 |
 |
Friends, Klaus's response and Dori's on the design policy thread deserve a few quick thoughts. Klaus was right to read some skepticism between the lines of my note. I do want to make clear what it was that I was questioning. I'm not questioning the design policy proposal or even the idea of design policy. Rather, I'm skeptical to the idea of demanding that any policy should do too much. As the author of a great policy document on NSF funding for design research, Klaus and his colleagues hit just the right note. It's a profoundly pragmatic document intended to get appropriate government action under way -- while avoiding what cannot or ought not to be done in such a framework. Unfortunately, not all the proposals have yet been adopted -- well, there's a lot that has not happened over the past 8 years -- but the document is worth reading. Perhaps things will change, albeit slowly ... it's tough to do as much today given the massive level of debt and deficit. Looks like Alan Greenspan was wrong on giving back the Clinton-Gore current-account surplus following the election, but that is another story. Nevertheless, that story and all political stories like it affect what can be done, and that, too, tempers what the authors of the design policy proposal could reasonably have hoped to achieve. My hat is off to Dori Tunstall and her colleagues in this venture. She is among the people whose work means a great deal to me. Whenever someone pioneers a new vision, there will be difficulties. The responses and challenges to the proposal include challenges that arise from misunderstanding, challenges that arise from the insistence that this still-new venture respond to the old agenda items that carry forward from the past, and challenges that represent valuable ideas that simply are outside the scope of a policy proposal. Reading the blogs and debates, though, I observe that several challenges seem to arise just because someone is plain old grumpy -- they don't like Dori's language or the fact that she has a PhD or whatever. (Some people seem to oppose the document because they think that Dori is not a practicing designer. They're wrong, of course, but they have an opinion, and there is no law against holding an ill-informed opinion. Sic transit gloria blogosphere.) As I see it, the design policy proposal that this group has developed is a valuable and inspiring document. The fact that it doesn't please everyone is a minor and inevitable condition of life on earth. This is a proposal, not a finished policy, and now it enters the realm of public reflection and debate. Klaus caught an important added note of skepticism between the lines of my post. I am genuinely curious about design policy as an object of inquiry. How well have design policies fulfilled the goals set for them? What have different nations achieved? How have the achievements related to the degree to which these nations or their agencies actually implemented or failed to implement design policy proposals? Have design support or design promotion measures been useful, as contrasted -- for example -- with measures that emphasize "ice-breaker" plans to bring designers together with clients? Have policies that emphasize education and research been effective. There has been little serious research on these kinds of questions, and I'd like to know more. Until we do, I am both interested in design policy and skeptical in a reasoned sort of way. As author or co-author of four policy proposals, I retain both my interest and my skepticism. The design policy group shows the virtues of making and thinking. This is how the world moves forward. This is a pragmatic proposal in the best sense of the word, the Deweyan sense. It is a great American tradition and this is a good time to witness the renewal of robust American virtues with an emphasis on good government, democratic debate, and the genuine economic renewal of industry rather than speculative excess with payoffs for those who bankrupt companies and layoffs for those who work. The authors of the policy proposal -- and let's not forget the word proposal -- have not pushed a new law through by executive order. They have performed a public service on short time and little money, addressing issues that concern us all. One way to further the debate is not to complain about what's wrong with the measures in this proposal, but to add what might be missing in actionable terms. That said, I will claim the right as researcher and author of design policy proposals to suggest that this one looks good to me. Warm wishes on this splendid new day. 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