Irwin, T. (2015). Redesigning a Design Program: How Carnegie Mellon University is Developing a Design Curricula for the 21st Century. Solutions 6(1): 91-100. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/redesigning-a-design-program-how-carnegie-mellon-university-is-developing-a-design-program-for-the-21st-century/
On The Ground
Redesigning a Design Program: How Carnegie Mellon University is Developing a Design Curricula for the 21st Century by Terry Irwin
School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
Faculty engaged in twice-monthly retreats and used the same approaches to brainstorming and synthesis that they teach their students.
I
n the past 20 years, the field of design has undergone tremendous change. Design’s universality as a powerful approach to problem solving and its potential to serve as a catalyst for positive social and environmental change are finally being recognized. Increasingly, designers play key roles in many domains such as business, government, notfor-profit sectors, and grassroots activism. Design also has an important part to play in one of the biggest challenges
confronting us in the 21st century: the transition to a sustainable society. This transition can be viewed as a ‘wicked’ design problem that can only be addressed through the collaboration of people from myriad professions, disciplines, and all walks of life. This challenges educators to reconceive design programs and curricula to prepare students with the flexibility, knowledge, and skillsets needed to address the problems confronting society in a globally interconnected and interdependent world.
Framing the Problem The design school at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) is one of the topranked programs in North America and alumni take up challenging positions within well-respected design firms, companies, and not-for-profit organizations around the world. I joined as the Head of the School of Design in 2009 and shortly after my arrival I led a complete review of our programs. Our curricula had not kept pace with the unprecedented degree of change described above and the faculty
www.thesolutionsjournal.org | January-February 2015 | Solutions | 91
On The Ground and I felt that a new kind of designer was needed for the 21st century. Design is ubiquitous—we live the majority of our lives in the designed or ‘built’ world, and design is connected to many of the large problems confronting society. However, its very ubiquity gives it the potential to play a key role in the resolution of these same issues. Design is inherently a problemsolving process and fundamental skills of the designer are the ability to look for meaningful problems, frame them within appropriate contexts, and design a process for developing and implementing a solution. For this reason, designers are increasingly called upon to work in transdisciplinary teams on what the design industry refers to as ‘wicked’ problems. These are ill-defined, complex, systemic, and purportedly unsolvable problems. Such problems have multiple constituencies with conflicting agendas and are comprised of seemingly unrelated, yet interdependent elements, each of which manifest as problems in their own right, at multiple levels of scale. An example of a local design problem that is connected to a larger regional/global wicked problem might be the design of a better system of bike lanes in a city. Designing transport alternatives that reduce our dependency on oil is connected to the global energy crisis, global warming, pollution, and the controversial practice of fracking at the regional/local levels. In a 2001 essay written after the events of 9-11, physicist and environmentalist Fritjof Capra connected the problem of global terrorism to the United States’ wasteful energy policy. Solving for wicked problems like this requires new knowledge and skill sets. Firstly, designers must be able to ‘see’ the wicked problem(s) and its myriad manifestations and interconnections. Secondly, they must be able to work
School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University
Faculty explored numerous ways in which topics related to social and environmental issues could be introduced into the curricula.
effectively within transdisciplinary teams to solve for them. The design and implementation of a strong local biking network involves issues related to urban planning, government policy, and catalyzing behavioral change as well as communication—all arenas for design. The faculty at CMU had to ask themselves what new information had to be introduced into our curricula to prepare designers to work effectively on problems like those described above. We also wanted to develop new programs that responded to the demand from
92 | Solutions | January-February 2015 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org
other disciplines and professions to be equipped with the tools and processes of design. New curricula introduce students to the elements of a holistic/ecological worldview and provide a grounding in living systems principles, ecology, indigenous/ place-based wisdom, alternative economics/politics, and climate change to name a few. Students also work extensively in groups (often with students from other disciplines) in order to develop the ‘posture’ and skill necessary to collaborate effectively with those from other professions and disciplines.
On The Ground
Design for Interactions
The Built World
The Social World
The Natural World
© School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014 School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014
Figure 1. This framework provides the philosophical underpinning for all programs and curricula and places all design within social and environmental contexts.
Shifting a Culture I felt that significant programmatic and curricular change needed to be based upon an internal culture shift that challenged faculty to acquire new knowledge outside the field of design and take up new postures and ways of working. Facilitating cultural change is slow but vital work: leaders are often charged to produce quick results via a ‘top–down’ process, but unless people work collaboratively over time, a transformational solution is unlikely. This way of working builds trust, encourages people to let go of their old ways of working, and challenges them to examine their assumptions and beliefs. We developed several objectives that informed a slow, iterative, multiyear change process. We wanted to cultivate a collaborative culture that was committed to change, consensus-driven, and willing to think in long horizons of time (planning for the next 25+ years). We were also committed to empowering the next generation of tenured faculty to lead and charged the senior tenured faculty to serve as mentors.
To launch this process, I asked the full-time faculty to attend bimonthly retreats held at the end of the day from 4:30 until 7:00 pm. These were supplemented with twice yearly fullday retreats. Retreats provided faculty with the opportunity to voice concerns, fears, and aspirations and formulate objectives. Most importantly, it created a space in which we could think meaningfully about the school’s future. Retreats employed the same design facilitation, brainstorming, and analysis approaches that we teach our students. Faculty worked together in different formats and configurations to identify areas of mutual interest and complementarity. In hindsight, I realize that the value of the first year was not the ideas and solutions we developed but rather the cultural transformation that resulted. After two and a half years of working together this way, the faculty developed a (mostly) collaborative, consensual group process that became the basis for profound change.
At the end of this phase, in January of 2013, I charged a smaller group with designing new curricula and programs at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels. This group was comprised of five members of next-generation tenured faculty who were also leaders of programs and disciplinary tracks within the school. The associate head of the school and myself joined the group representing senior tenured faculty. Our group met several times a month between January and April of 2013 to develop a theoretical framework that would unite programs at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels; new masters and doctoral programs; and revitalized curricula for all degree programs. The results were presented to the full faculty for feedback in May of 2013. Feedback was then incorporated and a comprehensive proposal for new programs and curricula (that also met Middle States Accreditation) was presented and unanimously approved at our university’s college council at the end of May. The new programs launched in August 2014.
www.thesolutionsjournal.org | January-February 2015 | Solutions | 93
On The Ground
Design for Interactions
Designed/ Built World Products, Communications Environments & Research
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Transition Design
Moderate change: Existing paradigms & systems
Significant change: Emerging paradigms & systems
Radical change: Future paradigms & systems
Design Tracks
Areas of Design Focus
Natural World
Context for All Design © School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014 School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014
Figure 2. The pedagogical framework places design within larger social and environmental contexts and provides three areas of new, emerging, and nascent design focus.
A New Pedagogical Framework
A Continuum of Design Approaches
The School’s new pedagogical framework is intended to unify programs and encourage a greater level of practical and intellectual exchange between students and faculty at the undergraduate and graduate levels. On a philosophical level the framework acknowledges that the ‘designed’ or ‘built’ world is always embedded within the social world and both of these are always embedded within the ‘natural’ world or environment. The built, social, and natural worlds are nested, interconnected, and interdependent spheres in which countless continual interactions take place. For this reason, we say that we are “a school of design for interactions among people, the things they make and use, and the environment.” Placing the design of products, communications, and environments (both physical and digital) within the greater contexts of society and the natural world compels students to
Mature discipline
Developing discipline
Emergent discipline
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Transition Design
Design within existing socioeconomic & political paradigms
Design that challenges existing socioeconomic & political paradigms
Design within radically new socio-economic & political paradigms
Solutions reach users through many ‘touch points’ over time through the design of experiences. Solutions are based upon the observation and interpretation of users’ behavior and needs within particular contexts. Service design solutions aim to provide profit and benefits for the service provider and useful and desirable services for the user (consumer). Solutions are usually based within the business arena and existing, dominant economic paradigm.
Design that meets a social need more effectively than existing solutions. Solutions often leverage or ‘amplify’ exsiting, under-utilized resources. Social innovation is a ‘co-design’ process in which designers work as facilitators and catalysts within transdisciplinary teams. Solutions benefit multiple stakeholders and empower communities to act in the public, private, commercial and non-profit sectors. Design for social innovation represents design for emerging paradigms and alternative economic models, and leads to significant positive social change.
Refers to design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures and the reconception of entire lifestyles. It is based upon an understanding of the interconnectedness and inter-dependency of social, economic, political and natural systems. Transition design focuses on the need for ‘cosmopolitan localism’, a place-based lifestyle in which solutions to global problems are designed to be appropriate for local social and environmental conditions. Transition design challenges existing paradigms, envisions new ones, and leads to radical, positive social and environmental change.
Scale of time, depth of engagement, and context expand to include social & environmental concerns
School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014
Figure 3. Continuum of Design Approaches.
94 | Solutions | January-February 2015 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org
On The Ground frame design problems within ethical and environmental contexts. At a pedagogical level, the undergraduate tracks in products, communications, and environments lie at the center of the framework. These three areas of new, emerging, and nascent design theory and practice—design for service, design for social innovation, and transition design—represent areas in which projects and research are situated. These areas are related and complementary and can be situated along a continuum in which spatiotemporal contexts expand and deepen. Design for Service is a well-established approach to solving problems within multi-stakeholder ‘ecologies’ and shifts the focus from discreet products and communications to the quality of interactions and experiences between service providers and customers. Design for Social Innovation is an emergent field that expands design contexts to address problems in the social, cultural, and economic domains, often outside the context of the business and consumer marketplace. Transition design is a nascent area for design research, practice, and study where speculative, long-term visions of sustainable lifestyles fundamentally challenge existing social, economic, and political paradigms. These visions serve to inspire and inform the design of short and midterm solutions.
Providing Flexibility and Choice within Programs and Curricula Designers have a key role to play in the transition to a sustainable society and will contribute to solutions in the commercial, nonprofit, and government sectors. As designers step into these new and diverse roles,
Continued on Page 98
BDes Flexible Curriculum: Customized Pathways Choosing a Design Track(s) Intro to 3Flexible Design TracksCurriculum: BDes Customized Pathways In semesters 1 - 3, students are introduced to3three areas of design specialty: Intro to Design Tracks Products (P),1Communications (C) & In semesters - 3, students are introEnvironments In the third semester duced to three(E). areas of design specialty: they begin(P), to focus their interests Products Communications (C)and & delve deeper into of the three areas. Environments (E).two In the third semester they begin to focus their interests and delve deeper into two of the three areas.
Freshman Year
In semesters 4 - 6 students make the choice to specialize a single area or Choosing a Design in Track(s) choose two of4the areas to create In semesters - 6 three students make the an interdisciplinary choice to specialize focus. in a single area or choose two of the three areas to create an interdisciplinary focus.
Sophomore Year
Junior Year
Choosing a Design Focus In semesters 7 and 8, students applya their design Choosing Design Focus specialty to projects In semesters 7 and 8,situatstued within twotheir areas of dents apply design design focus: Design situatfor specialty to projects Service Design ed within(Sv) twoorareas of for Social Innovation (Si).for design focus: Design Service (Sv) or Design for Social Innovation (Si). Senior Year
Fall Year Fall FallYear 6 Spring 7 Fall Spring Year Senior Year 8 1Freshman 2 Spring 3Sophomore 4 Spring 5Junior 1 Fall 2 Spring 3 Fall 4 Spring 5 Fall 6 Spring 7 Fall 8 Spring
P C E P C E
P C E P C E
P+C
P
P
P
P+C P+E
P C
P C
P C
P+E C+E
C E
C E
C E
C+E
E
E
E
Sv
Sv
Sv Si
Sv Si
Si
Si
1. Product designer with familiarity in Design for Service and Social Innovation: This student has chosen to develop a specialty in product design and in his final year 1. Product designer with familiarity in Design for Service and Social Innovation: chooses to apply that expertise in both areas of design focus: design for service and This student has chosen to develop a specialty in product design and in his final year design for social innovation. chooses to apply that expertise in both areas of design focus: design for service and design for social innovation. Freshman Year
Sophomore Year
Junior Year
Senior Year
Fall Year Fall FallYear 6 Spring 7 Fall Spring Year Senior Year 8 1Freshman 2 Spring 3Sophomore 4 Spring 5Junior 1 Fall 2 Spring 3 Fall 4 Spring 5 Fall 6 Spring 7 Fall 8 Spring
P C E P C E
P C E P C E
P+C
P
P
P
P+C P+E
P C
P C
P C
P+E C+E
C E
C E
C E
C+E
E
E
E
Sv
Sv
Sv Si
Sv Si
Si
Si
2. Communication & Environments designer with a focus in Design for Social Innovation : This student has chosen to develop specialties in both communications and 2. Communication & Environments designer with a focus in Design for Social environments. In her final year she chooses to specialize in design for social innovation Innovation : This student has chosen to develop specialties in both communications and and spends 2 semesters working on projects in that space. environments. In her final year she chooses to specialize in design for social innovation and spends 2 semesters working on projects in that space. School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014
Figure 4. Two sample pathways (out of dozens) show how an undergraduate student can choose their depth/breadth of study. www.thesolutionsjournal.org | January-February 2015 | Solutions | 95
On The Ground
Graduate Degrees 1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
M AST ERS
MA Master of Arts in Design
MPS Master of Professional Studies
MDes Master of Design
DDes D O CTO RA L
Doctor of Design
< year one of the MDes
Design for Interactions
Practice Redirection
DDes Doctor of Design
PhD
Doctor of Philosophy in Design
PhD
Doctor of Philosophy in Design
Transition Design
Transition Design
Design Studies
School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014 © School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2013
Figure 5. The redesigned programs offered at the graduate levels. 96 | Solutions | January-February 2015 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org
On The Ground
6 Pathways for Non-Designers 6 Pathways for Non-Designers
1 year 1 year year 1. MA Master of year 1. MA Arts MA Master of MA Arts
year 3. year 3.
MA Master of MA Arts
Master of in Design Arts in Design
Master of in Design Arts in Design
year 4. MA Master of year 4. MA Arts
year 6. year 6.
Master of in Design Arts in Design
MA Master of MA Arts Master of in Design Arts in Design
MA Master of MA Arts Master of in Design Arts in Design
3 year 3 year
4 year 4 year
5 year 5 year
6 year 6 year
Provides a foundation in design thinking/tools/process
Master of in Design Arts in Design
year 2. year 2.
year 5. year 5.
2 year 2 year
Provides a foundation in design thinking/tools/process
PhD Doctor of PhD Philosopy
+ + MPS + MPS + MPS PhD + MPS +PhD + + MDes + MDes + MPD MHCI MTID or or + MPD MHCI MTID or or + Doctor of in Design Philosopy in Design
Master of Professional Master Studiesof Professional Studies
Master of Professional Master Studiesof Professional Studies
Design Studies Design only Studies only
Provides a foundation to enter the design practice
Provides a foundation to enter the design practice
Doctor of Philosopy Doctor of in Design Philosopy in Design
Master of Design Master of Design
Master of Product Master of Development Product Development
Design Studies or Transition Design Design Studies or Transition Design Practice redirection/qualification as a designer
Practice redirection/qualification as a designer
Master of Human Master of Ix Computer Human Computer Ix
Master of Tangible IxD Master of Tangible IxD
Provides an excellent foundation in design and serves as a springboard to Provides excellent in another an CMU degreefoundation in engineering, design andhuman serves computer as a springboard to business, interaction, another degree in engineering, tangibleCMU interaction design or business business, human computer interaction, for a 2 year degree. tangible interaction design or business for a 2 year degree.
4 Pathways for Designers 4 Pathways for Designers year 1. year 1. year 2. year 2.
MPS Master of MPS Professional Master Studiesof Professional Studies
MPS Master of MPS Professional MDes Master of MDes Design
year 4. year 4.
DDes Doctor of DDes Design
Master of Design
Doctor of Design
Expands on prior experience through a focus on design for interactions
+ +
Master Studiesof Professional Studies
year 3. year 3.
Expands on prior experience through a focus on design for interactions
PhD Doctor of PhD Philosopy Doctor of in Design Philosopy in Design
Design Studies or Transition Design Design Studies or Transition Design Preparation for practice in research and design for interactions Preparation for practice in research and design for interactions
PhD
Doctor of or PhD Philosopy of in Design or Doctor Philosopy in Design
School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014 © School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014
Figure 6. Program pathways were redesigned to make design tools more accessible to students from other © School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, 2014 disciplines.
www.thesolutionsjournal.org | January-February 2015 | Solutions | 97
On The Ground Continued from Page 95 correspondingly new knowledge and skill sets are required. Among these are the ability to frame problems within more appropriate and responsible contexts; to facilitate action and work effectively within transdisciplinary teams; and to formulate visions of sustainable lifestyles and the road maps to get there. Our new programs incorporate these skillsets. They are also designed to provide more flexibility and choice at the undergraduate level and multiple degree pathways for both designers and nondesigners at the graduate levels.
An important objective was to make the problem-solving approaches and tools of design more accessible to those from other disciplines.
Transition Design: Design for the 21st Century A centerpiece of the new programs is Transition Design: a proposition for design practice, study, and research that advocates design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures. Transition designers can come from all walks of life and use the tools and processes of design to reconceive entire lifestyles as well as society’s infrastructure
Transition visions stimulate new thinking and cause designers to look for knowledge in new places. Our undergraduate program has always offered two tracks: communication design and product design. To this we’ve added a new track: environments. This new track acknowledges that communications and products often come together in complex ecologies within both physical and digital spaces. Students in the environment track develop a deeper understanding of user relationships at different systems levels as well as the complex array of technologies that inform new products and experiences. Undergraduate students can also choose between a single focus or specialty or customize their degree to combine any two of the three tracks offered. Programs at the graduate levels (masters and doctoral) were redesigned in a modular format that provides multiple degree pathways for students with and without design backgrounds.
(policies, energy resources, transport, manufacturing, economy and food, healthcare, and education systems). Transition Design focuses on the need for ‘cosmopolitan localism,’ a lifestyle that is place-based and regional yet global in its awareness and exchange of information and technology. Transition design students acquire a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of social, economic, and natural systems in order to conceive solutions that leverage the power of interdependency and symbiosis. The transition design framework outlines four key mutually reinforcing and co-evolving areas of knowledge, action, and self-reflection: Vision, Theories of Change, Mindset/ Posture, and New Ways of Designing. Transition visions stimulate new thinking and cause designers to look for knowledge in new places. New
98 | Solutions | January-February 2015 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org
knowledge leads to shifts in mindset and posture and all three of these areas will give rise to new ways of designing. Transition design integrates new knowledge from outside the design disciplines, advocates a shift to a new, more holistic and ecological worldview, proposes more open and collaborative postures, and a deeper understanding of social systems. All masters and doctoral students take a transition design seminar and undergraduate design studies courses are informed by transition design theory. Both DDes and PhD students have the option to undertake research in transition design and two full PhD fellowships in transition design will be offered beginning in the fall of 2015.
Concluding Thoughts In my experience, it is rare for a program like ours to attempt such sweeping programmatic and curricular change. There is always the danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and we were firm in our resolve to remain true to the program’s historic roots and preserve its strengths and fundamentals. The ability to design a holistic solution in the form of values-based programs and curricula would not have been possible without the following: 1. A culture shift that was based upon a willingness to initiate and embrace change and a commitment to a collaborative, consensus-based process. 2. Slow design: cultural change is inherently a slow, deep process and simply takes time. It took an enormous commitment of time and energy on the part of the faculty as well as a leap of faith in a process whose outcome was unknowable but whose objectives were clear.
On The Ground
TRANSITION TRANSITION DESIGN DESIGN TRANSITION FRAMEWORK: FRAMEWORK: DESIGN TRANSITION Co-Evolving Areas Areas FRAMEWORK: DESIGN Co-Evolving of Knowledge, Action FRAMEWORK: Co-Evolving Areas of Knowledge, Action and Self-Reflection of Knowledge, Action and Self-Reflection Co-Evolving Areas and Self-Reflection of Knowledge, Action and Self-Reflection New ways of designing will help
New ways of designing will help realizethe the visionbut butwill willalso also realize New ways ofvision designing willvision help change/evolve it. As the change/evolve it. As thewill vision realize the vision but also evolves, newways ofdesigning designing will New ways ofways designing will help evolves, new of will change/evolve it.be Asdeveloped. the vision continue to realizecontinue the vision butdeveloped. will also to designing be evolves, new ways of will change/evolve it. As the vision continue to be developed. evolves, new ways The transition toaof a designing will The transition to continue to will be developed. sustainable society sustainable society will
visionfor forthe thetransition transitionto toaa AAvision more sustainable society is needed. more sustainable society is needed. A vision for the transition to a of This calls for the reconception This calls for the reconception of more is needed. entiresustainable lifestylesin insociety whichcommucommulifestyles which Aentire vision forfor thethe transition to a of This calls reconception nities are in symbiotic relationship nitiessustainable are in symbiotic relationship more society is needed. entirethe lifestyles in which commuwith environment. Lifestyles with the environment. Lifestyles This calls for the reconception of nities are in symbiotic relationship are place-based yetglobal global intheir their are place-based yet in entire lifestyles in which commuwith the environment. Lifestyles exchange oftechnology, technology, information exchange of information nities are in symbiotic relationship are place-based yet global in their and culture. and culture. with the environment. Lifestyles exchange of technology, information are yet global in their andplace-based culture. exchange of technology, information and culture.
The transition to aof require newways ways require new of sustainable society designing that are will New Ways designing that are The transition to a of New Ways require new informed byaways avision, vision, informed by ofDesigning Designing sustainable society designing that are will of a deep understanding New Ways a deep understanding require new ways of informed by a vision, of thedynamics dynamics of of Designing of the designing that areof a deep understanding change and a new mind- New Ways change and a new mindinformed by vision, of the of Designing set anddynamics posture. of and posture. aset deep understanding change and a new mindofset theand dynamics posture.of change and a new mindChangesininmindset, mindset,posture postureand and Changes set and posture.
temperamentwill willgive giverise risetotonew new temperament Changes in mindset, posture and waysofofdesigning. designing.As Asnew newdesign design ways temperament will give rise to new approaches evolve, designers’ Changes in mindset, posture and approaches evolve, designers’ ways of designing. Aspostures new design temperaments and will temperament will give rise to new temperaments and postures will approaches evolve, designers’ continue change. ways of designing. As new design continue totochange. temperaments and postures will approaches evolve, designers’ continue to change. temperaments and postures will continue to change.
Thevision visionofofthe thetransition transitiontotoaa The sustainable society willrequire requirenew new sustainable society will The vision of the transition to a knowledgeabout aboutnatural, natural,social, social, knowledge sustainable society will require new and ‘designed’ systems. This new The vision of thesystems. transition to anew and ‘designed’ This knowledge will, aboutinnatural, social, knowledge turn, evolve the sustainable society require new knowledge will, in will turn, evolve the and ‘designed’ systems. This new vision. about natural, social, knowledge vision. knowledge will, in turn, evolve the and ‘designed’ systems. This new Ideas,theories theoriesand and vision. Ideas, knowledge will, in turn, evolve the methodologies from methodologies from vision. Ideas, varied theories andand many fields
Visionfor for Vision Transition Transition Vision for Transition Vision for Transition
many varied fields and methodologies from disciplines inform a disciplines inform Ideas, theories anda and manyunderstanding varied fields deep deep understanding methodologies froma disciplines inform of thedynamics dynamics of of the of many varied fields and deep understanding change in the natural change in the natural disciplines inform a of the dynamics of and social worlds. and social worlds. deep understanding change in the natural ofand thesocial dynamics of worlds. change in the natural and social will worlds. New theories of change reshape
Theories Theories ofChange Change of Theories of Change Theories of Change
New theories of change will reshape designers’temperaments, temperaments,mindsets mindsets designers’ New theories of change will reshape andpostures. postures.And, And,these these‘new ‘new ways and ways designers’ temperaments, mindsets Mindset of being’ in the world will motivate New theories of change willmotivate reshape Mindset ofand being’ in the worldthese will postures. And, ‘new ways Posture the search for new, more relevant designers’ temperaments, mindsets && Posture the searchinforthe new, more relevant Mindset of being’ world will motivate knowldege. and postures. And, these ‘new ways knowldege. & Posture the search for new, more relevant Mindset of being’ in the world will motivate knowldege. & Posture the search for new, more relevant Livingin inand andthru thrutransitional transitionaltimes times Living requires a mindset and posture of knowldege.
requires a mindset and posture of Living in and thru transitional times openess, mindfulness, willingopeness, mindfulness, aawillingrequires a mindset and posture of ness to collaborate, and ‘optimistic ness to and ‘optimistic Living incollaborate, and thru transitional times openess, mindfulness, a willinggrumpiness.’ grumpiness.’ requires mindset and posture of ness to acollaborate, and ‘optimistic openess, mindfulness, a willinggrumpiness.’ Transition Framework: Irwin, Tonkinwise & Kossoff Transition Irwin, Tonkinwise & Kossoff ness to Framework: collaborate, and ‘optimistic grumpiness.’ Transition Framework: Irwin, Tonkinwise & Kossoff
Transition Framework: Irwin, Tonkinwise & Kossoff Irwin, Tonkinwise, and Kossoff
Figure 7. Transition Framework.
www.thesolutionsjournal.org | January-February 2015 | Solutions | 99
On The Ground
Carnegie Mellon University
Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the United States.
3. Thinking in long horizons of time: the process required everyone to think in longer horizons of time and envision a desired state that many of us would not be a part of. The curriculum challenges students and faculty to design and think beyond the socio/economic/ political paradigms we are currently embedded within. 4. A commitment to a new educational paradigm: teaching students to design for society and the environment requires
educators to step out of the role of ‘expert’ and into a posture of co- and life-long learning. The launch of new programs and curricula in August 2014 marked the end of a five-year design process and the beginning of a new one: the ongoing process of course correction, ‘tinkering,’ integration of feedback, and refinement—all characteristics of 21st century design. We will be monitoring progress via formal and informal feedback with parents,
100 | Solutions | January-February 2015 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org
students, alumni, employers, and research partners and our culture now includes a process for ongoing discussion and iteration. While the solutions we are implementing at The School of Design are distinct to our locale and history, we hope that the process described here may prove to be a valid approach for other programs that wish to shift to a values-based curriculum that encourages graduates to become catalysts for positive social and environmental change.