i read skepticism between the lines of ken's comments about a national
design policy and i agree.
studies of policies may well be interesting and perhaps needed once a policy
is proposed (e.g., regarding its benefits and costs) but proposals need to
actionable and focused. one can answer questions about what "the united
states" can do, but in the absence of a competent addressee capable of
enacting it and adequate leverage with institutions of design, such answers
remain a waste of time.
a while ago i was involved in a workshop to develop rather specific policy
recommendations for funding decisions by the u.s. national science
foundation for development support for design in the age of information:
http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/96.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design Policy Initiative
Hi, Ann,
Thanks for your comments. This deserves a few quick notes. I'm going to
answer on-list for a couple of reasons. The first is that you raised the
topic here. The second is that I don't generally like the blog-and-response
format that your web site affords. Let me say that I like your site -- I
visit often, I enjoy your comments, and I value your perspective. I just
don't find the blog-and-respond format useful.
As I understand it, your basic critique of the design policy proposal is
that it focuses on economic issues. That is easy to understand. A policy
proposal is a guideline to government action. The goals you propose as
suitable for design are valid, but I'd question whether a government design
policy is the way to achieve them. That would probably be a matter of
education policy.
While design policy studies are a relatively new field, the field does have
a reasonable history. Design policy proposals involve everything from nation
branding and culture promotion to economic development and industrial
innovation. Many design policy efforts focus on subsidies and services to
the design industry, with an emphasis on design promotion.
I was involved in one of the first design policy projects ever done, a
project in Norway in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As so many proposals
for design policy, it did not achieve what it set out to achieve for reasons
I understand far better now than I did then. In recent years, I have worked
with Per Mollerup on design policy proposals for three more nations,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. (Pekka Korvenmaa of University of Art and
Design Helsinki joined us in the Estonia project, and Thomas Rasmussen of
the Danish Design School joined us on the other two.) I've also had
opportunities to work with people doing design policy projects in Wales,
Portugal, and elsewhere, so I hope it's fair to say I have given these
issues serious thought.
The policy proposals we did for the three Baltic nations focus on integrated
economic development, information for government and citizens, and
education. The education emphasis comes closest to the issues you advocate
in your critique: "newer conceptions of design as a tool for exploration,
transformation and actualization."
I agree, and I'd guess that many others agree with you on these points.
Nevertheless, this may not be the province of design policy. I might be
wrong, of course, but someone would have to show how design policy could
properly support "newer conceptions of design as a tool for exploration,
transformation and actualization" in an actionable way.
What the design policy group has done that involves transformation and
actualization is to focus on ways that design can promote better government.
They also advocate funding design research, creating carbon neutral
buildings, and investing in design innovation. This is not all that far from
your desired outcomes.
The key issue of useful policy planning is to make an actionable proposal.
Design has many valuable purposes - only some of these lie in the realm of
government policy or those issues for which one can demand direct policy
support. Much of what we ought to be doing requires and deserves indirect
support through education and research funding, but that's another set of
issues.
We've been doing some design policy work here at Swinburne. Before long, I
presume we'll make what we have available. In the meantime, there is also a
semi-active design policy discussion group on Yahoo at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/designpolicy/
Group members have access to a files collection with a significant number of
design policy documents.
The US design policy proposal is available for free download from the web
site of the US National Design Policy Initiative. The URL is slightly
different to the version you posted. You'll find it at:
http://www.designpolicy.org/
Best regards,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Telephone +61 3 9214 6755
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
Ann Thorpe wrote:
Hello All,
I don't know how many on this list might have heard about the US National
Design Policy Initiative (http://designpolicy.org), which grew out of the
National Design Summit of November 08. The summit group published a report
containing 10 policy proposals that they have circulated in the highest
levels of government, including Mr. O. I've looked the document over and
find it disappointing, for the reasons mentioned in this critique,
http://designactivism.net/archives/150
I'm interested in hearing what other people think about it, perhaps off-list
or over at designactivism.net would be the appropriate place?
Thanks,
Ann
Ann Thorpe
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London Wates House,
22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
|