator’s Guide, as seen in the Australian Defence Force case study (Section 6.5), as an incremental step towards a paradigmatic shift in delivery. The guide is intended to encourage staff to experiment with alternative approaches and avoid perpetuating the same methods they were exposed to as students themselves. Anecdotal evidence suggests that staff who are more confident in their role as facilitators of learning are those who have a greater appetite for risk when experimenting with new ideas – especially when they surrender control to the learners.

140  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

To become truly world-class, the Australian Defence College needs to allocate more time for staff and students to reflectively explore different thinking strategies. While the principles of design thinking will underpin this metacognition module, there are hundreds of critical and creative thinking techniques that could and should be explored. Design thinking should not be overt, it should simply underpin the entire course learning culture. Afterall, the College’s raison d’être is: teaching people how to think, not what to think.

REFERENCE Bryant, S. F., & Harrison, A. (2021). Finding ender: Exploring the intersections of creativity, innovation, and talent management in the U.S Armed Forces. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Strategic Perspectives 31. Retrieved from, https://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/82/Documents/Strategic%20 Perspectives/SP%2031%20Bryant-Harrison%20FINAL%20for%20Web.pdf ?ver=2019-05-21-111752-910

5.8 Professional Design Thinking Pedagogy Based on the case studies documented throughout this book we suggest that there are four fundamental elements to consider when designing any professional design thinking short course or design sprint: (1) engagement through applied activities, (2) facilitator expertise, (3) relevancy to context and problem set, and (4) intuitive boundary objects contextually created for purpose and the environment.These elements must be designed cohesively and in the correct combination for the context and audience.

5.8.1 Engagement Through Applied Activities Engaging the audience within a professional education program through applied activities seeks to transform them into active learners where they successfully develop an awareness of design thinking, an understanding of its application and aspiration to implement design thinking in their professional context. Through engaging with applied activities, learners gain an awareness and appreciation for a design thinking approach to solving challenging problems. Here, learners absorb practical tools and methods that can be applied to their individual business or sector in order to inspire the active learner to explore this process and theory on their own. Within this the active learner absorbs (critiques and learns); investigates (upskills in methods); generates solutions (disseminates ideas); finally challenges and enables (conceptualises and integrates) the process back within the business or sector.

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  141

However, getting these things right relies heavily on the applied activities conceived for the professional education program in the first place. As previous lessons learnt from the case study in this chapter demonstrate, without a clear purpose driving the professional education program active learners will present with mixed expectations from the course. In addition to the purpose driving each activity – it is easy to pack a 5-day workshop full of group work debating the current bottle necks in the workplace – keeping a design thinking optimistic mindset (Brown, 2008) is key. Simply completing templates and canvasses one after the other will not add up to an innovative solution especially if the facilitator has not derived nor communicated the purpose behind each activity or module in the course. Facilitators should be able to prompt, probe, and challenge the active learners to drive towards the purpose of the activity based on their expert knowledge.

5.8.2 Facilitator Expertise We have seen at times inexperienced design facilitators simply direct the learners back to the previous template to start the design thinking process again when they were stuck on an activity or had a question about where to from there. Instead, the facilitator should have been able to guide a discussion with the learner around why it was not working and how to pivot their approach to the problem rather than going back to the heuristic process. The design facilitators inability to do this was due to a few things: •

A lack of understanding of the purpose of the activity and how it related to the overall aim of the design sprint. • A lack of design knowledge and experience in order to facilitate the discussion on the process not working for the learner. • Limited contextual knowledge of the sector/context to understand the realworld problem they were facing in order to pivot to the next stage. Design facilitators need to possess design knowledge to not only engage and entertain learners but to be context aware and possess the ability to question, challenge, and probe learners. Design facilitators should challenge learners’ ideas and perspectives through questioning, to help learners move beyond their current ways of thinking and look at the problem from an alternative and new perspective. Additionally, a design facilitator’s design knowledge and understanding, or design expertise needs to match the complexity of the problem being addressed during the activity (Mosely et al., 2018). Highly complicated and complex problems require a design facilitator with a high design expertise level as these problems require the design intuition to probe and pivot problems spontaneously. This skill is difficult to do without design training and experience implementing design thinking. The ability to develop in situ boundary objects is an essential facilitation capability to allow the active learners to approach the problem differently and overcome any roadblocks that they might have encountered in the design thinking process.

142  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education

5.8.3 Relevancy to Context and Problem Set The audience can only be transitioned to active learners if the subject matter is contextualised for the relevant field of application. As seen from the case study of the Royal Australian Air Force – a civilian approach to design thinking was rejected, however, a tailored design framework for the military context held a completely opposite response and adoption rate. Contextualising subject matter for its field of application allows the active learner to experiment with the approach inside their business sector and understand the opportunity and challenges when adopting such an approach to innovation. As previously discussed in the case study, the relevancy of the problem that the learner was attempting to solve seemed comfortable as the military personnel had a sense of connection to it. In some situations where professional education is provided to audiences made up of multiple businesses and sectors finding a relevant contextual problem to explain/examine/work on collectively in the classroom can be a challenge. Additionally, when it is an introductory education program you also need to make sure the problem is not too complex so that students can focus on digesting the design process adequately rather than on the outcome of the complex problem (that in reality cannot be solved in a workshop sprint anyway). This learner-centric approach considers the active learner and the reflective facilitator and such relevant content needs to be examined and curated with both parties in mind.

5.8.4 Intuitive Boundary Objects Utilising bespoke boundary objects to contextualise and make design thinking content relevant has been shown to be a popular way to disseminate the process worldwide. This has been shown and demonstrated through the Business Model Canvas by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010).This example canvas under a creative commons licence has been freely available to download and used millions of times to generate design concepts for business. Within a professional education context such boundary objects are easily scalable, accessible, and can inspire active learners to use design on their own. However, as discussed by Straker, Wrigley & Nusem (2021) design tools can facilitate a design approach, but they themselves alone do not hold the solution. Strengths include framing and synthesising information. The weaknesses can be the set parameters of the boundary object unable to be redesigned by novice learners and can only be used within the confines of that purpose. In addition, they help scaffold the learning throughout the professional education program and are activity based to allow for interaction in co-design activities. As seen in the example of the Business Model Canvas, the static in nature canvas is easy to download and print out to assist in the design of a new business model concept. It has been a worldwide popular tool to use in the field due to its scalability

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  143

and single sheet instruction set. Boundary objects have to be intuitive to use and well designed to ensure that they don’t cause more confusion than will already exist with the design process. Learners should feel empowered and confident to experiment with the boundary objects – to enable them to attempt to navigate the messy process of design thinking in their business/sector situation. Industry professionals responded positively to boundary objects which possess a “tangibility” (Lucero, Dalsgaard, Halskov & Buur, 2016). As seen in Figure 5.4, the Australian War College is using a boundary object (interactive tool) to solve a strategic problem in the classroom. A well-designed boundary object that elicits a visceral positive response (Wrigley, 2013) will encourage the learner to participate in the collaborative activity at hand. In the Edgy Air Force case study presented, the freedom to solve problems creatively was a different experience for military personnel as it held a significant sense of mental freedom and helped promote divergent thinking encouraging the challenging of conventional wisdom. This coupled with the relevant scenario problems they were tasked with solving helped get learners started. The progression to create and solve your own problem reinforced the freedom to be creative but allowed facilitators to tailor scenarios to the audience. Building awareness of different innovation strategies, tools, and processes, and successfully adopting and embedding these approaches requires changes at all levels of an organisation. Professional design thinking programs yield many different pedagogy implications and are described in detail in Table 5.4. Such implications should be taken into account when designing any professional engagement using design.

FIGURE 5.4 

Defence by design boundary object in use at Australian War College

144  Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education TABLE 5.4  Professional design thinking implications

Design Thinking Process Empathise

Ideate

Prototype

Test

• Students at this level have the ability to empathise, however they can be oblivious to other stakeholders involved and impacted, therefore empathising with them should be strongly encouraged. • There is a tendency for students at this level, to skip this phase with the belief that they already know their customer based on years of industry exposure and experience. • This phase should encourage active listening in students. • Students can develop strong individual solutions to the problem at hand, however, might only have one idea, not multiple, as ideation is a big part of this new learning. • Encourage diverging and converging on multiple ideas often and merging concepts together to create new novel ideas. • Students might not find this an overly familiar component – experimenting with minimal viable products is challenging in a context that fears failure and is not rewarded for experimentation. • As the ability to evaluate and report back is strong (due to evaluation, measuring and quantifying risk being a familiar part of business as usual) less time needs to be spent teaching this aspect of the design thinking process at this level.

Reflective Facilitator Problem Complexity

• These problems are highly complex requiring a high level of design expertise to adequately address the problem in the learning environment. • This can require additional mentoring, coaching, or projects post this initial exposure of training with the organisation. Conceptual • In this context, design thinking concepts and theory are presented as Theory relevant to the overall purpose of the program. • There is not a lot of depth in the conceptual theory, similarly to digital courses, popular press articles that are easy to understand and focus on barriers for application and implementation are used. Boundary Object • Students use these as an assisted guide to embrace and empower independent self-paced learning in an intuitive tool. • The design thinking phases for the first time can seem confusing so a structured framework and boundary objects within each phase can help support the learner’s journey. • These need to be intuitively designed. If the boundary object is too complicated it will have the opposite effect on the learner. Innovation Practice • At this level, students reflect on their own innovation practice (develop ideas, test them with buy-in) in the workplace to inspire new ways to approach problems in the future. • This will be rich and diverse so it is wise to get these insights/ lessons/experiences shared across the learning community if possible. • A cohort of practice is useful to enable students to stay in touch and share/learn from each other informally. (Continued)

Digital and Professional Design Thinking Education  145 TABLE 5.4 Continued

Active Learner Framing

• This requires exploration from multiple perspectives that students need to be prepared to explore when overcoming their own biases. • This can be difficult to do solo as they are also so close to the problem if inside their own organisation. Inquiry/Discovery • Students have the contextual knowledge and know how to ask the right questions, however, they must ensure they challenge assumptions surrounding these questions to an appropriate level. Co-Create • These students hold the maturity to be active listeners and open to others perspectives and opinions. • These decisions on what and how to action design will require encouragement and leadership. Application/ • At this level there are many students that have the ability to action Making recommendations and large changes inside organisations; however, they will need to be committed to making the relevant change.

5.9 Summary In this chapter, we have discussed digital and professional design thinking pedagogy, the way that design thinking pedagogy is constituted at this level of tertiary education and some key elements pertaining to each area of application. As found in this chapter, the constantly evolving nature of design, coupled with the changing landscape of tertiary education, has generated the need and desire for micro-credentials. In addition, digital courses and add-on credentials are changing the nature and purpose of the postgraduate education landscape in a time when the future is so uncertain. The chapter identified that micro-credential programs provide a foundational level of knowledge and understanding of design thinking. They provide students with an awareness and appreciation of design thinking and are taught with various pedagogies. This chapter has argued that to effectively convey design thinking knowledge and capability to active learners it should primarily take place face to face, however, if done in an engaging way, online courses can also be effective. Digital and professional design thinking delivery is a good way to introduce people to the fundamentals of the process, and to showcase the value of the field. However, students’ expectations for these programs, with respect to what they can realistically achieve within the constraints of the delivery method and given timeframe, must be managed.

6 DESIGNING EDUCATION ECOSYSTEMS AND AN ECOLOGY OF LEARNING

6.1 The Relationship Between Design Thinking Pedagogy, Education Ecosystems, and Learning Ecologies The implementation of design in educational contexts beyond curriculum development can be broadly segmented into two distinct areas that Carvalho and Goodyear (2018) describe as macro-level and micro-level work. The macro-level consists of educational planning, strategy, administration, and management (designing an educational ecosystem) and the micro-level consists of instructional design, educational design, and learning design (designing learning ecology). It is argued that these relate to learners through distinct methodologies, however, there is still very little understanding of how design thinking and innovation strategies can be used to approach complex problems at a micro and macro-level within tertiary education (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2018, p. 31). In order to move towards an understanding of this, the first half of this chapter explores the implementation of design thinking at the macro-level of tertiary education using a case study of a design project. The case study explores how design thinking as an approach can assist in the reimagining of an education ecosystem. The second part of the chapter explores a perspective on how the ecology, environment, and learning experience of the future may be structured. Ellis and Goodyear (2010, 2019) have published extensively on ecosystems and ecology in higher education, they explain that “ecological thinking also emphasises relationships and inter-dependence: foregrounding the notion that a change in one part of a system can have unforeseen consequences in other parts of a system, or for the whole system” (Ellis & Goodyear, 2010, p. 19). As defined by Barnett (2018) the term “ecosystem” “refers to systems in which the university is implicated”, and “the term ‘ecology’ to understandings of such systems” (p. 18). We agree with the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-6

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  147

FIGURE 6.1 

 elationship between design thinking pedagogy, education ecosystems, and R learning ecologies

interpretations and understandings of ecosystems and ecologies by Barnett (2018) and Ellis and Goodyear (2010, 2019) and use them as the foundation of this chapter. As seen in Figure 6.1 design thinking pedagogy holds relationships with both the education ecosystem (the educational system or provider) and the learning ecology (instructional and educational design). On the left-hand side, design thinking pedagogy transforms the educational ecosystem (as seen in Section 6.3) by designing a future vision and business model that requires a sustainable future. This education ecosystem (the provider) then has the power to inform such design thinking pedagogy within it (as seen in Section 6.5). The right-hand side of the framework transforms the learning ecology by creating new environments, aids, and means by which to improve the student experience and learning within the ecosystem. The new knowledge gained from this transformation informs design thinking pedagogy which in turn works to transform the education ecosystem, beginning the cycle again. Thus, addressing the need identified by Carvalho and Goodyear (2018) to connect the macro and micro-levels together. It is this relationship between these three elements that are discussed in more detail in this chapter.

6.2 Designing Education Ecosystems At the time of writing this book the tertiary education sector finds itself at an inflection point. The impact of COVID-19 around the world has seen a decline in student enrolment numbers causing many higher education providers to reduce or cancel courses and merge departments. This has resulted in mass job losses in an industry that can be difficult from which to pivot. In addition to this, the core target customer for these universities has shifted now to not only school leavers but mature age adult learners who are needing to retrain later in life as they too have found themselves in industries not faring well from lockdowns and closures. This change in learner has shifted expectations and not all providers are equipped to manage equally, rendering current financial and operational structures unsustainable. In order to remain relevant and sustain profitability, tertiary education leaders, even those at institutions succeeding today, should prepare to fundamentally adapt their

148  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

business models. This poses the question, how can the tertiary education industry redesign its education ecosystem to sustain learning and teaching into the future? An educational ecosystem can be defined as a group of systems in which an education provider is implicated (Barnett, 2018, p. 18), and that contain an interconnected set of components dependent on each other’s systems for their success or failure (Ellis & Goodyear, 2010, 2019). Within an educational ecosystem, the defining characteristic “is the presence of situated learning activities…the activities in which students are actually engaged in their work as learners” (Ellis & Goodyear, 2019, p. 5). Ellis and Goodyear (2019) argue that there is a need for epistemic fluency while designing each component of an educational ecosystem, as well as their relationship, and specify that designers must possess a “keen sense of what kinds of knowledge are likely to be the best available for each kind of problem encountered” (Ellis & Goodyear, 2019, p.10). Forming such an educational ecosystem is done by engaging (some would say co-designing) in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders to create innovative responses to existing social and educational challenges. An example of these processes is further explained in the case study. The TAFE NSW case study presented in Section 6.3, unlike the other case studies in this book, does not present nor analyse pedagogy, however, it does present the application of a design thinking approach to the task of redesigning an education provider and its offerings in the marketplace. In doing so, they have redesigned an educational ecosystem with multiple future business model configurations and implications for active learners and reflective facilitators alike. The reason for its inclusion in this book is to showcase not only what relationship pedagogy has to design thinking but also what impact design thinking can have upon pedagogy.

6.3 Case Study: TAFE NSW This case study presents a project conducted by TAFE NSW – an Australian vocational education and training (VET) provider located in the state of New South Wales (NSW). TAFE NSW awards various qualifications accredited to the VET provisions of the state, as well as the Australian Qualifications Framework. TAFE NSW is a public organisation that sits within a complex ecosystem because it relies on government funding and must adhere to government and industry regulation. As seen in Figure 6.2 the TAFE NSW ecosystem is made of four main layers. Core to TAFE NSW business is the student journey and how they progress through their studies. Surrounding this is the TAFE NSW operating model, the day-to-day running of the education provider. TAFE NSW provides employers and industry with qualified graduates to support the NSW and Australian economy. The overall layer is the NSW state government that have the oversight and responsibility of the entire organisation. The purpose of this project was for TAFE NSW to investigate and redesign business model concepts that offered different types of learning in the future. The work was rooted in wider societal issues regarding Australia’s skills shortage and lack of qualified tradespeople because of a late 20th century political campaign

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  149

FIGURE 6.2 

TAFE NSW ecosystem

to increase the value of the Australian university sector. The number of students enrolled in TAFE NSW courses has been in steady decline over the decades ever since. The design project used an organic design thinking process conducted by key TAFE NSW stakeholders to explore vocational education ecosystems and its future personas. Amplifying a key takeaway from the Edgy Air Force case study (Section 5.7), the team consulted with executive senior staff and the general manager early and often. This inclusive consultation process engendered trust quickly and resulted in top-down support for design. The project needed to ensure that it balanced two competing TAFE NSW demands: 1 . changes in the learner and teacher of the future 2. the ongoing sustainment of the business model Further complications existed beyond the decline in student numbers. The TAFE NSW staff pool was atrophying, with large sections of the teaching staff over 50 years of age and close to retirement age. Recruitment and incentives to become TAFE NSW educators had not been revisited in years, creating a dissonance between societal drivers and TAFE NSW educator character types. Essentially, the TAFE educator persona was not valid for current generations of Australians. The project team turned to international and national teaching and learning practices in vocational education to illuminate the pathways for a successful future TAFE ecosystem redesign. Within the scope of the project, (Figure 6.3) the first phase focused on understanding the problem – the empathise stage – including project-framing and internal discussions, to gain insights. A scoping review was also conducted during this stage to understand the VET context and best teaching and learning practices globally

IDEATE

PROJECT FRAMING DISCUSSION

STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATION

CONTENT ANALYSIS

DESKTOP RESEARCH

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES

FIGURE 6.3 

SOLO DESIGN ACTIVITIES

TAFE NSW design thinking process

USER & STAKEHOLDER INSIGHTS

PROTOTYPE & TEST

PERSONA & FUTURE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT

CONTENT ANALYSIS PUBLISHED

CO-DESIGN WORKSHOP

PROJECT REPORT & NEXT STEPS

150  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

EMPATHISE

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  151

(Mosely, Wrigley, & Key, 2020). This work contextualises TAFE NSW’s position in the education sector by building on the development of TAFE NSW’s current business model and provided a foundation with which to explore future opportunities through the next design thinking phase. Insights from this phase fed into the ideate stage where bespoke, contextualised boundary objects were designed to understand the problem and co-create solutions with internal stakeholders in the next phase of the process. Prototype and test were conducted during a co-design workshop hosted by TAFE NSW where future scenarios were presented and unpacked using bespoke boundary objects.The outcomes from the workshop were passed to all TAFE NSW regional stakeholders to continue the design thinking cycle, testing and validating the future propositions. Each phase of the design thinking process employed by the stakeholder is now explained in more detail. The empathise phase of the project was initially framing the current complex problem TAFE NSW was facing with student numbers declining, increased competition in market, and relying on government funding to sustain its business model (Figure 6.4). In this phase, the multifaceted complex problems facing the organisation were broken down to contextualise what design thinking should focus on in the redesign of the provider. Using current VET providers’ business models the white space in the market was mapped (Figure 6.5). Revealing the current tertiary education providers suggests a distinction between their value propositions, impacted by policy and funding provisions; however, ultimately, as expected, they all possess the same focus on teaching and learning and equipping individuals with the knowledge and skills they need to be productive members of society. These shared value propositions formed seven different provider typologies as seen in Figure 6.5. For example, the “Alterative” typology sought to, “upskill with non-accredited, specific skill development education, making meaningful impact with real outcomes in skills gaps across Australia’s education sector” (Mosely et al., 2020, p. 13). Compared to the “DualSector” typology which “offers a distinct student education experience through

FIGURE 6.4 

 ublic providers existing model (as published in Mosely, Wrigley, & Key, P 2020)

152  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

FIGURE 6.5 

 alue proposition mapping of educator providers by typology (as published V in Mosely, Wrigley, & Key, 2020)

strong industry connection and engagement, research with impact and connected pathways for students from all backgrounds to develop future-focused workforce graduates” (Mosely et al., 2020, p. 13).These seven different value propositions were then used to map where each typology in the sector sits, based on their course offerings and targeted customer demographic cohort, to identify potential “white spaces” in the market. These providers can be seen represented on this matrix segmented by student generations and course time duration of study. The ideate phase took the insights from the previous phase and generated three different future business model concepts for TAFE NSW. These included: • Distinctive and special purpose VET: VET focuses on short- and mediumterm skills needs,TAFE is quick and adaptable, focusing less on transversal skills and competencies and more on reskilling and upskilling based on short- and medium-term labour market needs. • Virtual TAFE – No physical footprint: Training is delivered entirely online. TAFE has no physical real estate footprint other than head office. Students learn in the workplace, at home, or in collaborative groups with other students in their geographical location. • Embedded research: Changing the baseline qualifications for teachers. Building research capability and research culture within VET through strong connections to industry and innovation. Research becomes an explicit part of the skills that all VET educators are required to have, starting from the entry level qualification.

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  153

These different business model concepts of TAFE NSW were generated in the form of future scenarios with various personas detailed as the scenario dictated (as seen being presented in Figure 6.6). Future scenarios were presented through visualisations and narration of the persona characters to illustrate the future state being explored. The prototype phase of the project was where the future student and teacher recruiting requirements were designed and prototyped with various stakeholders throughout the organisation (as seen in Figure 6.7). Here bespoke boundary objects (future teacher personas, future vision canvas, and future provocations) were generated and completed in a co-design workshop to derive an emerging strategy for learning in the future. This phase provided a baseline from which further internal workshops and experiments would be undertaken within TAFE NSW to ensure it balanced the competing demands of change in learner preferences and the ongoing development of the teaching profession. Additionally, the scoping review developed in the previous phase of empathise was published in an international journal to allow for the theories surrounding future business model concepts of VET to be explored by others around the globe. Disseminating parts of the design process such as this allows for impact far greater than the one case study.

FIGURE 6.6 

TAFE NSW future business model presentation

154  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

FIGURE 6.7 

Future teacher co-design workshop using bespoke boundary objects

FIGURE 6.8 

Public providers future model (as published in Mosely,Wrigley, & Key, 2020)

The test phase of the project took all the solutions generated by the executive committee in the co-design workshop and derived testing parameters for what a new business model construct would look like inside TAFE NSW. The public provider future model (Figure 6.8) explores the possibility of partnering with industry both through physical campuses as well as curriculum and work-integrated learning (Hodge & Smith, 2019; Seet et al., 2018), to not only provide additional funding but to help integrate real-world problems into curriculum through inquiry-based learning. This future business model as seen in Figure 6.8 was designed to stem the decline of student enrolment in addition to improving the student experience in the VET

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  155

sector within one state of Australia. As such this business model would require further experimentation, validation and testing inside the organisation before mass roll out. Such activities would be undertaken by TAFE NSW in the following iteration of the design thinking process. Takeaway 1:  Organisational Buy-In The primary takeaway from this case study is the importance of early and constant liaison with the senior executive layer above the educators. The validity of future ecosystems lies in the predictive future states that are ideated in the codesign workshops.This validity is affected by the level of investment, or “buy-in”, by the stakeholders. Only with top-down management direction are designs able to attain the buy-in needed for participation in creative activities that differ greatly from everyday business. The champion of the design process’s reputation internally within the organisation, both within senior ranks as well as equal and junior ranks, was also critical for ownership of the project and solution by developing a cohesive perspective across the organisation. Takeaway 2:  Multifaceted Problem Complexity The second takeaway, nested within the first, is the need to describe and then remain true to an organic process that unravels throughout the course of the project. True future-state ideation and the description of possible ecosystems can only be designed with future looking methodologies. When more familiar, reductionist, and cost-saving approaches are used, such as systems engineering or similar if-then-else methods, the outcome is compromised.These approaches are inadequate as not all relevant information will be visible when a problem is first examined and because innovative solutions often emerge as a consequence of iterative, cascading feedback loops. Going backwards through the design process is often necessary and – counterintuitively – often constitutes forward progress [for the project] – and not necessarily backwards. In these multifaceted complex problem contexts design thinking is able to embrace ambiguity to feel comfortable with what is unknown within unfixed, constantly changing environments. Takeaway 3:  Bespoke Boundary Objects and Design Expertise The final takeaway, echoing the Edgy Air Force case study findings (Section 5.7), is that tools and boundary objects should be bespoke. Ecosystem design requires highly contextual analysis. Yet as Aguirre et al. (2017) argue, designers who are trained in this contextual boundary object creation will require time and scope in the project to deliver suitable exploratory aids.Working at this macro-level of the education ecosystem requires a designer with a high level of expertise and experience, as this is a multifaceted complex problem. The skills behind understanding the design methodology implemented to solve these problems requires a level of expertise only seen in facilitators with discursive skills in design thinking.

156  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

Overall, the case study demonstrates the design thinking pedagogy framework, by showcasing how the reflective facilitator and active learner interact in practice. Reflective innovation practice is demonstrated here through the movement between the reflective facilitator and the active learning paradigms to not only frame the problems correctly but inquire and discover relevant knowledge along the way. This project oscillated between active learners (by learning more about the global VET sector) and reflective facilitators (empowering TAFE NSW to internally co-design the future) in order to practice design thinking within a complex environment. The case study put learning and the student at the centre and highlighted the current lack of VET pedagogy and reflective research that sits behind it. This shift came through a new focus on learning as opposed to more administrative transactions. It highlighted a need for TAFE NSW to change its approach to how it finds teachers, including different ways to reconceptualise what a teacher is and looks like inside the organisation. The expert sidebar in this chapter was the instigator, facilitator, and design champion inside TAFE NSW who dared to do things differently in what has been a historically government funded provider.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 6.1:  TOM KEY General Manager, Future and Innovation, TAFE NSW Tom Key is currently director of transformation, NSW Environment Protection Authority. Prior to this Tom has held multiple senior roles leading complex programs of work at PwC, TAFE NSW, ANZ, Optus, and Second Road. As General Manager of Future & Innovation at TAFE NSW, Tom was responsible for one of the largest transformations to date regarding customer experience and future operating models. Here Tom synthesised complex, organisation-wide information to address key issues; utilising a collaborative, design-led approach, to lead the design of new products and experiences that meet students’ and teacher’s needs. In this expert sidebar, Tom reflects on his learning as a design leader for over 15 years as well as his most recent role at one of the largest Vocational Education Training organisations in the world.

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  157

Reflecting on my career, design has been a central principle in my work. I have used it to deliver transformation that disrupts and truly reinvents how we do things to prepare for a future that is becoming increasingly hard to plan for. In all this I have come to believe and know that customer-led innovation is more than cutting-edge technology or a reengineered process. It’s getting into the heart, minds, and behavioural habits of the end customer, understanding their ecosystem so I can lead teams to design and build a solution, or an organisation, around them. In relation to the case study (Section 6.3) transforming a large heritage organisation to be a contemporary provider of educational experiences was never going to be a smooth path as there were competing interests between the community, government, and the industry. At the heart of TAFE is a budgeting issue: the community wants the quality and quantity of available courses to grow (and with a rising expectation for technology and digital-driven delivery), but there is less and less budget to make this happen. This tension results in a complex system of competing political, community, and industry forces that TAFE NSW had to constantly navigate. Great organisations know their values and they live by them. TAFE’s core value is to put the customer first. Design is so relevant for an education context as it’s understanding the education experience from the student’s point of view and designing experiences to meet and exceed that. What I noticed when I arrived at TAFE NSW is that the good teachers were naturally and professionally empathetic – as individuals they were student centred; the magic moment for a teacher is when they saw a student get it – that is the pinnacle moment for a teacher. However, that is individual empathy. A student has many other experiences and interactions beyond the classroom within a tertiary education institution. How do you translate that into organisational empathy? You need to design the organisation so that everyone can be systematically empathetic, without relying on the teacher to do all the heavy lifting. Design has a rich theory and deep history that sits behind it. I am fortunate to have worked at a strategic innovation firm called Second Road. Second Road understood and applied design theory into its day-to-day practice, particularly the use of rhetoric as a design tool. This grounding in design theory becomes important when you are tasked with solving complex organisational problems. You need to know what design is, what it can do, what it can’t do, and how it differs from other organisational problem-solving toolkits and approaches. This is particularly important when you are fronting the executive of an organisation with your design-based insights, ideas, and plans. The leadership of organisations are still dominated by scientific management approaches that demand you to “prove it”. Design requires you to embrace the ambiguity of the problem and design outcomes that are based around the user, not the organisation. This takes both courage

158  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

and knowledge, both of which can’t be gained on a 2-day “introduction to human-centred design” course. You need to have the skills, understanding, experience, and knowledge to bring a methodological rigour to these types of problems that is not a highly prescriptive, mechanical method. This requires solid expert design thinking facilitation that can enable the group to learn and ask the right questions. When it comes to thinking about the future, organisations are finding that the pace of change has now seriously overtaken their ability to make plans for it. Asking the right questions is more nuanced and dynamic than those typically found in a 3-year plan (COVID-19 has seen to that). The good news is that designers have an innate ability to deal with ambiguity and complexity and genuinely create new meaning out of it. In today’s context, design thinking can help organisations with two main shifts. The first shift is asking are you critically analysing the right problem? This means lifting thinking to the next level and asking questions about the economic, political, and social context in which the problem sits and which your users live and make decisions in. The second is understanding this world from your customers’ shoes. Combining these can create options and “sandpits” from which to design and create an ongoing and emergent conversation about the future with the leadership of an organisation. Within TAFE NSW the branch I led was titled “Future and Innovation”. It was stood up to explore design as a method to help TAFE NSW become more customer-centric and ensure it stayed constantly relevant. While this provided a lot of freedom, the challenge was that the branch wasn’t integrated into the other strategy and planning systems of the organisation. This meant we had to constantly compete to have our ideas and insights heard and we had to engage a sponsor willing to champion the student and their needs. Over time this did occur, and we achieved outcomes like launching a “voice of customer” platform, re-designing the enrolment experience and creating new and engaging ways to facilitate a rich and scalable remote teaching and learning experience. One important lesson is that an earlier and tighter alliance with the chief information officer and the IT team is key to transforming anything in this day and age. Solutions at TAFE NSW – as they are anywhere – need to be scalable and scalable at TAFE NSW required digitalisation. As a team, we worked on a variety of projects across the organisation, which exposed us to a diverse range of problems and gave us great insights into what was actually going on. The bigger projects wouldn’t have made it to implementation unless we knew what the constraints of the digital systems were. Without this understanding it can be difficult to leverage, scale, and make impact out of design in a large organisation.

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  159

6.4 Designing an Ecology of Learning Beyond teaching design thinking within tertiary education, design thinking can also be applied to student learning experiences (Welsh & Dehler, 2013) inside of the classroom as well as redesigning new learning spaces and environments (Temple & Fillippakou, 2007). The effect design thinking can have on learning ecologies, however, is less commonly discussed. Drawing on Ellis and Goodyear’s (2019) definition of learning ecologies as “how complex learning systems function” (p. 5), in this book we have understood learning ecologies as the way learning sits within a web of relationships. In our opinion, the term learning ecology is a way of highlighting the complexity and interdependence of the many components and activities that make for success in a learning environment. On this backdrop, we acknowledge that the ecology of learning or the learning ecology is necessary to foster active learning, collaboration, reflective practice, and innovation.This section of the chapter describes how design thinking pedagogy meets this need. Within the tertiary sector, the ecology of learning refers to understanding complex systems of learning and how they co-exist within it. This construction of systems when designed together form the educational ecosystem (as discussed earlier in Sections 6.1 and 6.2) and are large and difficult to reshape. Reshaping a tertiary education ecosystem is a large and complex undertaking that involves cumbersome processes at multiple levels within the organisation to execute and pivot the learning environments.Within this learning environment, as Hannafin and Hannafin (as cited in Ellis & Goodyear, 2019) suggest, the learner and facilitator may need “to examine and adjust strategies, technologies or learning activities to achieve balance” (p. 204). The case study presented (Section 6.5) reflects on how design thinking has been used as a method to redesign and empower teachers and trainers at the Australian Defence Force (ADF). It presents a design thinking process for configuring a learning ecology and environment.

6.5 Case Study: Designing Learning Experiences in the Australian Defence Force The Australian Defence College (ADC), like many other tertiary educational providers aims to prepare its learners for a continual change of working environments. For the ADC, this concept is called the intellectual edge, as conceived by retired Major General Michael Ryan, Commandant of ADC. For Ryan (2020), achieving the intellectual edge requires a whole-of-enterprise approach, including investments in new military concepts, organisational approaches and professional education, continuous career-long learning and innovation in delivery and learner engagement. In order to create this intellectual edge in personnel, the ADC Commandant set a scope of work to professionalise ADC learning practitioners. This case study explores this journey as an example of design thinking in action. The project required a multi-stage implementation plan to undertake research on current trends and future applications of education to help identify opportunities

160  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

for ADC staff as the vanguard for the delivery of professional military education. The project’s aim was to maximise the Australian Defence Force’s goal of achieving the intellectual edge over their adversaries through the development of a Facilitators Guide to Learning (a toolkit for all learning inside the College). The guide’s purpose was to inform, inspire, and offer resources for facilitators of learning (ADC directing staff – known as DS, visiting lecturers, and sessional staff) in making evidence-based decisions about planning and delivering classroom activities. The role of ADC facilitators is to support learning through active engagement in the full range of formal and informal learning experiences to ensure each student receives the maximum possible opportunity to achieve their potential. Military staff who complete 2- to 3-year secondments to the College are experienced professionals. They are highly proficient in their area of specialisation and nearly all have had one or more postings as an instructor at a military training establishment. However, their methods of facilitation and pedagogy within a higher education context are often underdeveloped. Until now, the practice of facilitating was rarely developed in these staff and therefore, the aim of this project was to not only inspire them to run their sessions differently, but to offer them scaffolding on evidence-based best practice to assist them in shifting from instructing to facilitating. The Facilitators Guide to Learning (the Guide) was developed as a practical tool to help DS embrace excellence in small-group learning activities. The Guide outlines theories, methods, environmental and technological considerations to maximise meaningful learning at the ADC. While the Guide was written for staff it was anticipated students would also have access to it to help evolve their thinking and take ownership of their learning journeys. The first edition of the Guide was written primarily for the Australian Command and Staff College course, so all photos and examples centred on them. Within a few months of publication however, a second edition was written that included greater emphasis on the higher course: Defence and Strategic Studies Course. A few months after that another version was requested for the Australian Defence Force Academy. These undergraduate students are much younger (18–23 years old) and therefore required more focused activities to accommodate their reduced life experience in the topics being explored. Within 6 months, three different editions were published, highlighting the many iterations and series of developments this guide has been through to date. The key activities involved in the project are mapped out in this Figure 6.9. The design thinking process undertaken in this case study began with the empathy phase – both the involvement and buy-in from stakeholders were vital to this project and as such, early discussions were held across ADC to ensure everyone was aligned with the project objectives. Personas representing three different stakeholders were generated: students (recipients and focus of learning activities), staff/ facilitators (new to learning, newly posted, short posting cycle), and commanders (authority and leadership supporting and endorsing document). Extensive desktop research was conducted shortly after to determine what other forms of learning and teaching guides had been completed elsewhere around the globe (Hattie, 2018; Simons, 2009).

DESKTOP RESEARCH & LITERATURE REVIEW

PERSONAS

DESIGN THINKING FRAMEWORK CONCEPTUALISATION

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES

FIGURE 6.9 

FACILITATORS GUIDE DEVELOPMENT

RECIPE GUIDE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

USER & STAKEHOLDER INSIGHTS

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

SOLO DESIGN ACTIVITIES

Facilitators Guide project design thinking process

CO-DESIGN WORKSHOP

FACILITATORS GUIDE DEPLOYED WITHIN ADC

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

ANNUAL ITERATION & REDEVELOPMENT

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  161

PROJECT OBJECTIVES DISCUSSION

PROTOTYPE & TEST

IDEATE

EMPATHISE

162  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

Project leads inside ADC were engaged to better understand the design thinking process used throughout the project. They drew from their expertise in the Defence educational landscape and research based on design thinking pedagogy (Wrigley & Straker, 2017). They then mapped this learning along with the intellectual edge concept (Ryan, 2020) to the educational design ladder by Wrigley and Straker (2017) to create their own Defence educational design ladder (see Figure 6.10).This concept, and resulting framework, then evolved over the project with the multiple iterations on the Facilitator Guide concept and publication. Feedback was sought from Defence personnel to identify needs, short comings, frustrations, best practice, and misconceptions among students and facilitators.

FIGURE 6.10 

 efence educational design ladder (Australian Defence College, 2020, D p. 15)

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  163

The overall project exploited the benefits of design thinking approaches. The ideate phase was where the outcomes from the empathise phase were distributed through a co-design workshop. This helped identify the needs of the Guide, what its contents would be, the structure, and also identify some frustrations of the current methods to help define the problem set. For the workshop, additional external experts were invited to provide fresh thinking and challenge some internal assumptions regarding the ADC’s traditional approaches. Consultations with the key people across ADF were also undertaken from a wide range of staff spanning Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Australian Public Service. From the workshops (as seen in Figure 6.11) came a concept of the “recipe” book for the structure of the Guide. This meant facilitators could select a class recipe with everything they needed to facilitate an excellent lesson (ingredients, preparation time, techniques, and helpful hints). This included additional canvases to help plan lessons. The facilitators guide was designed by a small team who synthesised the co-designed workshop’s content and it consisted of six chapters drafted, and then edited before circling back to participants for member-checking. Once endorsed, the ‘recipe’ version evolved into the rough form Facilitator’s Guide through the prototype phase. Final feedback was sought from internal stakeholders to ensure the content was accurate. Once the whole document was edited

FIGURE 6.11 

Co-design workshop developing Facilitators Guide content

164  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

FIGURE 6.12 

The Facilitators Guide to Learning book

and copy completed, the final draft of the book was once more distributed to commanders and stakeholders. From here, the final draft was then printed and distributed, although the initial print run of 100 ran out within weeks, so a revised version was written before the second, and then third, print run. The most recent version is available on the internet as a PDF. Copies of the book (Figure 6.12) soon appeared throughout the ADF and as far away as Canada – well beyond the original target audience. The test phase is still ongoing for this case study as the three versions were tailored to different settings and a formal review is planned to determine the effectiveness of the three guides. However, anecdotal feedback from DS and commanders has been overwhelmingly positive and impactful in the classroom. A further indicator of the Guide’s positive impact was the commandled establishment of an ADC Professional Development Program based on the guides (Figure 6.13). This program was designed to identify and measure desired facilitator traits of military directing staff as well as provide tailored individual and group feedback. A further dimension included customised training to the cohort when specific areas of need were identified. The intent is to capture lessons learnt and update the Guide for reprint and distribution annually. A further plan is to make the Guide a living document online that can capture the collective knowledge of the ADC.

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  165

FIGURE 6.13 

Facilitators Guide being used in the ADC

Takeaway 1:  Build Fast, Iterate Often, Deploy Early This case study operated under aggressive timelines that were ambitious, yet this worked in favour of the design project as it meant the design team had to quickly conceive the concept, obtain feedback (which was early buy-in), and then test it though their key-user groups. Not all people felt comfortable doing this, as it forced people to engage in the project in a bold and energetic way. Design thinking approaches were critical to breakdown biases of more traditional military problemsolving approaches. The final product was instantly recognised as fresh and inspiring within the context of the ADF, which helped with its popularity. The challenge of it surviving beyond the novelty of its launch was an anticipated challenge. This was mitigated with ongoing staff development workshops throughout the academic year. The prototype phase was essential for improving the final product, as were the co-design workshops where external disruptive thinkers were deliberately brought in to challenge assumptions. This approach reinforced the build fast, iterate often and deploy early mentality. Overall, even after the deployment of the final Guide the project team still had ideas for further iterations such as an online website of resources, photos, real-time user feedback, and a collaborative space. Despite this approach being common and obvious in some sectors, for others within conservative environments, it remains against the grain. Takeaway 2:  Process Buy-in Leads to Bigger Things The key to the case study was stakeholder buy-in from a diverse group of senior officers across multiple services in the military. While the outcomes were the

166  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

priority for this project, the leads also saw the opportunity to drive design thinking through the ranks of ADC and used this project to showcase the potential of the approach. They put a lot on emphasis on demonstrating the process and its value to the organisation. As a result, they were able to get process buy-in, enabling them to now go on to develop more projects using design thinking within the ADC. One example of this is the Facilitator’s Personal Development Program that was approved as an extension to the Guide. As the Guide is seen more and more as a success, the design thinking process that was used to engineer the final product, was equally validated as an effective approach to problem-solving within the College. Takeaway 3:  Understanding Context and Learning Experience The intent of the Guide was that users would annotate their own notes in the marginal whitespace purposefully left on the pages and then collaboratively reflect on lessons learnt. It was intended to be a resource that continued to grow with new ideas and suggestions being added by the users. These practices enable the Guide to become a living document, constantly refined by the teaching and learning experiences of the current cohort and instructors. Overall, the case study created impact in a multitude of ways. Some of which have only begun to emerge as the demonstration of the design thinking process, the production and dissemination of a holistic guide, as well as encouraging a new form of dialogue across the ADC. The creation of the Guide and additional initiatives is building a community of practice that will only continue to grow and improve. The impact of the Guide on the student experience was positive for the ADC as it identified the key factors of learning and methods to incorporate them all together in a synchronous manner. The Guide was designed with a holistic educational delivery in mind as the document comprises all sections building synergistically on each other. While individual chapters can be read independently, they are most effective when understood as a single holistic approach to learning. Their greatest role is in setting the conditions for success by selecting and briefing the students who will lead parts of the session. Once the activity begins, the learners own the learning process. Much research was done to understand the ecology of the learning environment. The need to continuously provide new and stimulating learning environments is key to effective learning. The Guide identifies a range of learning methods and their complementary classroom layouts to maximise learning outcomes. Although anecdotal evidence suggests the Guide has had a positive impact on learning within small group activities, no empirical data has been collected. At the time of writing, the project was still a work in progress with further iterations yet to occur. The intent is that constant reviews will be conducted annually with successive evolutions continuing to improve. Similar to the TAFE NSW case study, the Facilitators Guide enabled a shared language to discuss facilitation practice, creating dialogue across the College. This was

Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning  167

seen as an unintended outcome where a collective shift in course culture emerged as staff continued to explore and share their ideas with colleagues. Ongoing conversations and sharing of notes helped to create a community of practice within the College for engendering effective learning environments. Building off the Facilitators Guide the next phase to develop the learning ecosystem within the Australian Defence Force is the implementation of design thinking in a Defence learning lab enabling learning across an integrated Defence workforce to build a more capable, agile, and potent future military.

6.6 Design Thinking Pedagogy Ecosystem and Ecology Framework Both case studies are explored through the design thinking pedagogy framework. Here we demonstrate the facilitation of the design thinking pedagogical approach to innovation and its impact in the field of education. The description of the model is based on multiple design thinking cycles as each project has demonstrated. Some cycles are short, and others are much longer, however all require transitioning between the roles of active learner and reflective facilitator (similar to that of action research). An example of this cyclical approach is represented Figure 6.14. As both case studies were complex in nature, it was necessary to position the problem within the broader education ecosystem. Framing these problems presented stakeholder buy-in through consultation and developing a recognition that it was necessary to genuinely take the insights and perspectives of users and stakeholders on board and change their approach and process accordingly. The project leads inside their respective organisations held an appreciation and acknowledgement for conceptual and applied theory on the subject matter in addition to what had been tried before in different global contexts. In both cases, boundary objects were conceived, developed, generated, and iterated upon in the co-design workshops. A combination of existing and new boundary objects was used, as required by each project and was the vehicle through which co-creation occurred. Prototypes were generated collectively through a co-creation process which were then disseminated for comments and feedback as opposed to solely being developed by the project team. This transparent process demonstrated to those inside the organisation that the design thinking process and practices could and perhaps should be adopted for other organisational problems.

6.7 Summary This chapter on the educational ecosystem and learning ecology is unlike the other chapters in this book as it discusses design thinking as a method to innovate and make impact for tertiary providers and the education sector. By investigating the macro and micro-levels of education we see common themes emerge as the education ecosystem and learning ecology are inextricably linked. It presented two novel

168  Designing Education Ecosystems and an Ecology of Learning

FIGURE 6.14 

Design thinking education ecosystem and ecology pedagogy framework

case studies of TAFE NSW and the Australian Defence Force, both diverse but still producing thematic similar takeaways. In the context of these case studies, their unique organisational constraints and conditions predicate the benchmark by which to assess the innovation and impact. In both cases, these projects that started at an individual and self-directed level have initiated a design thinking movement inside their organisations. These case studies have provided a richness to the subject matter of design thinking pedagogy with the deconstruction of the design thinking education ecosystem and ecology pedagogy framework – narrated through an active learning and reflective facilitator construct. It is through the presentation of this framework that the impact of this work can be seen in detail. It shows the relationship pedagogy has to design thinking, but just as importantly the impact design thinking can have on pedagogical approaches within tertiary education institutions.

7 CONCLUSION

7.1 Epistemic Fluency and the Disciplinarity of Design Thinking Education In recent times, we have seen a rapid expansion of newly emerging design professions within industry, such as “human-centered design lead” or “lead strategic designer”, which have created a “cat-and-mouse” game for design education. As a result of design practice shifting towards these new roles, industry is demanding a more diverse design graduate than ever before. The higher education sector once prided itself on staying ahead of these trends and in fact instigating change through world-leading research. However as discussed throughout this book, design programs are struggling to keep up with industry trends and stay relevant. Aligning design education with industry has never been more important for design expertise and ensuring high-quality design practice.The development of education and pedagogy involved with the teaching of design thinking must therefore be continual. Chapter 1 posed the hypothesis that design thinking pedagogy is one practice that facilitates epistemic fluency for innovation and impact in tertiary education. The changing nature of work requires graduates to possess skills such as asking the right questions, translating knowledge to different contexts, adopting a different perspective and sociability (as highlighted in Table 1.4), that enable them to operate and collaborate in ambiguous and uncertain contexts. As Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017), the pioneering scholars of epistemic fluency state, working on real-world problems usually requires the combination of different kinds of specialised and context-dependent knowledge, as well as different ways of knowing. People who are flexible and adept with respect to different ways of knowing about the world can be said to possess epistemic fluency (Markauskaite and Goodyear, 2017, p. 1). Currently, other than McLaughlan and Lodge (2019), who present ­epistemic fluency as a pedagogical approach which can be developed through applying design DOI: 10.4324/9781003006176-7

170  Conclusion

studio learning to other disciplines, little research outside the learning sciences field explores the link between design thinking and epistemic fluency. Based on the content of the book and case studies presented, we contend that epistemic fluency is critical for building design thinking capability entrenched in the process of solving complex problems. This is evident in the multiple design thinking pedagogical approaches listed throughout this book (defined and described in Appendix A), which are all specific to the different types of design thinking programs.Within a design thinking context, the three main points of the argument are: the T-shaped design construct (Chapters 3 and 4), the relationship between design education, practice, and research (Chapter 4); and the real-world complex challenges (Chapter 5). First, epistemic fluency in a design thinking context is conveyed through the “T-shaped” designer construct (as explored in Chapters 3 and 4). Here the concept of epistemic fluency presents itself as traversing disciplinary knowledge boundaries in order to see all perspectives of the problem at hand. As shown in Figure 3.3, there are a variety of T-shaped configurations, ranging in depth of disciplinary expertise and breadth of knowledge and understanding across disciplines. Different configurations are better suited to some professional design contexts over others. Epistemic fluency allows the learner to recognise and configure the shape they wish to become through an iterative and reflective process. At the postgraduate level of design thinking, epistemic fluency bridges other disciplines (in addition to design) through the relationship between design education, practice, and research (Chapter 4). Here the learner oscillates between all three areas iteratively. By absorbing the educational culture through learning and critiquing and questioning and analysing, the active learner can apply what they know in practice within industry, creating new knowledge to report back through research. This is a constant process that shifts between the three areas of focus at all times and moves the overall field of design thinking forward. Finally, epistemic fluency must be seen as inherent to the solving of global challenges through design thinking. A design thinking methodology is regularly used to approach such complex challenges due to its non-linear, human-centered process which navigates ambiguity. As stated, epistemic fluency facilitates an ability to reconfigure the world to see more clearly what matters for a complex problem. Some of the problems requiring interdisciplinary collaboration facing today’s society include climate change, over population, terrorism, food security, the energy crisis, and access to water. As previously discussed, these problems are “wicked” and having the skills to solve them provides graduates with the ability to excel in uncertain times. Due to the multifaceted disciplinary nature of contemporary design, there are now more “designers” than ever before. However, there is little empirical research to guide effective teaching across the varying disciplines. This book has explored all levels of tertiary education and beyond to better understand the pedagogies being deployed in the new contemporary use of design thinking. The disciplinary model, first described in Chapter 1, describes design thinking as a bridge between creativity and innovation (Figure 1.3). However, the

Conclusion  171

pedagogies that sit behind design thinking and how they are taught using different disciplinary models are less known. These different disciplinary models, intra-, cross-/multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary are used interchangeably by different programs across all levels of tertiary education and beyond. As seen throughout the book, there are some common themes across each level that align more closely with some disciplinary modes over others. Each of these links to the preferred pedagogy to produce the best learning experience possible. Undergraduate programs that use the cross/multidisciplinary model are multidisciplinary design degrees, for example, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, BA [Hons] in Social Design and Lancaster University’s BA [Hons] Design. Both were found to combine several design disciplines. Similarly at a postgraduate coursework level, the cross/multidisciplinary model is seen in The University of Michigan’s MDes in Integrative Design and RMIT University’s Master of Design Futures programs. The common pedagogical approaches across this model were the studio environment and the design crit, project-driven learning and collaboration in small groups. Group collaboration enables learners to develop communication skills and exposes them to different disciplinary practices and ways of knowing. In interdisciplinary undergraduate courses, learners are brought together from different disciplines to collaborate, yet individuals still approach problems from the perspective of their own discipline. For example, interdisciplinary undergraduate units that host group-based projects where students stick to their disciplinary lane when contributing in a studio-based teaching environment. Therefore, taking these courses early in the degree (for example, during the first half of their degree) is favourable, as they are still forming their knowledge boundaries and have yet to develop disciplinary maturity, therefore making them more open to learning new approaches. Design thinking coursework master’s programs seek to build cohorts from diverse professional backgrounds, commonly from a mixture of the fields of business, management, and design. In Parsons Strategic Design and Management (MS) program, for example, methods from studio practice are used to devise approaches to business innovation in the global environment. The purpose of building a diverse cohort is to bring people together from different disciplinary backgrounds, in addition to professional experiences, to collaborate and approach problems in new ways. The Bachelor of Creative Intelligence (BCII), the undergraduate degree hosted at University Technology Sydney, is a true example of a transdisciplinary model of design thinking. Here students approach problems by drawing on perspectives from multiple disciplines simultaneously. This is enabled by the structure of the course, in which students intensively undertake their discipline specific courses over trimesters, then intensively participate in BCII courses during the summer breaks, with a capstone project over the final year. During the capstone project, students are placed with an industry partner, immersing them in the problem context, and allowing them to focus on a problem not a discipline. This immersive problem context enables peer-to-peer learning and promotes a cohort culture with learner autonomy. Within the HDR context, the design catalysts program was also

172  Conclusion

of a transdisciplinary nature. The HDR students in this program participated in many residential workshops as an active student/reflective facilitator and crossed the boundaries of industry and research to propose, challenge, test, and validate new methods and approaches to design for business innovation outcomes and create impact for the firm they were embedded in. As seen in Figure 7.1, the difference in pedagogies across the design thinking continuum is vast. The pedagogies from each disciplinary model layer on one another as they process left to right. In addition to these set boundaries of the disciplinary models, there was also evidence of hybrid program structures. As previously discussed in Chapter 5, professional design thinking education courses are designed specifically for the business sector at hand sponsoring the initiative, and as such can be created in multiple disciplinary modes. The Edgy Air Force case study explored in Chapter 5 can be assessed as interdisciplinary as learners from different disciplinary backgrounds bring their disciplinary experience and expertise together to collaborate to solve problems. From a pedagogical perspective, the engagement and entertainment factors that are vital for this delivery are made possible by the emphasis on participation and learning rather than assessment and grading.

FIGURE 7.1 

Design thinking disciplinary pedagogies

Conclusion  173

7.2 Design Thinking Pedagogy Framework Revisited Throughout this book, the design thinking pedagogy framework (as seen in Figure 2.6) has been presented and elaborated upon (particularly across Chapters 3–6). The model sits upon epistemic fluency principles and disciplinarity constructs presented in the earlier parts of this chapter. Here we break down the framework in further detail discussing the following areas of investigation, the design thinking process, the reflective facilitator, and the active learner based on what has been learnt throughout the book.

7.2.1 Design Thinking Process Foundation The first layer of the framework breaks down the design thinking process into its four main foundation phases: empathise, ideate, prototype, and test. Starting at the top and progressing clockwise around through the phases of design thinking – essentially a human-centric, iterative process used to solve complex problems with multiple stakeholders (Figure 7.2). To empathise is to understand and share the feelings of users, stakeholders, and/or others impacted by a problem by gaining insights from these various parties. This is

FIGURE 7.2 

Design thinking pedagogy framework foundation

174  Conclusion

achieved through various methods, such as user interviews, observations, shadowing, the development of scenarios and narratives to tell a story, and immersing oneself in the future scenario. In the context of teaching, learners need to develop an understanding of how to conduct user research, ask questions, probe, and make connections but also how to use insights gained through these methods to unpack and reframe problems. Generally, at an undergraduate level and depending on the type of program, this phase is conducted in a basic manner with students empathising through self-reflection, or through talking to friends and family. Occasionally, students have the opportunity to conduct user or customer interviews and observations. At this level, students progress from a basic to intermediate skill level of understanding and conducting user research in order to gain a user-centric perspective to the problem. Comparatively, at a postgraduate level, students should have more opportunity to empathise with real users and customers from industry as well as in their workplace. This level of access also comes with more maturity and experience in the field. However, the depth of empathy can be shallow within coursework master’s degrees, as they usually have limited time to conduct user research.The in-depth insights enriched using ethnographic absorption uncovered by HDR students are far more profound. Students that are embedded inside an organisation or who work with industry partners in their HDR program have greater and immediate access to users, customers, and stakeholders.This access develops richer understandings of research methods and practices, specifically the ability to ask deeper questions and probe for more useful insights. The ideate phase of the design thinking process is to generate multiple possible creative concepts and ideas to the problem being explored. Ideation can occur through brainstorming (generating a list of possible ideas), affinity mapping (used to organise ideas), and other possible tools. Building off the insights gained through the empathise phase, the purpose of ideate is to explore the problem from as many points of view as possible. At an undergraduate level, a common misconception of students is that they attempt to validate their ideas through comparison with the ideas of others, rather than by seeing their idea as a differentiator. In other words, validation on the “right” idea, not the unique idea. Students often take an approach of quantity over quality in order to meet assessment criteria, rather than exploring the most innovative concept fit for the problem. At a postgraduate coursework level, the ideation of ideas is not always the difficult part as they usually have more industry experience and are able to generate many ideas due to their immersion within the problem they are attempting to solve. Students can sometimes, however, become fixated on their own idea and not want to move past it, through the incorporation of insights gained during the empathise phase. Often, the difficulty for students within this phase is resisting jumping into the solution space too early. One immediate reaction is to criticise an idea with reasons as to why it can’t be actioned inside the workplace. Developing more insightful and novel ideas require spending more time framing the problem and gaining deeper insights. In the digital learning environment ideation is conducted through strongly scaffolded boundary objects, here the learner can arrive at solutions by completing the templates and activities as they are generally novice designers.This is

Conclusion  175

a less effective approach when compared to professional design thinking education, where strong individual solutions to the problem at hand might only have one idea, not multiple, and ideation is a big part of this new learning. The prototype phase involves developing an experimental version of a proposed solution, based on one of the concepts generated in the ideation phase. The main benefit of prototyping is that getting the initial concept (i.e., the prototype) into the hands of the user as early as possible allows feedback, identifying any problems to be obtained before too much time and money is invested.Within design such a concept can take many forms ranging from low to high fidelity, depending on the resolution of the design. Inside the design education context, prototypes are encouraged across all of these different levels. Generally, at undergraduate and postgraduate levels of design thinking, the prototyping of ideas takes the form of low-fidelity prototyping. However, many education providers have digital and physical fabrication labs and workshops to assist students during their prototyping. As there is no standard way to go about prototyping (especially when compared to ideation where post it notes are commonly understood as a way of brainstorming solutions), students can find experimenting with minimal viable products challenging. Prototyping is made all the more difficult when students are not design cognate and have been educated in a context that fears failure and does not reward experimentation. The final test phase of the design thinking process seeks to validate ideas and concepts based on feedback from stakeholders. This phase is based on evaluating the concept through feedback within a real-world scenario and context of the user’s life. This phase is a chance to refine the solutions and iterate on the concept in order to improve it, thus beginning the design thinking cycle again. Generally, at an undergraduate level, testing is within the confines of a classroom environment. At the postgraduate program level, however, measures are put in place so that testing and reporting can occur within organisations or sectors. This is due to the fact that postgraduate students are often able to run experiments within their own field of practice. The test phase can be somewhat limited in online courses as students undertake these courses individually and there are additionally heavy time constraints. In professional education programs on the other hand, the ability to evaluate and report back, and to measure and quantify risk, is part of business as usual. This summary of the foundational process level of the design thinking pedagogy framework, as seen presented in Figure 7.2, is, like all design thinking processes, meant to be repeated multiple times and has a cyclic nature. This allows for evolution and refinement of the ideas and concepts. On top of this foundational process level sits the secondary layer of the design thinking pedagogy framework model. This layer represents the role of the reflective facilitator.

7.2.2 Reflective Facilitator The second layer of the model refers to the reflective facilitator and comprises four main elements as seen in Figure 7.3. It starts with problem complexity, before moving on to conceptual theory, boundary objects, and then innovative practice.

176  Conclusion

FIGURE 7.3 

Design thinking pedagogy framework – the reflective facilitator

It is vital to get the complexity of the problem right in order to set the project, activity, and class up for success. As reported on in Chapter 2, problems differ in structure and complexity. Arguably as you progress through the levels of tertiary education so to should the complexity of the problem increase. Regardless of how easy or complex a problem is, design thinking should still be the bridge to solve it, but how design thinking is taught must be aligned with the complexity of the problem facing students. For the online courses in design thinking it is vital that they only address simple problems as anything too complex will cause confusion and the students will struggle too much in an online environment that lacks the support needed to resolve it.The purpose of online courses is to give learners a foundational understanding of the process. In professional education, however, the problems are highly complex, requiring a high level of design expertise to adequately address the problem in the learning environment. Conceptual theory as we refer to it represents all conceptual frameworks, one or more formal theories (in part or whole) as well as other concepts and empirical

Conclusion  177

findings related to design thinking from the literature.Within an undergraduate level of education, the conceptual theory courses such as design history, introduction to design thinking and design principles, increase in complexity as students’ design thinking understanding progresses. At a postgraduate coursework level, the theory is more complex in nature as there is a higher level of cognitive comprehension. At an HDR level, students’ conceptual knowledge and understanding of the core topic and process of design thinking should be in depth and advanced. Likewise, as the TAFE NSW and Australian Defence Force case studies (in Chapter 6) demonstrated, in addition to the application of design thinking, conceptual theories were integral to the success of these projects as illustrated by the creation of new knowledge through both of these cases. Boundary objects have been discussed earlier in the book (Chapter 2) and encompass many different forms of design tools, methods, card decks, sticky notes as well as other similar artefacts. These objects assist during different stages of the design thinking process and are used for various purposes at various times (Ball, Christensen & Halskov, 2021). At an undergraduate level, boundary objects are often predominately toolkits, methods, book templates, and resources for different disciplinary contexts. Students use them to break down the problem context and understand the process. In postgraduate coursework education the role of boundary objects is usually less prescriptive. This is due to students being expected to have the skills and attributes of a professional in the field. In this circumstance boundary objects are not meant to be focused on, rather they are used for scaffolding the design process, not creating the design as such. In regards to HDR students, their use of boundary objects is limited, as their boundary objects are self-created and designed for specific purposes. Online courses are a stronghold for boundary objects as students need a high level of scaffolding in this context. In this situation boundary objects are often linked to the online course or certain design thinking processes and assist in connecting theory to practice – also known as boundary crossing. At a professional educational level, boundary objects are intuitive tools that assist and empower independent, self-paced learning. We use the term innovative practice to describe the application of design thinking in the field. This can also be referred to as design thinking practice or design integration (Straker et al., 2021). Design integration is “the bottom up and topdown approach to disseminating and adopting design” in practice (Straker et al., 2021, p. 10). At an undergraduate level it is often not possible to offer practical experience to large numbers of students within the duration of program. However, with resourcing, this is not impossible. At the coursework postgraduate level there is a good understanding of organisational constraints or the realities in getting things started and students are not as naïve as they have experience in professional contexts. In the HDR context, if the student is embedded or sponsored in industry, research outputs have potential global impact. This was also seen in the two case studies of TAFE NSW and the Australian Defence Force in Chapter 6 where the innovation practice was unique in each case and demonstrates that there is no one size fits all approach when it comes to integrating design inside an organisation. Much of the

178  Conclusion

online teaching of design thinking is observed in video form to see what/how design thinking is used in practice. This approach is less effective than professional design education where student reflection on their own innovation practice (e.g. developing ideas, testing them with buy-in) in the workplace inspires new ways to approach problems in the future. This summary of the reflective facilitator level of the design thinking pedagogy framework as presented in Figure 7.3 has broken the components down in detail allowing for the final level of the framework, the active learner, to now be layered on top and discussed in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4.

7.2.3 Reflective Facilitator – Active Learner The third layer of the framework refers to the active learner and comprises framing, inquiry/discovery, co-creation, and application/making. These elements can be seen in Figure 7.4. The detail of this figure shows that the relationship between the

FIGURE 7.4 

Design thinking pedagogy framework – the reflective facilitator – active learners

Conclusion  179

reflective facilitator and active learner is interdependent and that they are intrinsically linked – it is not that one cycle is completed as a reflective facilitator and the next as an active learner, rather the processes are undertaken simultaneously: • • • •

Problem Complexity – Framing Foundation Theory – Inquiry/Discovery Boundary Objects – Co-create Innovation Practice – Application/Making

7.2.4 Active Learner The element framing is based on problem setting and refers to a process in which we “name the things to which we will attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them” (Schön, 1983, p. 40).This is enacted in undergraduate design thinking pedagogy by suspending the need to immediately proceed to a solution, which can be difficult in a multidisciplinary team. At a postgraduate coursework level, the student is able to appreciate different frames presented by different stakeholders. In the research degree side of postgraduate study, framing means acquiring an in-depth knowledge of the problem space to look for root causes to issues and the ability to juggle multiple perspectives on problems. Online education uses framing to convert insights to validate students’ problems, not necessarily to reframe them. In the professional education arena, however, framing requires exploring multiple perspectives and overcoming one’s own biases. The inquiry/discovery phase is where knowledge is generated (Owen, 2007). Here the active learner at an undergraduate level has the ability to take risks and try new things; however, when chasing grades, undergraduates can approach the phase as merely a box ticking exercise. Postgraduate coursework students on the other hand are often self-motivated to acquire knowledge from elsewhere to address the problem at hand and exhibit a genuine passion for the problem area’s context. In the research student context, inquiry/discovery occurs across a PhD cohort, where co-creating is utilised to develop a better understanding of process. Teaching this design thinking phase online provides limited depth due to lack of prior design knowledge and the brief amount of time allotted to it. In professional education the inquiry/discovery phase is led by contextual knowledge and know how, which provides students with the ability to ask the right questions. A willingness to challenge assumptions may, however, be lacking in this context. Co-create is where students create knowledge, prototypes, solutions, boundary objects, and solutions jointly and collaboratively. At an undergraduate level, a peer learning and teaching approach should be encouraged that immerses students in an environment of reflective creative practice, with the guidance of a teacher/facilitator. At a postgraduate coursework level there should be a solid collaboration across the industry (problem set) and engagement with the community and organisation at hand. Strong peer-to peer collaborations within an HDR context, where students cocreate with users/participants/industry partners on the research/design, should also be

180  Conclusion

fostered. Online courses find it difficult to conduct co-creation as the course is undertaken alone, hence there is limited opportunity to collaborate with others. Professional education students generally have the maturity to be active listeners and open to others perspectives and opinions and therefore do well in co-creation activities. The application/making element of the model pertains to taking knowledge into a domain of action (Owen, 2007, p. 20), and applying knowledge to solve problems and make decisions. In a design thinking undergraduate context, knowledge is preferably acquired through action and practice rather than traditional instructional learning. This differs from postgraduate coursework where it is not only knowledge that is acquired at a higher order level of thinking but there is also a strong drive to apply this knowledge through the implementation process and witnessing the impact design thinking can have in action. Similarly, within the HDR context, application/making refers to the leadership in the design thinking process, allowing for the creation of ground-breaking ideas. Online courses provide students with a basic observational awareness of application/making made possible through instructional videos. While professional education empowers students with the ability to utilise design thinking within the workplace if they aspire to do so. As a global leading expert who has seen, implemented, and led the change internationally for design, Professor Lorraine Justice discusses the future of the field in Expert Sidebar 7.1.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 7.1:  PROFESSOR LORRAINE JUSTICE Dean Emerita and Professor of Industrial Design, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States Professor Lorraine Justice has extensive design experience working across both industry and academia, previously leading the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology (2011–2016) and the School of Design at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2004–2011). Lorraine serves on the editorial boards for four design journals, sits on boards for universities and companies, and consults internationally for industry and government entities. Prior to joining academia, Lorraine worked in industry for 13 years as a digital designer for companies such as Battelle, CompuServe, Metatec,

Conclusion  181

and NCR. In this expert sidebar, Lorraine presents the future of design education, discussing the skills a future designer will need and proposing that designers of the future may choose to be specialists or generalists.

Design thinking as a process is very helpful in unpacking complex problems and looking for solutions. However, the solution is not always part of the outcome, and the most important value of design thinking is attempting to understand the broad scope of difficult, complex problems. My latest research is concerned with design reasoning, which examines the depth of a problem rather than the breadth, and how design reasoning is applied. An example of (broad) design thinking might be “accessible voting in this country is a problem”. An example of the (limited but legitimate) design process used to design a product might be “we need a new voting machine”. An example of design reasoning would take the line of questioning in design thinking or the design process and examine it for bias, particular beliefs, or thoroughness of reasoning, as well as for a potential solution. Questions for examining design reasoning, in this case, could start with, why are some voters being discouraged from voting? What can be done about it? Can we build a fairer system? And so on. Design thinking and the design process is important for people who aren’t necessarily going to be designers so they can experience what it’s like to hold off on solutions during the nebulous information-finding stage until the most important information is collected and reviewed. Many other disciplines teach their students to follow a linear, expeditious path when that is not always the best. Hopefully, they will see the value in taking more time to study and research potential solutions, which may have cost implications for companies and organisations. Traditional design education curriculum has had many new content areas added to it since 1980: technology (hardware and software), design research, ergonomics, sustainability, service design, social media, user experience, and user interface are just a few examples. We replaced some hand skills for old materials (Rapidograph pen and a wax roller, markers, etc.) but still kept our drawing skills. Computers changed our design jobs immensely, eventually for the good. We still need our design skills for the future, only the tools will change. The design academic is not only educating the next generations of designers but is creating new design knowledge through exciting global design research. In the future, design will have to deal with emerging issues such as managing and deciphering big data, ecological concerns and products and services surrounding robotics. Universities will need to figure out how to have more classes where varying disciplines come together to problem

182  Conclusion

solve. Most curriculums are so packed with courses needed for professional accreditation that there is not enough space for multidisciplinary experiences. These are the experiences that will be most like the future design positions. However, when teaching multidisciplinary classes or studio projects, it is imperative that the teaching instructors have respect and value the skills of the other disciplines. Designers will need a good general education, some specific hand skills, technology skills and knowledge, big data and design research skills. Our design students need to become more savvy about big data, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality and technology in general. They should also be aware of new materials created that are sustainable as these are becoming more ubiquitous. Over the next 50 years, there will probably be both generalist and specific degrees, especially as things become more complex. As an example, a designer working on artificial intelligence for childhood education issues may or may not be able to design for the medical community, depending on the issue. Design schools need to know when to remove old content and curriculums rather than just adding and updating content. This may be difficult to do when some more experienced teaching instructors want to hold onto particular content as they know it well and feel comfortable teaching it. The upkeep of teaching design is constant. Design pedagogy sits between the arts and sciences and is unique as it is the nebulous front-end thinking that is so valuable. It takes discipline (and courage) to keep searching for something better, or more information that is needed. Future designers can become specialists in some facet of design (sustainability, user experience, etc.) or they can still train to be generalists to facilitate in innovation and creative problem-solving. I envision a curriculum that starts out with the general theory and information about design, creative problem-solving, design thinking, the design process, design reasoning (lines of questioning), and design research (in general), then moving to specialisations such as product design and sustainability, service design, and user experience, just to name a few areas. The generalists may want to continue their education with more project management courses, leadership courses, and so on. Moving forward design education curriculums need to be updated. Design content should be made broader while more structure should be given to solving complex problems, excluding bias. Designing for best experience, equality outcomes, aesthetic and cultural appeal, and sustainability should be in the top goals of any curriculum. The role and value of design in the future will be to represent and engage the user in a meaningful way. When designers understand the user, they can best guide the project and come up with best-case solutions. However, keep in mind, in the future, the user might not always be human.

Conclusion  183

7.3 The Future of Design Thinking Education 7.3.1 Accreditation and Standards in the Field The lack of an accrediting body for design has been noted by Press and Cooper (2016) who state, “the profession of designer has not been accredited with the professional status which has been attributed to architects or engineers” (p. 166). This has resulted in an inconsistent approach to education and practice when compared to other more mature fields such as engineering and architecture. These fields have accrediting bodies that take a leading role in the education and certification of their members. For example, Australian Institute of Architects (similarly its equivalent in the United States of America, the American Institute of Architects) played a significant role in the development of the National Standard of Competency for Architects (Architects Accreditation Council of Australia, 2018). This regulation provides mechanisms to govern the quality of architectural services, discipline architects who have acted incompetently or unprofessionally, regulate and accredit architectural education, and promote architecture in the community. Individuals who are not accredited and identified as meeting the standards of competency cannot use or promote themselves by using the label of architect. There are no such restrictions in design (where tangible disciplinary outcomes can be produced), not to mention design thinking (being more abstract in nature) where individuals can refer to themselves as designers, design thinking experts, or expert design facilitators without any formal degree or training in design or design thinking. The establishment of a design regulatory framework would prevent this educational misrepresentation of design and what constitutes a designer. An endorsed competency standard for design thinking is required. Once these standards have been established for design thinking, they could function as a basic framework to create an educational pedagogy. This framework-based pedagogy would be applicable to all levels of design thinking education throughout the tertiary sector. This will provide guidelines for what design thinking students should study and the graduate capabilities they should possess. By establishing a standard for design thinking education, the importance of design as a vehicle for innovation and impact can be recognised by the design community. Standards provide a focus for many of the benefits that design scholars have longed believed about the discipline of design. Using standards ensures that the design program is viable, legitimate, and defendable. These standards would also provide a blueprint for content presented in public education – the design educator implements the appropriate content for the learner, which is identifiable in the design standards and are the foundational steps for learning design. To illustrate this purpose, Figure 7.4, the teaching and learning model in design, identifies components in design education to meet these goals. Unlike architecture, with its longstanding history and tradition, design thinking as a profession is the new “upstart”. It is still defining its traditions and customs and, as such, so too is design thinking education. As a first step towards defining standards for design thinking education, some proactive universities employ external

184  Conclusion

institutions to review course programs and moderate planned student outcomes. However, this process is undertaken on a voluntary basis. Standard student outcomes at each year level, and final accreditation that can be revoked, are conditions that only some bodies and degrees can proclaim, and design thinking is not currently counted among them.

7.3.2 The Teacher as the Reflective Facilitator To many students, designers and design educators are viewed as indistinguishable. However, many educators in design have no design qualification, or expertise. As design thinking is taught across a variety of faculties, so too is the diverse range of experiences brought to bear in the classroom. The distinction surrounding these two interrelated aspects of the profession is discussed in the recent work of Evans, Kelly, and Kerr (2021), where they examine the confusion surrounding the design academic’s role in the current economic climate. The additional problem many design academics face is that despite the multiple disciplinary applications of the subject matter, they are insular in their research. What drives the field to grow? Successful designers in the industry apply design expertise gained over countless projects. Such “designerly” skills are developed and polished through a “survival-ofthe-fittest” process, where only the very best survive in the industry. Some examples of these skills are insightful observing, active listening, professional practice, attention to detail, and creating a unique design style. The skills and experience that produce a successful industry-grounded designer do not necessarily make a good design educator. In order to translate learnings from practice, reflection is key. The ability to formulate questions about why something was done a certain way and the outcomes it derived is developed through a genuine thirst for knowledge and desire to move the field forward. Design educators must first gain competency as an expert designer (most universities require this in the form of a PhD). This higher degree is not always a true or singularly relevant indication of design expertise. One way to measure this is to evaluate the impact of the created design outcomes. A design educator is not only a teacher but also an instructional strategist, mentor, curriculum planner, and administrator. Supplementary roles include program coordinator, program director, and interlocutor between academia and industry – between theory and real industry roles and problems. Each of these roles interacts with one another, creating an internal tension that demands prioritisation and sacrifice. The orientation to education and the transfer of knowledge impacts negatively on the maintenance of the design portfolio. Competition between individual career fulfilment and reorienting to an educational role requires constant management and attention. Shifting responsibilities in support of an outcome; or fulfilment of design education duties; teaching, mentoring, directing, coaching, curriculum planning, administrating, assessing, and evaluating – all of these roles describe the daily landscape of the full-time design educator.

Conclusion  185

From our reflections across the book we offer the following characteristics that make for a design thinking academic. A good design thinking academic is someone who: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

possesses epistemic fluency draws research rigour from other fields holds significant industry experience with implementing design is conscious unbiased in cognition is outcomes focused is explosively creative has strong conceptual understanding of design thinking as a field is engaging and empathetic is inquisitively open to knowledge is able to translate academic principles into problem guidelines is empathetic in their leadership is accepting of diverse stakeholder groups is open and keen to explore complex and chaotic problem sets understands the extent to what it takes to make things tangible is aware of what other industries are doing to get inspired to apply transfer design • is an experienced designer with a design thinking attitude • is a reflective facilitator with some understanding of learning sciences • is active in translating industry-driven research experience back into the classroom • has a transdisciplinary research base • embraces ambiguity • is driven by making impact • can speak the language of business • has strong innovation practice (translation and integration).

7.3.3 The Student as the Active Learner As discussed throughout this book, the evolution of design thinking has had considerable impact on design as a professional practice. This can be seen through the traditionally educated design practices such as architecture, industrial design, and graphic design which are no longer the largest employment opportunities in the design industry (Davis, 2017). The rapid development of design thinking has seen “new and emerging roles for design and the designer in the twenty-first century” (Wilson & Zamberlan, 2015, p. 3). This new shift in design thinking has primarily been driven by a pull from outside the field by business and management. A common belief evident among many traditionally trained designers and academics is that design thinking is not real design. However, some designers and academics alike

186  Conclusion

have responded to this new trend such as IDEO (Brown, 2008) and Kees Dorst (Dorst, 2011, 2015) to develop this new practice. Buchanan (1992) identifies design thinking as a typology of practice that has guided it far beyond the concept of design as an artefact, which recognises the expansion of design disciplines through four distinct orders of design. Buchanan’s fourth order of design looks specifically at design for environments, systems, and organisation. His argument for expanding the field of design and traversing between orders has seen popular uptake and had significant impact on the field. More recently the Design Council (2018) states, “modern design is no longer confined to particular sectors or occupations. The skills, principles and practices of design are now widely used across the economy, from banking to retail” (p. 5). Design thinking is seen by business as key to gaining a competitive advantage, assisting businesses to innovate (Bucolo,Wrigley & Matthews, 2012), audit (Straker et al., 2021), respond, and adapt to change (Bruce & Bessant, 2002). Design thinking recognises that designers draw on a range of skills, tools, and technologies to deliver new products, services, and strategies (Design Council, 2018;Wrigley, 2017). Design thinking borrows methods from human-centred design practices, tools, and processes and focusses on iterative conceptualisation and prototyping with a cross/multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary approach to solving problems (van der Bijl-Brouwer & Dorst, 2017). Just as design thinking as a field in itself is evolving, so too is the way in which it is taught and to whom it is taught. As the book has described, many students wishing to study design thinking come from outside schools of design and it is this concept we explore in more detail in this section. As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the T-shaped designer primarily hosts two sets of characteristics, disciplinary depth represented through the vertical element, with the horizontal element representing disposition for collaboration across disciplines (Brown, 2010). Design students come in all shapes and sizes as depicted by the T-shaped designer model (Chapter 3, Figure 3.3). They all work at their own pace, have their own motivations and goals, ambitions, and dreams. Drawing on our experiences in this field, and through using a reverse persona design tool (Straker, Mosely & Wrigley, 2019), Figure 7.5 depicts four possibilities of T-shaped personas. These four personas will be used to explain different types of active learners within various design thinking programs. For example, design thinker A has a strong understanding of design and qualifications to reflect this, they use this knowledge to speak from experience and collaborate with other disciplines.They are developing a broad understanding of design thinking from the position of in-depth knowledge in design. While design thinker B is motivated by the traditional boundaries of design, they understand and can appreciate the value of design thinking; however, what drives them is a clear design brief with tangible outcomes and measures of success. In contrast, design thinker C is pursuing a design thinking skill set through a substantial undergraduate or postgraduate program to complement their original core disciplinary degree which sits outside of design (such as science, law, psychology). Similarly, design thinker D seeks or holds qualifications in a different core discipline and is pursing short courses in design thinking to better appreciate and understand the process and how they can

Conclusion  187

FIGURE 7.5 

T-shaped design thinking students

support it. Such combinations are attractive to enable them to stand out within their industry as employers are looking for more diverse 21st century skill sets that are beyond their core discipline. Reflecting on these four student persona types (design thinker A–D) the questions surrounding how to enrich the learning experiences of each combination needs to be investigated further from a pedagogical perspective. As each profile looks different, they have different motivations for being in class. Understanding the diversity of students’ backgrounds and their individual motivations is essential when designing learning experiences that build an active learner. Learning design thinking, and its application, is deeply experiential and relies on active reflection by the student throughout the process. The scope of each of these learning experiences in any of these persona types depends on the active nature of the student, the expertise of the facilitator, and the educational values of the tertiary institution. Importantly, the global impact of any one design thinking program has direct relationships with the national and international standards for design and design education.

7.4 Future Initiatives Looking forward, design thinking education will rely heavily on the principles of epistemic fluency we first introduced in Chapter 1. In the first chapter, we also highlighted that due to the complexity of real-world problems requiring attention, with social, political, and global factors contributing to these problems, solutions do not align neatly within academic disciplines. Addressing these problems requires a ­high-level intra-, cross/multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary skill set to traverse such boundaries and select the combination of disciplinary expertise required for the

188  Conclusion

problem. Working across disciplinary boundaries is a difficult task (especially when trying to gain in depth knowledge in one particular discipline at the same time) and is often learnt through doing – scaffolded by the reflective practice model. Working in such a way will give individuals inside organisations the permission and encouragement to cross these disciplinary boundaries. The knowledge, skills, and overall ability to successfully do this – to collaborate, merge, and transform disciplinary boundaries – is currently still in its infancy. Yet it is clear that design thinking can help bridge this gap, and it is the application of design thinking for this end that needs to be developed, tested further, and shared around the world for the field to truly improve. Tertiary education providers are obviously all in competition for students, and thus the lack of sharing of new initiatives, subjects, and courses can unfortunately create a closed learning community. This book has provided a first attempt at understanding the global landscape of design thinking pedagogy across all levels of tertiary education.We hope that this book will help to improve the guidance available to all design thinking educators and their interdisciplinary students of the future. Reflecting on the 21st century skill sets (as discussed in Chapter 1) it is evident that these are required to contribute to the cross-/multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary ways design thinking can help solve wicked problems. However, there is a significant void between knowing that these skills are needed and developing the necessary capabilities in students through tertiary education practices (Frickel, Albert, and Prainsack, 2016). As seen in the global snapshots throughout the book, there has been an increase in the development of design thinking courses at all levels of education and there is no agreed upon pedagogical approach across each level. The complexity of the issues the world is currently facing, our lack of knowledge on cross-/multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary teaching and learning, and our lack of accreditation (expertise) in the field of design thinking have all amounted to a perfect storm preventing the certification of better graduate outcomes. This is what we must first seek to address, moving forward.

7.5 Final Thoughts What does tomorrow look like? Design thinking provides methods and tools, combined with different cognitive approaches, to explore and understand problems through the frame of the end user. However, within the tertiary education system, is the end user the educator or the student? Arguably it is both, but for different reasons. First, the student as the end user needs to be prepared for the fast-paced and highly transient world of industry. Students must be equipped to matriculate with the relevant skills, knowledge, and abilities. Education ecosystems that are separated from and out of touch with their industry sectors risk generating graduates who are not fit for immediate employment. Indeed, a separation between the graduate and industry needs would be deleterious to any organisation as this latency permits competitors to outpace and out deliver them. The education sector, when viewed as a key enabler to the success or

Conclusion  189

failure of macro-level industry and government enterprise, needs design thinking more than ever. Design thinking practices, when empowered by the tertiary education leaders, can positively drive change and impact the ecosystems beyond it. The educator as the end user, decoupled from the graduate–industry interplay, offers a different perspective. When using the educator’s frame, design thinking looks to make research relevant. The relevance in question is highly contextual but must remain linked to the useful. Does some research qualify as a solution looking for a problem? If the answer is yes, then pursuing this research must be balanced against the wider, pressing need and opportunity space. Contextualising this research with a “so what” is where design thinking can help frame these research problems and provide novel opportunities in addition to possible industry applications. As a continuous global trend, academics will need to look more and more to industry to fund their research endeavours and as a result, industry will play a more important role within the education ecosystem. With this continual application and partnership with industry, such research will naturally permeate through to education, which makes education contextual, and therefore relevant to students. This is a cycle that not only keeps the academic (educator) relevant, but also students who are graduating into industry. Design thinking delivers a viewpoint to adjudicate this balance between research and industry relevant programs by facilitating innovation and making real-world impact.

APPENDIX A DESIGN THINKING PEDAGOGY DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITION

Pedagogy

Definition and Description

Typically, an independent project which integrates design thinking knowledge and understanding from the entire program, usually conducted over the final year or semester on a real-world project Case studies An in-depth, detailed investigation and examination of the application and implementation of design thinking within a real-world context Cohort-driven A collaborative peer-to-peer learning approach where students progress through a design thinking educational program together sharing knowledge and experiences Communities of practice Immersive learning within a group where students accumulate design thinking skills, knowledge, and experiences from each other Design crit A group conversation where a design thinking concept is analysed against criteria and objectives, and comments and feedback is provided. These can be formal and/or informal and conducted between teacher and students or students and students Design process A collection and reflection of evidence collated during the documentation (concept design process consisting of key design decisions, visual book) sketches, design thinking tools and methods as well as lessons learnt from prototype development and testing Design questioning Teachers (facilitators) and students (peers) probe, prompt, and question to consider multiple possibilities and alternative perspectives on their design thinking concept Capstone design project

Appendix A  191

Pedagogy

Definition and Description

Design studio environment A flexible and adaptive learning environment with formal and informal space for students to work and collaborate as the design thinking process dictates Digital channels Facilitates informal communication between students on (student-student) an online platform. for example, a Facebook group for sharing resources, tools, promoting events, and discussing recent publications Digital channels Facilitates formal communication between teacher/ (teacher-student) facilitator and students on an online platform, for example, the tertiary provider’s learning management system discussion forum Fabrication lab A collaborative workshop space to make, prototype and experiment with digital and/or physical materials to (maker space) creatively refine and evolve the design thinking concept Fieldwork Gathering user insights, contextual information, and practical experience to frame the design thinking problem through first-hand observations in real-world settings Group-based projects A small group of students (usually 4–5 people) draw on each other’s diverse discipline strengths to learn and collaborate on design thinking projects Guest lecturers An academic and/or industry expert invited to present on a specific design thinking topic, who draws from their expertise in that area to provide students with a diverse perspective Industry partnerships A collaboration with industry (including community and non-profit organisations) to enable students to access and apply design thinking to real-world organisational problems. These relationships are often built over time and can include mentoring, work experience opportunities, site visits, internships, residencies and research Hands-on learning Learning by doing and experiencing through applying design thinking to solve problems, experiment, prototype, test, and ultimately create new and novel solutions Hackathon An intense, time-constrained event, where students collaborate intensively on a design thinking problem. The intensity of the event encourages interdisciplinary collaboration forcing the team to work closely together to compete for the best design solution possible Hypothetical client-briefs A fictional scenario developed for a hypothetical client documented as a design brief Immersive problem Where the student is focused solely on the design problem environment context for the duration of a study period and is applying the knowledge from multiple design classes to the one problem context

192  Appendix A

Pedagogy

Definition and Description

Industry briefs

A real-world design-client brief, often a problem that the industry partner is currently facing within their organisation Students are responsible for and take control of their own learning, including what and how they learn An oral presentation to introduce a design thinking concept or topic, usually to a large group of students The relationship between two people sharing experiences, knowledge, and advice surrounding the professional practice of design thinking A collaborative, online meeting between teacher/facilitator and students where course content is discussed Students learn from and with each other, commonly through group work, student-led design crits, and within the design studio environment Research that is derived/conceived by an industry sponsored entity. Expected findings are practice-led and heavily focused on design thinking activities, outcome, and implementation Students gain knowledge and understanding of design thinking concepts, principles, methods, and outcomes through working on a project or problem in a course or subject Theoretical, conceptual, and practical publications on design thinking which are used to support course content A relatable and relevant problem which is authentic to students Physical gathering at an off-site venue of teachers, facilitators, industry partners (problem owners), and students for a certain number of days for the purpose of transferring and absorbing design thinking knowledge A design thinking proposal conceived and facilitated by the student Students are able to learn at their own speed and schedule A combination of a lecture and tutorial taught together with a small group of 5–15 students A group of 2–3 students discuss a particular design thinking topic or theory with guidance and feedback from the facilitator or other students A problem-based teaching method where students work on a design thinking project or problem through experimentation in a hands-on environment. Often the teaching space is set up to enable collaborative learning with the teacher acting as a facilitator floating around the room, answering student questions, and offering guidance and feedback on work

Learner autonomy Lectures One – one mentoring

Online video meetings Peer-to-peer learning

Practice-driven research

Project-driven learning

Readings

Real-world problems Residential seminars and training

Self-initiated proposals Self-paced learning Seminars Small-group learning

Studio-based teaching

Appendix A  193

Pedagogy

Definition and Description

Think tanks

A supportive environment where students meet to push each other to think differently, become aware of their own biases, and discuss design thinking research and experts Classes (15–25 students) where design thinking content from lectures and readings are examined and explored in-depth through facilitated discussion Visual recording of an oral presentation introducing theoretical design thinking content which often includes content and examples from industry including interviews with industry experts An intensive (varying from an hour to a week in duration), educational design thinking program for a group of students/participants, to accelerate an objective or problem space, usually with a facilitator guiding the participants

Tutorials

Videos

Workshops

APPENDIX B RELATED PUBLICATIONS

Mosely, G., Markauskaite, L., & Wrigley, C. (2021). Design facilitation: A critical review of conceptualisations and concepts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j. tsc.2021.100962 Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189. Mosely, G., Wrigley, C., & Key, T. (2020). White spaces for Innovation in tertiary education: Australian public providers perspectives. International Journal of Training Research, 18(3), 191–210. Wrigley, C. (2016). Design innovation catalysts: Education and impact. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2, 148–165. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2016.10.001 Wrigley, C. (2017). Principles and practices of a design-led approach to innovation. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5, 235–255. Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: A comparison of massive open online courses. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4(3), 275–292. Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 374–385. Wrigley, C.,Wolifson, P., & Matthews, J. (2021). Supervising cohorts of higher degree research students: Design catalysts for industry and innovation. Higher Education, 81, 1177–1196.

APPENDIX C ABOUT THE EXPERT SIDEBARS

EXPERT SIDEBAR 1.1  PROFESSOR CEES DE BONT Professor Cees de Bont has had an experienced design career in both industry and academia, leading arguably the best design schools in the world, beginning at Delft University of Technology (2005–2012), then The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2012–2018), and currently the School of Design and Creative Arts at Loughborough University. Before entering academia, Cees had a strong industry career with Royal Philips Electronics (1995–2005), where he was responsible for human behaviour research with Philips Design and for market intelligence and strategy with Domestic Appliances & Personal Care. In this expert sidebar, Cees comments on the shifting perspective of design education in these institutions over time while drawing on his practical design expertise from his time spent in industry.

196  Appendix C

EXPERT SIDEBAR 2.1  DR GJOKO MURATOVSKI Dr Gjoko Muratovski is a university executive, award-winning researcher and innovation consultant working with a wide range of universities, Fortune 500 companies, NGOs, and various governments from around the world. Throughout Gjoko’s career he has held numerous leadership and high-profile appointments at various academic and professional institutions. Gjoko is also the endowed chair and director of the Ullman School of Design at the University of Cincinnati, the oldest public design school in the United States. In this expert sidebar, Gjoko makes observations on the shifting landscape of design and design education, discusses the underlying theory of design thinking pedagogy, and presents the importance of research informing design practice.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 3.1  DR KARLA STRAKER Dr Karla Straker is currently senior research fellow at The University of Queensland. Prior to this, she was program director of the Design Major at The University of Sydney (2018–2021). During this time, Karla led the growth of the program from 59 students in 2018 to 139 students in 2020. Offering 12 units to students from 17 different degrees, the purpose of the program was to enable students to combine their expertise and work collectively on a range of projects by applying a design thinking approach. Karla has extensive experience working on industryled research projects, applying and adopting design innovation methods to drive innovative solutions. In this expert sidebar, Karla discusses undergraduate design thinking pedagogy, particularly the use of industry partnerships to enable students to work on real-world problems and the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary teamwork.

Appendix C  197

EXPERT SIDEBAR 4.1  DR SYLVIA LUI Dr Sylvia Xihui Liu has a strong mix of academic and industrial experience. In November 2011, she was appointed as visiting assistant professor to the School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, where she obtained her PhD degree in 2010 under the supervision of Professor John Heskett. Since then, she is responsible for teaching design and business-related subjects in the school at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. During 2011 and 2012, she was involved in the design for the new International Design and Business Management (ID&BM) master’s program, of which she has been program leader since 2017. More recently, Sylvia has led a team tasked with designing the new Innovative Business Design (IBD) postgraduate program, to be launched in 2022. Prior to her academic career, Sylvia had immense industry experience, most notably as design manager of Nova Design, the largest design team in the Chinese-speaking world. Sylvia has also consulted for leading brands such as Siemens, General Motors, Yamaha, Suzuki, Faw, Electrolux, BBK, Media, and Konka. In this expert sidebar, Sylvia reflects on the creation, context, and content of two master’s degrees hosted by one of the leading design schools in the world.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 4.2  PROFESSOR ANDY DONG, SARA FENSKE BAHAT, AND NATHAN SHEDROFF Professor Andy Dong is the head of the Oregon State University School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, a professor of mechanical engineering, and was the MBA in Design Strategy (DMBA) chair from 2017 to 2020. His research addresses strategy in the design and innovation of engineered products and systems and aims to explain the

198  Appendix C

impact of design strategy on productivity and the betterment potential of new products. Sara Fenske Bahat is the current chair of the DMBA. At California College of the Arts (CCA) Sara uses her experience with social systems, economics, and iterative problem-solving to sustain art and culture ecosystems and foster mutually productive partnerships. Nathan Shedroff is the founding chair of the groundbreaking DMBA at CCA. Nathan is a pioneer in experience design, interaction design, and information design, is a serial entrepreneur, and researches, speaks, and teaches internationally about meaning, strategic innovation, and science fiction interfaces.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 4.4  DR JUDY MATTHEWS Dr Judy Matthews commenced her career as a full-time academic after 15 years in human resource development and management in higher education, industry, and community development. Prior to joining the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in January 2007, she was a senior lecturer in the School of Management, Marketing and International Business in the College of Business and Economics at the Australian National University (ANU) and from 2002 to 2005 was the director of Master of Management program at the National Graduate School of Management at ANU. At QUT she teaches problem framing, creative action, and human centred design to MBA students. In this expert sidebar, Judy draws on her experience supervising a cohort of design innovation RHD students to discuss the underlying design thinking pedagogical approach based on a collaborative partnership between research and industry.

Appendix C  199

EXPERT SIDEBAR 5.1  PRFOESSOR JEANNE LIEDKTA Professor Jeanne Liedtka is a faculty member at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and former chief learning officer at United Technologies Corporation, where she was responsible for overseeing all activities associated with corporate learning and development for the Fortune 50 corporation, including executive education, career development processes, employersponsored education, and learning portal and web-based activities. Currently at Darden, Jeanne works with both MBAs and executives in the areas of design thinking, innovation, and leading growth. Jeanne’s Coursera MOOC, Design Thinking for Innovation, has had over 350,000 enrolments since the course was established in 2015. In this expert sidebar, Jeanne discusses how to structure, develop, and teach online and digital design thinking courses for non-designers and highlights the importance of engaging as many people as possible in foundational design thinking understanding.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 5.2  DR MURRAY SIMONS Dr Murray Simons served 30 years in the New Zealand Defence Force where he completed a number of roles in educational, staff, command, and operational appointments. During that time Murray served overseas on deployments, exercises, and exchanges in 21 countries and was a frequent presenter at various international conferences. Murray researches and teaches in advanced military education courses in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore. Murray’s research explores how design thinking related approaches could enhance the development of strategic artists for senior military appointments. In this expert sidebar, Murray reflects on the deployment of design thinking in not just the Australian War College but all the leading colleges of Western militaries. While much of the following is reinforced by personal observations and research, the assertions are supported in the academic literature.

200  Appendix C

EXPERT SIDEBAR 6.1  TOM KEY Tom Key is currently director of transformation, NSW Environment Protection Authority. Prior to this Tom has held multiple senior roles leading complex programs of work at PwC, TAFE NSW, ANZ, Optus and Second Road. As General Manager of Future & Innovation at TAFE NSW, Tom was responsible for one of the largest transformations to date regarding customer experience and future operating models. Here Tom synthesised complex, organisation-wide information to address key issues; utilising a collaborative, design-led approach, to lead the design of new products and experiences that meet students’ and teacher’s needs. In this expert sidebar, Tom reflects on his learning as a design leader for over 15 years as well as his most recent role at one of the largest Vocational Education Training organisations in the world.

EXPERT SIDEBAR 7.1  PROFESSOR LORRAINE JUSTICE Professor Lorraine Justice has extensive design experience working across both industry and academia, previously leading the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology (2011–2016) and the School of Design at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2004– 2011). Lorraine serves on the editorial boards for four design journals, sits on boards for universities and companies, and consults internationally for industry and government entities. Prior to joining academia, Lorraine worked in industry for 13 years as a digital designer for companies such as Battelle, CompuServe, Metatec, and NCR. In this expert sidebar, Lorraine presents the future of design education, discussing the skills a future designer will need and proposing that designers of the future may be specialists or generalists.

REFERENCES

Accenture. (2013). Accenture completes acquisition of Fjord. Expanding digital and marketing capabilities. Retrieved from https://newsroom.accenture.com/industries/ communications/accenture-completes-acquisition-of-fjord-expanding-digital-and-marketing-capabilities.htm Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M., & Dall’Alba, G. (2011). Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32, 588–607. doi:10.1016/j. destud.2011.07.004 Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N., & Romm, J. (2017). Design facilitation as emerging practice: Analyzing how designers support multi-stakeholder co-creation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3, 198–209. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2017.11.003 Anderson, T. (2011). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). Edmonton: Athabasca University Press. Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers.The Design Council, London. Reprinted in N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 57–82). Chichester: Wiley. Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1, 17–20. doi:10.1016/ 0142-694X(79)90023-1 Architects Accreditation Council of Australia. (2018). The national standard of competency for architects (2015 edition). Retrieved from http://competencystandardforarchitects.aaca.org. au/library/page/document/nsca-briefing.pdf Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA). (2016). Skills and capabilities for Australian enterprise innovation (Final Report). Retrieved from https://acola.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/08/saf10-skills-capabilities-enterprise-report.pdf Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2013). Australia qualifications framework (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://www.aqf.edu.au/sites/aqf/files/aqf-2nd-edition-­ january-2013.pdf Australian War College. (2020). Facilitators guide to learning. Retrieved from https://www. defence.gov.au/adc/awc/documents/AWC-Facilitators-Guide-V1.2.pdf Baeck, A., & Gremett, P. (2012). Design thinking: Expanding UX methods beyond designers. In H. Degen, & X.Yuan (Eds.), UX best practices: How to achieve more impact with user experience (pp. 229–250). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

202  References

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28. doi:10.1080/1359 432X.2010.485352 Ball, L. J., Christensen, B. T., & Halskov, K. (2021). Sticky notes as a kind of design material: How sticky notes support design cognition and design collaboration. Design Studies, 76, 1–31. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2021.101034 Barell, J. (2010). Problem-based learning: The foundation for 21st Century skills. In J. Bellanca, & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 175– 200). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. Barnett, B. G., & Muth, R. (2008). Using action-research strategies and cohort structures to ensure research competence for practitioner-scholar leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), 1–42. Barnett, R. (2018). The ecological university: A feasible utopia. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315194899 Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2015). Discovering the business studio. Journal of Management Education, 39, 153–175. doi:10.1177/1052562914532801 Beck, J., & Chiapello, L. (2016). Schön’s legacy: Examining contemporary citation practices in DRS publications. In P. Lloyd, & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society – Future-Focused Thinking, 10, 17–30. doi:10.21606/drs.2016.105 Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56. doi:10.2307/41166415 Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2020). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy. In H. Beetham, & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Principles and practices of design (3rd ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge. Beligatamulla, G. (2021). Design thinking pedagogy: A phenomenographic study of design thinking teaching in the higher education context (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https:// eprints.qut.edu.au/210530/ Beligatamulla, G., Rieger, J., Franz, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Making pedagogic sense of design thinking in the higher education context. Open Education Studies, 1, 91–105. doi:10.1515/edu-2019-0006 Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill. Björklund,T. A. (2013). Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices. Design Studies, 34, 135–160. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.005 Body, J. (2008). Design in the Australian Taxation Office. Design Issues, 24(1), 55–67. doi:10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.55 Body, J.,Terrey, N., & Tergas, L. (2010). Design facilitation as an emerging design skill: A practice approach. In K. Dorst, S. Stewart, I. Staudinger, B. Paton, & A. Dong (Eds.), DTRS8 Interpreting design thinking: Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (pp. 61–70). Sydney, Australia: DAB documents. Bongiovanni, I., & Louis, C. P. (2021).Theory and practice of design thinking: Perspectives of designers and business consultants. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 9, 174–191. doi:10.1080/21650349.2021.1929501 Bradbeer, J. (1999). Barriers to interdisciplinarity: Disciplinary discourses and student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23, 381–396. doi:10.1080/03098269985326 Bremner, C., & Rodgers, P. (2013). Design without discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), 4–13. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00217

References  203

Bridges, S. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chan, L. K., Green, J. L., & Saleh,A. (2020). Dialogic intervisualizing in multimodal inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15, 283–318. doi:10.1007/s11412-020-09328-0 Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. Brown, T. (2010). IDEO CEO Tim Brown: T-shaped stars: The backbone of IDEO’s collaborative culture. Retrieved from https://chiefexecutive.net/ideo-ceo-tim-brown-t-shaped-starsthe-backbone-of-ideoaes-collaborative-culture__trashed/ Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, 30–35. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ design_thinking_for_social_innovation#bio-footer Bruce, M., & Bessant, J. (2002). What is design? In M. Bruce, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Design in business: Strategic innovation through design (pp. 18–35). Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637 Buchanan, R. (2001). The problem of character in design education: Liberal arts and professional specialization. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 13–26. Bucolo, S., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2012). Gaps in organizational leadership: Linking strategic and operational activities through design-led propositions. Design Management Journal, 7(1), 18–28. Camacho, M. (2020). An integrative model of design thinking (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/ Campbell, D., Stockman, K., & Burns, D. (2020). Design and systems thinking for healthcare. In G. Melles (Ed.), Design thinking in higher education: Interdisciplinary encounters (pp. 91– 125). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5780-4_5 Carlile, P. R. (2002).A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442–455. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953 Carnegie Mellon University. (2021). BXA intercollege degree programs. Retrieved from https:// www.cmu.edu/interdisciplinary/programs/ Carvalho, L., Dong, A., & Maton, K. (2009). Legitimating design: A sociology of knowledge account of the field. Design Studies, 30, 483–502. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.005 Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2018). Design, learning networks and service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 27–53. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.003 Chalmers, L. (2001. Shifting the focus to postgraduate. In C. Swann, & E. Young (Eds.), Re-inventing design education in the university: Proceedings of the Perth Conference (pp. 137– 140). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 2–6. Choy, S., Delahaye, B. L., & Saggers, B. (2015). Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42, 19–34. doi:10.1007/ s13384-014-0147-y Cox, G. (2005). Cox review of creativity in business: Building on the UK’s strengths. Retrieved from https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120704143146 / http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/Cox_review-foreword-definition-terms-exec-summary.pdf Creative Australia. (2013). Creative Australia: National cultural policy. Retrieved from https:// apo.org.au/node/33126 Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3, 221–227. doi:10.1016/ 0142-694X(82)90040-0 Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. doi:10.1162/074793601750357196

204  References

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441. doi:10.1016/j. destud.2004.06.002 Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London, UK: Springer. Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28, 1–4. doi:10.1016/j. destud.2006.11.004 Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg. doi:10.5040/9781474293884 Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1994). Design expertise amongst student designers. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 13, 39–56. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.1994. tb00356.x Cross, N., Dorst, K., & Roozenburg, N. (Eds.). (1992). Research in design thinking: Proceedings of a workshop meeting held at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, May 29–31, 1991. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Delft University Press. d.school Stanford University. (2021a). About. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/ about d.school Stanford University. (2021b). Field notes: How to start a d.school. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/how-to-start-a-dschool d.school Stanford University. (n.d.). Design thinking bootleg. Retrieved from https://static1. squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/5b19b2f2aa4a99e99b26b 6bb/1528410876119/dschool_bootleg_deck_2018_final_sm+%282%29.pdf Davis, M. (2012). Leveraging graduate education for a more relevant future. Visible Language, 46, 110–121. Davis, M. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and the education of the design generalist. In S. Heller (Ed.), The education of a graphic designer (pp. 15–21). New York, NY: Allworth Press. Davis, M. (2017). Teaching design: A guide to curriculum and pedagogy for college design faculty and teachers who use design in their classrooms. New York, NY: Allworth Press. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca, & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–75). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Design. (2018). Macquarie Dictionary Online. Retrieved from https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au Design Council. (2010). Multi-disciplinary design education in the UK: Report and recommendations from the Multi-Disciplinary Design Network. Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/multi-disciplinary-design-education.pdf Design Council. (2015). Innovation by design: How design enables science and technology research to achieve greater impact. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/ files/asset/document/innovation-by-design.pdf Design Council. (2018). Designing a future economy: Developing design skills for productivity and innovation. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/ designing-future-economy-report Design Council. (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council evolved double diamond. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/ what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond Di Russo, S. (2016). Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/ Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17. doi:10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4 Dorst, K. (2011).The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521–532. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006

References  205

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001 Dorst, K. (2017). Notes on design: How creative practice works. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In P. Lloyd, N. Roozenburg, C. McMahon, & L. Brodhurst (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Engineering and Product Design Education Conference (pp. 159–166). Delft, the Netherlands: TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering. Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 177–181. doi:10.1177/0270467604264992 Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA084551 Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 512– 523. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473212 Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16– 25. doi:10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461 Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x Dzombak, R., & Beckman, S. (2020). The road to becoming a design thinking business professional: Expected bumps along the way. In G. Melles (Ed.), Design thinking in higher education: Interdisciplinary encounters (pp. 17–39). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5780-4_2 Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education:The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York, NY: Routledge. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2019). The education ecology of universities: Integrating learning, strategy and the academy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351135863 Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44, 2274–2306. doi:10.1177/0149206317744252 Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Evans, R., Kelly, N., & Kerr, J. (2021). Being a design academic: Design process, practice, thinking. In A. Blackler, & E. Miller (Eds.), How to be a design academic: From learning to leading (pp. 13–27). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Exley, K., Dennick, R., & Fisher, A. (2019). Small group teaching:Tutorials, seminars and workshops (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Foundation for Young Australians. (2015). The new work order: Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. Retrieved from https://www.fya. org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fya-future-of-work-report-final-lr.pdf Fleischmann, K. (2022). Design education in transition: A multidisciplinary design classroom with non-allied disciplines. The Design Journal, 25(1), 25–43. doi:10.1080/14606925.20 21.2004717 Frascara, J. (2020). Design education, training, and the broad picture: Eight experts respond to a few questions. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 106–117. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.003 Frickel, S., Albert, M., & Prainsack, B. (Eds.). (2016). Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: Theory and practice across disciplines. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

206  References

Friedman, K. (1997). Design science and design education. In P. McGrory (Ed.), The challenge of complexity: Based on the proceedings from the 3rd International Conference on Design Management at the University of Art and Design, Helsinki UIAH (pp. 54–72). Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki. Gardiner, P. (2020). Learning to think together: Creativity, interdisciplinary collaboration and epistemic control. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100749 Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. In S. Goldman, & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781317327585 Goldman, S., & Zielezinski, M. B. (2022). Design thinking for every classroom: A practical guide for educators. New York, NY: Routledge. Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2019).The impact on practice of wicked problems and unpredictable futures. In J. Higgs, S. Cork, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Challenging future practice possibilities (pp. 41–52). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Sense. doi:10.1163/9789004400795_004 Hagan, M. (2020). Legal design as a thing: A theory of change and a set of methods to craft a human-centred legal system. Design Issues, 36(3), 3–15. doi:10.1162/desi_a_00600 Hajkowicz, S., Reeson, A., Rudd, L., Bratanova, A., Hodgers, L., Mason, C., & Boughen, N. (2016). Tomorrow’s digitally enabled workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years. Brisbane, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-documents/16-0026_DATA61_ REPORT_TomorrowsDigiallyEnabledWorkforce_WEB_160128.pdf Ham, J. J., & Schnabel, M. A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: Social networking as facilitator of design education. Architectural Science Review, 54, 108–116. doi:10.1080/000 38628.2011.582369 Hattie, J. (2018). Updated list of factors influencing student achievement. Retrieved from http:// www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hatties-2017-updated-list/ Herbst, W., & McDonagh, D. (2017). Master’s degrees in design management: What’s in a name? Design Management Review, 28(3), 30–34. doi:10.1111/drev.12086 Heskett, J. (2001). Design: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hmelo, C. E., & Evensen, D. H. (2000). Introduction. Problem-based learning: Gaining insights on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evensen, & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Routledge. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 21–39. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi:10.1080/07370000701798495 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Bridges, S. M., & McKeown, J. (2019). Facilitating problem-based learning. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 297–320). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Hodge, S., & Smith, R. (2019). Innovation and VET student work placement. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 71(4), 519–537. doi:10.1080/13636820.2018.1535518 Hogan, C. (2002). Understanding facilitation:Theory and principles. London, UK: Kogan Page. Howard, J. H. (2016). ACOLA SAF 10: Securing Australia’s future – Capabilities for Australian enterprise innovation: The role of government, industry and education and research institutions in developing innovation capabilities: Issues arising from key informant interviews and matters for

References  207

policy consideration. Retrieved from https://acola.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ skills-capabilities-howard.pdf Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47, 187–207. doi:10.1007/ s11077-014-9199-0 Hung, W., Mehl, K., & Holen, J. B. (2013). The relationship between problem design and learning process in problem-based learning environments: Two cases. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 635–645. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0066-0 Iansiti, M. (1993). Real-world R&D: Jumping the product generation gap. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 138–147. IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/ post/design-thinking-for-educators IDEO. (n.d.). IDEO design thinking history. Retrieved from https://designthinking.ideo. com/history Jackson, S. (2018, June 21). Why we don’t need to prepare young people for the ‘future of work’. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ why-we-dont-need-to-prepare-young-people-for-the-future-of-work-98385 Jensenius, A. R. (2012). Disciplinarities: Intra, cross, multi, inter, trans. Retrieved from https:// www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-2/ Johansson Sköldberg, U.,Woodilla, J., & Berthoin Antal,A. (2015). Artistic interventions in organizations: Research, theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315743486 Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, 121–146. doi:10.1111/ caim.12023 Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Learning to solve complex problems. New York, NY: Routledge. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge. Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem- based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 6–28. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1080 Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Jones, M. (2018). Contemporary trends in professional doctorates. Studies in Higher Education, 43, 814–825. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1438095 Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431–441. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3, 285–306. doi:1 0.2752/175470811X13071166525216 Kimbell, L., & Sloane, M. (2020). Mapping design thinking resources outside of higher education –An exploratory study.In G.Melles (Ed.),Design thinking in higher education:Interdisciplinary encounters (pp. 141–164). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5780-4_7 Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In J. G. Gaff, & J. L. Ratcliff (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change (pp. 393–415). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/ 978-981-287-444-3_1 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

208  References

Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. doi:10.4324/9780203299951 Kumar,V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10, 345– 353. doi:10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00051-0 Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge. Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Abingdon, UK: Architectural Press. Lawson, B. R. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22, 59–68. doi:10.1080/00140137908924589 Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: Helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 558–570. doi:10.1080/1 4703297.2013.866329 Lee,Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: The challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4, 31–50. doi:10.1080/15710880701875613 Leifer, L. J., & Steinert, M. (2011). Dancing with ambiguity: Casualty behavior, design thinking, and triple-loop learning. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 10(1–4), 151– 173. doi:10.3233/IKS-2012-0191 Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2003). Universal principles of design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport. Liedtka, J. (2000). In defence of strategy as design. California Management Review, 42(3), 8–30. doi:10.2307/41166040 Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie,T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Liedtka, J., Ogilvie,T., & Brozenske, R. (2019). The designing for growth field book: A step-by-step project guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Lloyd, P. (2013). Embedded creativity: Teaching design thinking via distance education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 749–765. doi:10.1007/ s10798-012-9214-8 Lucero, A., Dalsgaard, P., Halskov, K., & Buur, J. (2016). Designing with cards. In P. Markopoulos, J.-B. Martens, J. Malins, K. Coninx, & A. Liapis (Eds.), Collaboration in creative design (pp. 75–95). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_5 Luck, R. (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 28, 217–242. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.002 Luka, I. (2019). Design thinking in pedagogy: Frameworks and uses. European Journal of Education, 54, 499–512. doi:10.1111/ejed.12367 Maher, M. L., Simoff, S., & Cicognani, A. (1996). The potential and current limitations in a virtual design studio. Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing, University of Sydney. Manzini, E. (2014). Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57–66. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00248 Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4

References  209

Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Matkin, G.W. (2013). Massive open online courses: Looking ahead by looking back. Continuing Higher Education Review, 77, 49–56. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cher/77/Matkin Matthews, J., & Wrigley, C. (2011). Design and design thinking in business and management education and development. In K.Voges & B. Cavana (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference:The future of work and organisations (pp. 1–19). Wellington, New Zealand: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management. McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 63–74. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.590979 McCoy, K. (1990). Professional design education: An opinion and a proposal. Design Issues, 7(1), 20–22. doi:10.2307/1511467 McKenna, S. (2017). Crossing conceptual thresholds in doctoral communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 458–466. doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1155471w McKinsey & Company. (2015). Landing LUNAR. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey. com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/landing-lunar# McKinsey & Company. (2021). Defining the skills citizens will need in the future world of work. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/ our-insights/defining-the-skills-citizens-will-need-in-the-future-world-of-work McLaughlan, R., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Facilitating epistemic fluency through design thinking: A strategy for the broader application of studio pedagogy within higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24, 81–97. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1461621 Meisiek, S., Wad, L., & Zubrickaite, E. (2020). Design thinking in the business studio. In G. Melles (Ed.), Design thinking in higher education: Interdisciplinary encounters (pp. 183–202). Singapore: Springer. Melles, G. (2020). Introduction: Design thinking – Tensions and opportunities. In G. Melles (Ed.), Design thinking in higher education: Interdisciplinary encounters (pp. 1–16). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5780-4_1 Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (innovations in higher education teaching and learning, vol. 3) (pp. 191–209). Oxford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Intradisciplinary. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 3, 2020 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intradisciplinary Mewburn, I. (2012). Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio pedagogy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11, 363–379. doi:10.1177/ 1474022210393912 Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 13–49. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002 Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36, 124–148. doi:10.1111/jpim.12466 Middleton, H. (2005). Creative thinking, values and design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 61–71. doi:10.1007/ s10798-004-6199-y Moon, J.A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning:Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

210  References

Mosely, G., Markauskaite, L., & Wrigley, C. (2021). Design facilitation: A critical review of conceptualisations and concepts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 1–13. doi:10.1016/ j.tsc.2021.100962 Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004 Mosely, G., Wrigley, C., & Key, T. (2020). White spaces for innovation in tertiary education: Australian public provider perspective. International Journal of Training Research, 18(3), 191–210. doi:10.1080/14480220.2020.1860303 Moyle, K. (2010). Building innovation: Learning with technologies (Australian Education Review No. 56). Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu. au/aer/10/ Mulligan, S., & Kennedy G. (2017). To what degree? Alternative micro-credentialing in a digital age. In R. James, S. French, & P. Kelly (Eds.), Visions for Australian tertiary education (pp. 41–53). Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Muratovski, G. (2015). Paradigm shift: Report on the new role of design in business and society. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1, 118–139. doi:10.1016/j. sheji.2015.11.002 Napier, P., & Wada, T. (2017). Defining design facilitation: Exploring and advocating for new, strategic leadership roles for designers and what these mean for the future of design education. Dialectic, 1(1), 154–178. doi:10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0001.110 Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. (2021). About NZTE. Retrieved from https://www.nzte. govt.nz/page/about-nzte Noël, G. (2020). We all want high-quality design education: But what might that mean? [Editorial]. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 5–12. doi:10.1016/ j.sheji.2020.02.003 Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (2016). When you come to a fork in the road, take it: The future of design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2, 343–348. doi:10.1016/ j.sheji.2017.07.003 Nusem, E., Matthews, J., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Toward design orientation and integration: Driving design from awareness to action. Design Issues, 35(3), 35–49. doi:10.1162/ desi_a_00548 Nusem, E., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2017). Developing design capability in nonprofit organizations. Design Issues, 33(1), 61–75. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00426 O’Keefe, A., & Rottenberg, S. (2017). Integrated design innovation: A mindset for designers of tomorrow. Design Management Review, 28(3), 10–16. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills. Education 2030. Retrieved from https://www. oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/E2030_Position_Paper_(05.04.2018).pdf Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2018). Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315415130 Orr, S.,Yorke, M., & Blair, B. (2014). ‘The answer is brought about from within you’: A student-centred perspective on pedagogy in art and design. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33, 32–45. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2014.12008.x Oster G. W. (2008). Derailing design thinking. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 4, 107–115. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur,Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers (Vol. 1). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

References  211

Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27. Papanek,V. J. (1972). Design for the real world. London, UK: Thames and Hudson. Park, J.Y. (2011). Design education online: Learning delivery and evaluation. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 30, 176–187. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2011.01689.x Phelan, S. E., & Glackin, C. E. (2021). A cautionary note on microcredentialing in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4, 261–281. doi:10.1177/2515127419899599 Press, M., & Cooper, R. (2016). The design experience: The role of design and designers in the twenty-first century. London, England: Routledge. QS World University Rankings. (2021). Art & design. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2021/art-design Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 923–945. doi:10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010, November 29–December 1). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2010), Kobe, Japan. Reid, A. (2005). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved from https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/115751/scpp-00187-nat-2005.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Reilly, A. C., Dillon, R. L., & Guikema, S. D. (2021). Agent-based models as an integrating boundary object for interdisciplinary research. Risk Analysis, 41(7), 1087–1092. doi:10.1111/risa.13134 Reilly, R. C. (2008). Is expertise a necessary precondition for creativity? A case of four novice learning group facilitators. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 59–76. doi:10.1016/j. tsc.2008.02.002 Reimann, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2018). Expertise. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 54–63). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315617572-6 Rittel, H. W. H., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730 Rodgers, P. A., & Bremner, C. (2017). The concept of the design discipline. Dialectic, 1(1), 19–38. doi:10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0001.104 Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Royal Australian Air Force. (n.d.). Plan Jericho – At the edge. Retrieved from https://www. airforce.gov.au/our-mission/plan-jericho Royalty, A. (2018). Design-based pedagogy: Investigating an emerging approach to teaching design to non-designers. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 125, 137–145. doi:10.1016/j. mechmachtheory.2017.12.014 Ryan, M. (2020). The intellectual edge: A competitive advantage for future war and strategic competition. Joint Forces Quarterly, 96(1), 6–11. Säljö, R. (1979). Learning about learning. Higher Education, 8, 443–451. doi:10.1007/ BF01680533 Sampalli, T., Shepherd, M., & Duffy, J. (2011). Clinical vocabulary as a boundary object in multidisciplinary care management of multiple chemical sensitivity, a complex and chronic condition. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 4, 91–102. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S17564 Sanders, E. B.-N. (2017). Design research at the crossroads of education and practice. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3, 3–15. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2017.05.003

212  References

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscape of design. CoDesign, 4, 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Seet, P.-S., Jones, J., Spoehr, J., & Hordacre, A.-L. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: The implications of technological disruption for Australian VET. Retrieved from https:// www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3161125/The-Fourth-IndustrialRevolution-the-implications-of-technological-disruption-for-Australian-VET.pdf Shreeve, A. (2015). Signature pedagogies in design. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design pedagogy: Developments in art and design education (pp. 83–94). Farnham, UK: Gower. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. doi:10.1162/0011526054622015 Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Simons, M. (2009). Holistic professional military development: Growing strategic artists (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/1544/02_ whole.pdf Singh, S. (2016). Future and value of graduate design education Master of Design 2031 (Master’s dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/ 10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=osu1461202275 Smith, K. M. (2015). Conditions influencing the development of design expertise: As identified in interior design student accounts. Design Studies, 36, 77–98. doi:10.1016/j. destud.2014.09.001 Smith-Doerr, L., Croissant, J.,Vardi, I., & Sacco,T. (2017). Epistemic cultures of collaboration: Coherence and ambiguity in interdisciplinarity. In S. Frickel, M. Albert, & B. Prainsack (Eds.), Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: Theory and practice across disciplines (pp. 65– 83). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Snowden, D. F., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–149. Southgate, E. (2020). Virtual reality in curriculum and pedagogy: Evidence from secondary classrooms. London, UK: Routledge. Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365–378. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z Star, S. L. (2010).This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624 Steinitz, C. (1990). A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal, 9, 136–143. doi:10.3368/lj.9.2.136 Steinitz, C. (1995). Design is a verb; design is a noun. Landscape Journal, 14, 188–200. doi:10.3368/lj.14.2.188 Stickdorn, J., & Schneider, M. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Straker, K., Mosely, G., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Identifying a set of line manager personas to guide new product introduction strategy. Strategy and Leadership, 47(4), 34–42. doi:10.1108/sl-04-2019-0064 Straker, K., Wrigley, C., & Nusem, E. (2021). Design innovation and integration. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Tadros, E. (2019, May 14). KPMG falls for digital development firm Love Agency. Financial review. Retrieved from https://www.afr.com/technology/kpmg-falls-fordigital-development-firm-love-agency-20190512-p51mlx

References  213

Taheri, M., & Meinel, C. (2015). Pedagogical evaluation of the design thinking MOOCs. In R. Vande Zande, E. Bohemia, & I. Digranes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 469–481). Aalto, Finland: Aalto University School of Arts, Design, and Architecture. Retrieved from http://www.cumulusassociation.org/learnxdesign-proceedings-of-the-3rd-international-conference-fordesign-education-researchers/ Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., & Meinel, C. (2016). Design thinking at scale: A report on best practices of online courses. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research: Taking breakthrough innovation home (pp. 217–235). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40382-3_13 Tan, S. (2021).Towards an integrative approach to researching design expertise. Design Studies, 74, 1–28. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2021.101017 Temple, P., & Fillippakou, O. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. The higher education academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ system/files/Learning_spaces_v3.pdf Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P. R., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM Learning in Australian Schools (Policy Insights Issue 7). Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/7/ Tomitsch, M., Wrigley, C., Borthwick, M., Ahmadpour, N., Frawley, J., Kocaballi, A. B., … Loke, L. (2018). Design.Think. Make. Break. Repeat: A handbook of methods. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Tormey, R., Issac, S., Hardebolle, C., & Le Duc, I. (2022). Facilitating experiential learning in higher education:Teaching and supervising in labs, fieldwork, studios, and projects. New York, NY: Routledge. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Dorst, D. (2017). Advancing the strategic impact of humancentred design. Design Studies, 53, 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.003 Voûte, E., Stappers, P. J., Giaccardi, E., Mooij, S., & van Boeijen, A. (2020). Innovating a large design education program at a university of technology. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 50–66. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.001 Wahl, D. C., & Baxter, S. (2008).The designer’s role in facilitating sustainable solutions. Design Issues, 24(2), 72–83. doi:10.1162/desi.2008.24.2.72 Wallgren, L., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2007). Industrial doctoral students as brokers between industry and academia: Factors affecting their trajectories, learning at the boundaries and identity development. Industry and Higher Education, 21, 195–210. doi:10.5367/000000007781236871 Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 63–74. doi:10.11120/ jebe.2008.03020063 Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2013). Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop integrative learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 771–802. Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems:The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179–198). Milton Keynes, UK: Springer. Wilson, S., & Zamberlan, L. (2015). Design for an unknown future: Amplified roles for collaboration, new design knowledge, and creativity. Design Issues, 31(2), 3–15. doi:10.1162/ DESI_a_00318

214  References

Wilson, S., & Zamberlan, L. (2017). Design pedagogy for an unknown future: A view from the expanding field of design scholarship and professional practice. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 36(1), 106–117. doi:10.1111/jade.12076 Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: Communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 301–320. doi:10.1080/14703290701486720 Withell, A., & Haigh, N. (2013). Developing design thinking expertise in higher education. In J. B. Reitan, P. Lloyd, E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielson, I. Digranes, & E. Lutnæs (Eds.), DRS Cumulus Oslo 2013 – Proceedings of the 2nd Internadtional Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 237–250). Retrieved from https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/ conference-volumes/42/ World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of technology. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://widgets.weforum.org/nve-2015/ Wrigley, C. (2013). Design dialogue: The visceral hedonic rhetoric framework. Design Issues, 29(2), 82–95. Wrigley, C. (2016). Design innovation catalysts: Education and impact. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2, 148–165. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2016.10.001 Wrigley, C. (2017). Principles and practices of a design-led approach to innovation. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5, 235–255. doi:10.1080/216503 49.2017.1292152 Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., Gill, M., & Reid, J. (2019). Air Force by design: Applying design for transient capability advantage. In A. P. Jackson (Ed.), Design thinking: Applications for the Australian Defence Force (pp. 51–70). Canberra, ACT: ADC Publications. Wrigley, C., Mosely G., & Mosely, M. (2021). Defining military design thinking: An extensive, critical review. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 7(1), 103–143. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2020.12.002 Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: A comparison of massive open online courses. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4, 275–292. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2018.06.002 Wrigley, C., Rana, H., Hinton, P., & Mosely G. (2021). The defence by design framework: Conceptual foundations and practical applications. Journal of Design, Business and Society, 7(2), 211–233. doi:10.1386/dbs_00028_1 Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 374–385. doi:10.1080/14703297.2 015.1108214 Wrigley, C.,Wolifson, P., & Matthews, J. (2021). Supervising cohorts of higher degree research students: Design catalysts for industry and innovation. Higher Education, 81, 1177–1196. doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00605-3 Wyn, J. (2009). Touching the future: Building skills for life and work (Australian Education Review No. 55). Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu. au/aer/9/ Yew, E. H. J., & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-based learning:An overview of its process and impact on learning. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 75–79. doi:10.1016/j.hpe.2016.01.004

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italics and bold refer to figures and tables respectively. Aalto University: innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs 88; MA International Design Business Management (ID&BM) program 96 Accenture 131 accreditation 5, 28–29, 97, 102, 125, 182–184, 188 active learner 52–53, 53, 148, 156, 167, 170, 173, 179–180, 178; digital design thinking pedagogy 116, 123, 125, 127; professional design thinking pedagogy 134, 140–142, 145, 145; undergraduate design thinking pedagogy 78 adaptability 20, 43 ADC see Australian Defence College ADF see Australian Defence Force advanced beginner 42 agent-based models 39 Agogino, A. M. 3 Agudelo, N. 44–45 Aguirre, M. 44–45, 155 Albrecht, S. L. 39 Anderson, N. 20 Anderson, T. 117 apprenticeship 9 Archer, B. 31; Systematic Method for Designers 7; The Three R’s 7 Australian Command and Staff College 160 Australian Defence College (ADC) 159–160, 162–164, 165, 166

Australian Defence Force (ADF) 134, 138, 168, 177; Defence and Strategic Studies Course 160; designing learning experiences in 159–167, 161–165; educational design ladder 162; Facilitators Guide to Learning 160–167, 161, 163–165 Australian Defence Force Academy 160 Australian Design Council: design manifesto 26 Australian Institute of Architects 183 Australian Public Service 163 Australian Qualifications Framework 148 Australian Taxation Office 131 Australian War College (AWC) 132, 137–138; Defence by Design framework 134, 135, 138, 139, 143; Facilitator’s Guide 139; intuitive boundary objects 143 AWC see Australian War College Baeck, A. 38 Bahat, S. F. 99–105, 198 Bakker, A. B. 39 Barnett, R. 146–147 Barrett, T. 20 Barry, M. 46 Beck, J. 50 Beckman, S. L. 46, 51 Beetham, H. 15–16 bespoke training, in design thinking 130–131

216  Index

Bessant, J. 31 Beverland, M. B. 38 Bhatti, S. H. 38 Blair, B. 17 Body, J. 44 Bond, M. 94 Bongiovanni, I. 131 Boone, M. E. 45 Botturi, L. 117 boundary crossing 4, 127, 177 boundary objects 16, 29, 37, 39, 51–52, 53, 65–66, 75–76, 78, 98, 106, 114, 123, 127, 134, 136, 140–141, 144, 151, 153, 154, 167, 174–175, 177, 179; bespoke 155–156; intuitive 142–143, 143 Bradbeer, J. 18 Bremner, C. 10 Brown, T. 2, 3, 6, 37, 38, 56–57, 68–69; Design Thinking 8 Brozenske, R.: The designing for growth field book: A step-by-step project guide 123 Bruce, M. 31 Buchanan, R. 3, 4; Wicked Problems in Design Thinking 2, 8 Burns, D. 46–47 Business Model Canvas 142 Butler, J.: Universal Principles of Design 76 California College of the Arts 33; innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs 86; MBA in Design Strategy 96 Campbell, D. 46–47 Canvas 117 capitalisation 10 capstone design project 190 Carlile, P R. 39 Carnegie Mellon University: Degree with Design Concentration 67 Carvalho, L. 44, 146 case studies 190 Center for Integrated Design, The University of Texas: cross-faculty labs 68 Çetinkaya, M. 3; Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures 9 Chiapello, L. 50 Chickering, A. W 117 co-design workshops 16, 151, 153–154, 154, 163, 163, 167 cohort-driven 99, 190 collaboration 11, 20, 25, 33, 56–57, 83, 128, 148, 159, 168, 170, 186, 188; cohort 112; cross-disciplinary 37; group 117, 171; interdisciplinary 1, 16, 58, 72; peer-topeer 179

combined bachelor’s degrees 66–68 communication skills 58, 75, 104, 171 communities of practice 43, 43, 114, 190 competent 42 conceptual theory 43, 53, 78, 98, 113, 124, 127, 144, 175–177 “cookie-cutter” approach 27 Cooper, R. 31, 183 cooperative learning 49, 59 The Core of “Design Thinking” and its Application (Dorst) 8 Coursera 117 creativity 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, 170 Cross, N. 3, 42–44; Designerly Ways of Knowing 8; Research in Design Thinking 7 cross-disciplinary 12, 14, 172, 187; collaboration 37; definition of 13 cross-faculty labs 68–69, 76 cross-pollination 4 curriculum 5, 9–11, 15, 18, 20, 23–24, 27, 55, 59, 68, 79, 85, 93–94, 137, 154, 181–182; content 81, 97, 130; development 146; DMBA 100–102, 104–105; higher education 10; planning 184; undergraduate design thinking 74 Davis, M. 9, 12, 58, 83 de Bont, C. 23–25, 195 declarative knowledge 41, 137 Defence by Design framework 134, 135, 139, 139, 143 deliberate practice 43, 43 Dennick, R. 48 design application 48–49, 53 design crit 16, 75–76, 98, 171, 190 design dialogue 16 design education 5, 23, 27–29, 31, 34–36, 83, 96, 182–184, 187, 195; boundaries of, reshaping 9–15; “cat-and-mouse” game for 169; contemporary 80; craftbased model of 80; curriculum 181; and design practice, relationship between 84; future of 105; postgraduate 10, 80–82; professional 178; prototypes 175; structural model 81; tertiary 123 Designerly Ways of Knowing (Cross) 8 design expertise 5, 28, 41–44, 46, 83, 134, 141, 155–156, 169, 184; levels of 42, 42–43, 176; models 43, 43 design facilitation 44–45 design facilitators 27, 44–45, 50, 141, 183 Design for the Real World (Papanek) 7 design for transformation master’s programs 85, 89–92

Index  217

design generalist 58, 79 Designing for Growth: a design thinking toolkit for managers (Liedtka & Ogilvie) 123 The designing for growth field book: A stepby-step project guide (Liedtka, Ogilvie & Brozenske) 123 design inquiry 48–49, 53, 55 design integration 177 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization (Kumar) 76 Design methods: seeds of human futures (Jones) 7 The Design of Everyday Things (Norman) 124 design practice 9–10, 16, 24, 30–33, 42–44, 57, 72, 106, 112, 119, 185–186; architectural 50; and design education, relationship between 84; and design research, relationship between 111; evolution of 26; in postgraduate education 80–84, 81 design problem complexity 45–46 design process documentation 190 design profession 30–33, 82, 97, 118, 169 design projects 16–17, 25, 59, 66, 94, 146, 149, 165–166 design questioning 190 design reasoning 181–182 Design Research Society 50 design skills 10, 23–24, 26, 41, 59, 65, 73, 102, 109, 181 design studio 17, 66, 68–69, 71, 75, 96, 117; environment 16, 50, 65, 191; pedagogy 16, 18, 75; as social practice 16 design theory 24, 31, 59, 82, 157 design thinker 6, 115–116, 186–187; characteristics of 37; expert 5; T-shaped 57, 58, 68, 74 design thinking 1, 4, 115–116; attributes 37, 38; definition of 2; discourses about 31–32; education, disciplinarity of 11–12, 12, 14; emergence of 6; expert 5; learning 18; pedagogy see design thinking pedagogy; in postgraduate education, mastering see postgraduate education, mastering design thinking in; process 77; see also individual entries Design Thinking (Brown) 8 Design Thinking (Rowe) 7, 31–32 design thinking education: disciplinarity of 169–172; future initiatives 187–188; future of 183–187; landscape 32–33; theoretical learning foundations in 46–50

Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, and Çetinkaya) 9 design thinking pedagogy 4–5; attributes of 17; contextualising 15–27; definition of 16–17; digital 118, 123; disciplinary models of 14; ecosystem and ecology framework 167–168, 168; framework 51–53, 51, 53, 173–180, 173; outcomes of 23; postgraduate coursework 96–99, 98–99; principles and practices of 37–46; processes and methods 39–41, 40–41; professional 140–145, 143, 144–145; purpose of 19–23, 21–22; relationship with education ecosystems, and learning ecologies 146–147, 147; research on 30– 53; role of 11, 12; undergraduate 73–79, 74, 77–78; see also individual entries design thinking postgraduate coursework programs, global snapshot of 84–92, 84; design for transformation 85, 89–92; innovation 85, 86–88; management 85, 86–88; strategy 85, 86–88 design thinking process: digital design thinking pedagogy 126–127; foundation 173–175, 173; higher degree research design thinking pedagogy 113; postgraduate coursework design thinking pedagogy 98; professional design thinking pedagogy 144 design thinking undergraduate education, for epistemic fluency 54–79; combined bachelor’s degrees 66–68; crossfaculty labs 68–69; global snapshot of 58–70, 60–64; interdisciplinarity 54–55; intradisciplinarity 54–55; multidisciplinarity 54–55; multidisciplinary design degrees 69–70; transdisciplinarity 54–55; T-shaped designer 55–58, 56–57; university-wide minors and majors 59, 65–66 Design.Think. Make. Break. Repeat.: A Handbook of Methods (Tomitsch) 65, 76 The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (Nelson and Stolterman) 8 DesignWorks, Rotman School of Management 33 desk crit 17 Dewey, J. 2 digital channels: student-student 191; teacher-student 191 digital design thinking education: global snapshot of 118, 119–122; online teaching 117–118

218  Index

digital design thinking pedagogy 118, 123–127; boundary objects 123; implications of 126–127; knowledge offering 125; learning outcomes versus educational engagement 125–126; online resources 124; reflective expert facilitator 124; student experience 126 Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning (Rittel & Webber) 7 Dillon, R. L. 39 Di Russo, S. 5–6 disciplinary models 12, 13, 14 Dong, A. 44, 99–105, 198 Dorst, K. 3, 41–42, 186; The Core of “Design Thinking” and its Application 8; Research in Design Thinking 7 double diamond design process 32, 40, 41 d.school Stanford University 32–33, 39–40, 40, 131; cross-faculty labs 68–69; Design Thinking Bootcamp 116 Duffy, J. 39 Dunne, D. 3 Dym, C. L. 3 Dzombak, R. 46, 51 ecology of learning: definition of 159; designing 159; design thinking pedagogy framework 167–168, 168; relationship with design thinking pedagogy and education ecosystems 146–147, 147 Edgy Air Force 132–136, 134–135, 149, 155; audience, knowing 135; boundary objects, use of 136; intuitive boundary objects 143; purpose, communicating 135 educational design ladder 18–19, 19, 74 educational ecosystem: definition of 148; designing 147–148; design thinking pedagogy framework 167–168, 168; relationship with design thinking pedagogy and learning ecologies 146–147, 147; TAFE NSW 148–156, 149–154 Edx 117 Ellis, R. A. 146–148, 159 Emily Carr University of Art + Design: design transformation programs 92 empathy 15, 37, 39–40, 56–57, 116, 157, 160, 174 enterprise skills 20 enthusiasm 57, 126 epistemic fluency 4, 15, 18, 28, 169–172; design thinking undergraduate education for 54–79; undergraduate design thinking pedagogy for 73–79, 74, 77–78

Eris, O. 3 Evans, R. 184 evidence-based research 34 Exley, K. 48 experiential knowledge 43, 43 experiential learning 17–18, 35, 52, 71, 96, 117, 187; cycle of 47; definition of 46; theory 46–48 experimentalism 37, 57 expert 42 fabrication lab 175, 191 facilitator expertise 141 feedback 20, 40, 46, 101, 105, 128, 131, 155, 162–165, 168, 175; formative 16; positive 72 fieldwork 96, 191 Fisher, A. 48 Fjord 131 Fourth Industrial Revolution 36 Frascara, J. 83 Frey, D. D. 3 Future Learn 117 Gamson, Z. F. 117 general capability skills 20 Goodyear, P. 4, 6, 18, 20, 37, 39, 45, 52–53, 55, 112, 117, 146–148, 159, 169 Gremett, P. 38 group-based projects 171, 191 group collaboration 117, 171 Guàrdia, L. 117 guest lecturers 25, 191 Guikema, S. D. 39 hackathon 191 hands-on learning 35, 191 Hansen, M. 56 Hardebolle, C. 48 Hasso-Plattner-Institute: d.school model 33 HDR see higher degree research Herbst, W. 97 Heskett, J. 31, 94 higher degree research (HDR) 174, 177, 179–180; design catalysts 106–108, 107, 107, 108 higher education institutions 10 Holden, K.: Universal Principles of Design 76 Holen, J. B. 46 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Bachelor of Social Design 69–70; BA [Hons] in Social Design 171; innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs 86

Index  219

Howard, J. H. 23 How Designers Think:The Design Process Demystified (Lawson) 7 human-centred design 6, 30–31, 68, 110, 139, 158, 186 Hung, W. 46 hypothetical client-briefs 191 Iansiti, M. 55–56 ID&BM see International Design and Business Management IDEO 6, 138, 186; collaborative culture 56; design thinking processes for educators 32; digital design thinking courses 121; Hello Design Thinking 123 Illinois Institute of Technology: Master of Business Administration (MBA) 33; Master of Design 33 immersive problem environment 191 In Defence of Strategy as Design (Liedkta) 8 individual entries 1, 5, 10, 20, 26, 166, 175, 184, 187 industry briefs 66, 84, 192 industry partnerships 71, 74, 191 innovation 4–5, 9, 20, 23, 25–26, 30, 32–37, 39, 53, 58, 71, 170; building 23; business 10; creativity and 11, 12, 14–15; design 16; in master’s programs 85, 86–88; national 54; practice 53, 53, 78, 98, 106, 114, 127, 144, 156, 177–179, 185; teams 2 innovative practice 177–178 inquiry-based learning 16, 154 integrative thinking 37, 57 intellectual edge 137, 159–160, 162 interdisciplinarity 10–12, 54–55 interdisciplinary 11, 12, 14, 26, 39, 44, 59, 65–67, 80, 85, 171, 172, 188; collaboration 1, 16, 58, 72, 75, 170; definition of 13; knowledge 2; problemsolving 2; skill 10, 83; teams 17; teamwork 71–72 International Design and Business Management (ID&BM): master’s program 93–95, 95 intradisciplinarity 54–55 intradisciplinary 12, 14, 172, 187; definition of 13 Issac, S. 48 Johansson-Sköldberg, U. 3, 4; Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures 9 John Hopkins Carey Business School 33

Jonassen, D. H. 46 Jones, J. C.: Design methods: seeds of human futures 7 Justice, L. 180–182, 201 KADK see Royal Danish Academy of Arts KAIST: digital design thinking courses 122 Kaospilot 138 Kelley, D. 6 Kelly, N. 184 Kerr, J. 184 Key, T. 156–158, 200–201 Kimbell, L. 123; Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I 8 knowledge 4–5, 10–12, 16, 19–20, 23, 27, 31, 33, 44–46, 47, 52, 59, 66–67, 70, 72–73, 81, 83, 94, 104, 109–111, 115, 132–133, 136, 147–148, 151, 156, 158, 164, 169, 171, 177, 179–182, 184, 186, 188–189; boundaries 1, 55; building 35, 48, 68, 112; co-creation 55; creation 48–49, 49; declarative 41, 137; disciplinary 57, 75, 170; economy 20, 23; experiential 43; experts 41, 141; foundational 1, 5, 20, 58, 75, 117–118, 126, 145; interdisciplinary 2, 26; management 166; offering 125; tacit 49, 106; technical 20, 56; transdisciplinary 2; transfer 112; transformation 37, 39 Kolb, D. A. 46–48, 51 Koole, M. 117 KPMG Australia 131 Krippendorf, K.: The Semantic Turn: New Foundation for Design 8 Kumar,V.: 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization 76 Lancaster University: BA [Hons] Design 171; Design BA (Hons) 69 Laurillard, D. 17 Lawson, B. 41–42; How Designers Think:The Design Process Demystified 7 learner autonomy 112, 171, 192 learning model for developing designed capability 46 learning outcomes versus educational engagement 125–126 lectures 192 Le Duc, I. 48 Leifer, L. J. 3 Leiter, M. P 39 Lidwell, W.: Universal Principles of Design 76

220  Index

Liedtka, J. 128–130, 199; Designing for Growth: a design thinking toolkit for managers 123; The designing for growth field book: A step-by-step project guide 123; In Defence of Strategy as Design 8 Liu, S. X. 197 Lloyd, P. 117 Lodge, J. M. 18, 169–170 Loughborough University: innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs 88 Louis, C. P. 131 Luck, R. 44 Lui, S. 85, 93–95 Lunar 131

Mosely, G. xvi, 10, 27, 44–45, 133–135, 141, 151–152, 151–152, 154, 186 motivational support 43 MS/MSc see Master of Science multidisciplinarity 54–55 multidisciplinary 11–12, 32–33, 39, 59, 65– 67, 73–74, 76, 79–80, 94–96, 115, 117, 171, 172, 179, 182, 187; collaborative work 75; definition of 13; design degrees 69–70; peer-to-peer learning 75; teamwork 75 Multi-Disciplinary Design Education in the UK (UK Design Council) 11 Mura, M. 38 Muratovski, G. 33–36, 196

MA see Master of Arts macro-level work 146, 155 Manzini, E. 80 Markauskaite, L. 4, 6, 18, 20, 37, 39, 45, 52–53, 55, 112, 169 Martin, R. 3 massive open online courses (MOOCs) 10, 115, 117, 128 master 42 master-apprentice model 9 Master of Arts (MA) 82, 97 Master of Arts in Design programs 97 Master of Design (MDes) 10, 33, 82–85, 97 Master of Fine Arts (MFA) 82, 97 Master of Science (MS/MSc) 82, 85, 97 materiality 16, 118 Maton, K. 44 MATTER 131 Matthews, J. 112, 131, 198–199 MBA 82, 85 MBA in Design Strategy (DMBA) 100–105 McCoy, K. 79, 81–82 McDonagh, D. 97 McKinsey & Company 20, 131 McLaughlan, R. 18, 169–170 MDes see Master of Design Mehl, K. 46 Meinel, C. 117–118, 126 Meisiek, S. 17 Melles, G. 20, 59 Mewburn, I. 16–17, 50 Meyer, M. W. 81–82, 97 MFA see Master of Fine Arts Micheli, P. 38 micro-credentials 10, 115–116, 132 micro-level work 146–147 MIT D-Lab 68 MOOCs see massive open online courses Moon, J. A. 48

naïve 42 National Standard of Competency for Architects 183 National University of Singapore: Innovation & Design Programme 66 Nelson, H. G.: The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world 8 New Zealand: Better by Design 131–132; Trade and Enterprise 131 Norman, D. 81–82, 97; The Design of Everyday Things 124 Norman, D. A. 31 novice 5, 41–42, 42, 45, 65, 142, 174 Nusem, E. 131, 142 Ogilvie, T.: Designing for Growth: a design thinking toolkit for managers 126, 129; The designing for growth field book: A step-by-step project guide 123 one–one mentoring 192 online video meetings 192 optimism 6, 37, 57 Orr, S. 16–17, 45 Oster G. W. 38 Osterwalder, A. 142 Owen, C. 38, 46, 47, 48, 51 Papanek,V. 24; Design for the Real World 7 Parsons School of Design 33; Strategic Design and Management BBA 66, 171 participatory design 26, 30, 44 PBL see problem-based learning pedagogy 2; definition of 16; design thinking see design thinking; signature 17–18 peer-to-peer collaboration 179 peer-to-peer learning 68–69, 75, 96, 107, 171, 192 perceptiveness 43

Index  221

Pigneur,Y. 142 Plan Jericho 132–133 PME see Professional Military Education postgraduate coursework design thinking pedagogy 96–99; HDR design catalysts 106–108, 107, 107, 108; implications of 98–99 postgraduate design education 10; coursework programs, global snapshot of 84–92, 84, 86–92; design practice 80–84, 81; mastering design thinking in 80–114; postgraduate coursework design thinking pedagogy 96–99, 98–99 pracademics 104 practice-driven research 192 Press, M. 31, 183 problem-based learning (PBL) 16–17, 19–20 problem-based model 35 problem complexity 6, 16, 45–46, 51–52, 53, 78, 98, 106, 113, 127, 134, 144, 175–176, 179 problem framing 43, 45, 133 problem-solving process 1–2, 6, 15–16, 20, 23, 32, 39, 42, 45–46, 52, 65–66, 68, 75, 131, 133, 138, 157, 165–166, 182 problem-solving skills 30, 35, 58 problem structure 46 professional conduct 71 professional design thinking education: bespoke training 130–131; government initiatives 131–132 professional design thinking pedagogy: engagement through applied activities 140–141; facilitator expertise 141; implications of 144–145; intuitive boundary objects 142–143, 143; relevancy to context and problem set 142 professional identity 81 Professional Military Education (PME) 137 project-driven learning 171, 192 RAAF see Royal Australian Air Force Rapanta, C. 117 rationality 15 readings 192 real-world problems 19, 35, 46, 66, 75, 96, 123, 154, 169, 187, 192 reflection-in-action paradigm 49 reflective expert facilitator 124 reflective facilitator 52–53, 53, 78, 142, 148, 156, 167–168, 172–173, 175–179, 176, 178; digital design thinking pedagogy 127; professional design thinking pedagogy 144; teacher as 184–185

reflective practice 43, 43, 49, 52, 68, 96, 126, 132, 159, 188 reflective practitioner 46, 49–50, 50, 52; implications in higher degree research design thinking pedagogy 113–114; postgraduate coursework design thinking pedagogy 98 The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Schön) 7 Reilly, A. C. 39 Reilly, R. C. 42 Research in Design Thinking (Cross, Roozenburg and Dorst) 7 residential seminars and training 192 Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I (Kimbell) 8 RIT see Rochester Institute of Technology Rittel, H. 6; Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning 7 RMIT University: design transformation programs 91; Master of Design Futures 171 Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT): Design Thinking Fundamentals 124; digital design thinking courses 119; MicroMasters program in Design Thinking 116, 124 Rodgers, P. 10 Romm, J. 44–45 Roozenburg, N.: Research in Design Thinking 7 Rowe, P. 3, 7; Design Thinking 7, 31–32 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) 132–136, 142 Royal College of Art: design transformation programs 90 Royal Danish Academy of Arts (KADK): innovation, strategy, and management master’s programs 87; MBA the Master of Design (Strategic Design and Entrepreneurship) 96 Royalty, A. 17 Ryan, M. 159 Säljö, R. 75 Sampalli, T. 39 San Diego Design Lab 68 Schneider, M.: This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases 76 Schön, D. A. 31, 45, 47, 49–51; The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action 7 School of the Art Institute of Chicago 97 The Sciences of the Artificial (Simon) 7 Second Road 157

222  Index

self-directed lifelong learning 54 self-initiated proposals 192 self-paced learning 177, 192 The Semantic Turn: New Foundation for Design (Krippendorf) 8 seminars 106, 108, 192 service design 30 Sharpe, R. 16 Shedroff, N. 99–105, 198 Shepherd, M. 39 Shreeve, A. 16–17, 45 Shulman, L. S. 16 Simon, H. A. 2, 31; The Sciences of the Artificial 7 Simons, M. 136–140, 139, 200 skills 1, 4, 11, 15, 18, 24–26, 28, 30, 37, 40–45, 55, 59, 65–68, 70–73, 76, 80–81, 85, 96–97, 101–103, 106, 109, 112, 115–117, 125, 130–131, 136–137, 141, 148, 152, 155, 158, 169–170, 181–182, 184, 186–189; acquisition 41, 43, 43; building 75; communication 58, 75, 104, 171; critical thinking 35, 58; design 10, 23–24, 26, 41, 59, 65, 73, 102, 109, 181; development 32, 71, 151; enterprise 20; foundational 20, 21–22; general capability 20; interdisciplinary 10, 83; leadership 105; multidisciplinary 33; problem-solving 30, 35, 58; proficiency 57; soft 19–20, 23, 71; technical 20, 31, 58; transferable 20, 54 Sloane, M. 123 small-group learning 160, 192 Snowden, D. F. 45 soft skills 19–23, 21–22, 71 Southgate, E. 16 standards 97, 183–184 Stanford University: design transformation programs 91; The Loft 96; MS in Engineering, Design Impact 96 Stickdorn, J.: This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases 76 Stockman, K. 46–47 Stolterman, E.: The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world 8 Straker, K. 18, 70–74, 76, 142, 162, 196–197 strategic design 25, 30, 97 structural design education model 81 student-student digital channel 191 studio-based teaching 24, 171, 192 Systematic Method for Designers (Archer) 7 TAFE NSW 146–158, 149, 167–168, 177; bespoke boundary objects 155–156; design expertise 155–156; design

thinking process 149–154, 150; future business model presentation 153; future teacher co-design workshop using bespoke boundary objects 154; multifaceted problem complexity 155; organisational buy-in 155; public providers existing model 151; public providers future model 154, 154; value proposition mapping 152 Taheri, M. 117–118, 126 Tan, S. 43 teacher, as reflective facilitator 184–185 teacher-student digital channel 191 tertiary education 2, 4–5, 11, 15, 18, 20, 27– 29, 37, 50, 52, 77, 80, 117, 145–148, 151, 159, 168–171, 176, 188–189; institutions 10, 33, 115, 148, 157, 168; leaders 147 think tanks 68, 193 This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases (Stickdorn & Schneider) 76 Thompson-Whiteside, S. 20 The Three R’s (Archer) 7 Tomitsch, M.: Design.Think. Make. Break. Repeat.: A Handbook of Methods 65, 76 Tormey, R. 48 transdisciplinarity 54–55 transdisciplinary 1–2, 11–12, 12, 14, 14, 18, 36, 54–55, 59, 67, 70, 74–75, 85, 95, 171–172, 172, 185–188; definition of 13; design 85; engagement 18; knowledge 2; research 36; skill 187 transferable skills 20, 54 T-shaped designer 55–58, 56–57, 74, 74, 170, 186, 187; capabilities and attributes of 58; characteristics of 68–69 tutorials 193 Udacity 117 Udemy 117 UI see user interface (UI) design UK Design Council 26, 31, 186; double diamond design process 32, 40, 41; Multi-Disciplinary Design Education in the UK 11 undergraduate design thinking pedagogy 73–79, 74; implications of 77–78 Universal Principles of Design (Lidwell, Holden & Butler) 76 University of California San Diego 124; digital design thinking courses 122 University of Leeds: digital design thinking courses 121; Get Creative with People to Solve Problems 123–124; Problem Solving in the Digital Age Expert Track program 124

Index  223

The University of Michigan: design transformation programs 89; MDes in Integrative Design 171 University of Singapore 67 University of Sydney: digital design thinking courses 120; Innovation Through Design:Think, Make, Break, Repeat 123–124 The University of Sydney: Design Major 65–67, 71 University of Technology Sydney (UTS): Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation (BCII) 66–68 The University of Texas: BDP Design Strategies 68; Center for Integrated Design 68 University of Virginia: Design Thinking for Innovation 123, 125, 128; digital design thinking courses 119; “What is? What if? What wows? What works,” 125 University Technology Sydney: Bachelor of Creative Intelligence (BCII) 171 university-wide minors and majors 59, 65–66 user experience (UX) design 30 user interface (UI) design 30 UTS see University of Technology Sydney UX see user experience (UX) design

VET see vocational education and training videos 193 visionary 42 vocational education and training (VET) 148–149, 151–156 Wad, L. 17 Webber, M. 6; Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning 7 Webster, H. 50 Western Association of Schools and Colleges 102 wicked problems 2, 6, 45–46, 53, 58, 71, 137, 170, 188 Wicked Problems in Design Thinking (Buchanan) 2, 8 Wilner, S. J. S. 38 Wilson, S. 30 Wolifson, P. 112 Woodilla, J. 3; Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures 9 workshops 193 Wrigley, C. xvi, 18, 73–74, 112, 117–118, 126, 142, 162 Wyatt, J. 3 Yorke, M. 16–17 Zamberlan, L. 30 Zubrickaite, E. 17