Design Responsibility as Reflective Practice: An Educational Challenge

Joy Boutrup, Textile Engineer, Associate Professor

Malene Leerberg, Art Historian, PhD Student
Vibeke Riisberg, Textile Designer, PhD, Associate Professor

Abstract
An important element in design education is to prepare
students for the reality of the design profession. Often design
students question their ability and power to influence industry
and commerce. This paper discusses how the notion of design
responsibility can be integrated and how we educate
responsible designers. Using examples from the curriculum of
the Kolding School of Design, we make a case for employing
both practice-based and theory-based learning approaches to
promote a critical and reflective design practice. Furthermore,
we argue for the value of teaching design responsibility to
imbue design students with the knowledge and confidence that
design and the designer can make a difference.

… It is estimated that 80% of a product’s

environmental and economic costs are
committed by the final design stage.
Before production begins.

Kate Fletcher, pioneer

designer and researcher
1
in eco fashion and textiles

Introduction
Design students often question their ability and power to influence industry and commerce to make
sound and responsible design decisions. Aware of the complexity of the design process, of
transforming an idea to a product of value to manufacturers as well as consumers, students can feel
overwhelmed by the demands on the designer to create not only functional and aesthetical products,

1
In her PhD dissertation Environmental Improvement by design: An Investigation of the UK Textile Industry (1999), pp. 75-76,
Fletcher cites an article by T.E. Graedel et al. (1995), “Green Product Design”, AT&T Technical Journal
(November/December), presenting the concept of Design for Environment (DFE), which states: “[DFE] is an proactive
approach to environmental protection that addresses life-cycle environmental concerns in the product design stage.
Decisions made during that stage profoundly influence the entire life of the product and determine 80 to 90 percent of its
total life-cycle costs” (p. 17). Together with B.R Allenby, Graedel develops this approach in depth in one of the early
textbooks on environmental industry, Industrial Ecology, Prentice Hall, also from 1995.

1
but also ethical and sustainable design. And they ask: What can we do? How can I, as one person,
one designer, make a difference?
The objective of this paper is to argue for the value of teaching design responsibility based
on our experience from three courses in the curriculum at the Kolding School of Design. Whereas
all courses aim at training students in reflective practice, they represent different approaches to the
subject, different learning settings and teaching methods.
For more than 10 years textile and fashion students have been taught courses in sustainable
design, these are a practice-based courses with studio assignments, and we present the development
and knowledge gained concerning methodology, level and angle of information in the field. In the
general curriculum, all students are taught a course in design criticism, this is a theory-based course
with lectures and plenary discussions, and we present the potentials of utilizing theoretical
reflection to affect design practice.
We discuss the prospective of exposing design students to both practice-based and theory-
based approaches to a complex subject such as design responsibility and how the presented courses
can be mutually enriching.

Design Responsibility and the Education of Designers

In 1997, editor in chief of the influential design magazine Metropolis, Susan S. Szenasy, began
teaching a course in ethics of design at New York’s Parsons School of Design. About this
experience, she relates: “The course is all about responsibility: to the planet, to the regions we live
in, to the community, to the profession, to the client, and to the self” (in Heller & Vienne, 2003, p.
20). Szenasy’s main focus is sustainability, but her view is not limited to sustainability, it can
embrace all aspects of design, including functionality, aesthetics and socio-cultural meaning.
Szenasy describes an attitude, and to us the notion of design responsibility signifies an
attitude towards the value of design and the role of the designer. Design shapes our lives and
designers must consider the impact of this process. Thus, we see the responsible designer as
someone, who questions the logic of mass consumption, the effects of design and the product life
cycle, who tests ideas, considering scenarios and alternatives by evaluating materials,
manufacturing processes, form and functionality as well as consumer attachment and emotional
value, and who uses this knowledge to set criteria for the design and to take a stance as a designer.
We see an affinity between design responsibility and social scientist Donald Schön’s notion
of reflective practice. In The Reflective Practioner, Schön describes a good design process “as a
reflective conversation with the situation” (Schön, 2003, p. 76). A reflective practice requires a
sensibility towards a design context, towards its requirements, expectations, possibilities and
impossibilities, and furthermore an ability to change or adapt according to the context. The designer
enters a dialogue, or as Schön calls it, a conversation with the design context or situation, and in
developing the design, thereby shaping the situation, the situation “talks back” to the designer. “In
answer to the situation’s back-talk,” notes Schön, “the designer reflects-in-action on the
construction of the problem, the strategies of action, or the model of the phenomena, which have
been implicit in his moves” (Schön, p. 79). Thus, a reflective practice addresses the complexity the
design process, including the effects of design, which is also the concern of design responsibility.
The question is: How do we educate design students in reflective practice? How do we give
students the attitude and confidence to be responsible designers? An important element in design

2
education is to prepare students for the reality of the design profession. On the one hand, they need
to acquire design skills and develop an individual design identity, on the other, they are required to
understand and be able to assert themselves in the professional world. Fashion designer and senior
tutor of menswear at the Royal College of Art, Ike Rust, describes this as a double learning
perspective of identifying self and applying self (Rust, 2007; Skjold, 2007, p. 28) To identify self as
a design student is about learning the design discipline and discovering who you are as a designer.
To apply self is about learning how to use your skills in a professional design context. The two
almost opposite learning perspectives encourage different aspects of reflective practice; when
identifying self, reflection concerns the designer’s actualization of self in relation to the discipline,
when applying self, reflection concerns the designer’s actualization of skills in relation to the
profession. Ideally, design education moves back and forth between the two perspectives.

Teaching Sustainability
The textile and fashion industries are some of the largest and most resource consuming industries;
Textile production is global and most textiles have been transported over long distances before
reaching the end consumer. The production of textiles is connected to several other industries such
as the chemical industry, agriculture and machinery production.
At Kolding School of Design, we have for more than 10 years taught a course in materials
and sustainability to 3rd semester students in fashion and textile. The aim of the course is to create a
consciousness of the environmental aspects in all students in order to make it a natural part of the
design process. Presenting examples of new, better, and more environmentally friendly methods
and materials already in use or under development, we stimulate students’ creativity and rethinking
of products. Furthermore, we stress that designers have an ethical responsibility when designing for
mass consumption. However, the main message of the course is that good design is sustainable and
that the sustainability is not necessarily visible in the end product. The design should be so
attractive that the consumer will prefer this product even without knowing about its sustainability.
The first year of teaching sustainability, we began the course by presenting all the negative
results of the production of textiles, such as the pollution due to the growing of fibers, synthesizing
dyes, fibers and finishing. The outcome was that the students were stunned and held back creatively,
thinking that the global industry was beyond their scope and influence. Learning from our first
missteps, we have since then focused on the central role the designer plays in the choice of materials
and colors, in setting the trend and in the response to consumer needs and wants. By showing a
space in which to act and have an influence, students’ creativity and fantasy are activated.
During the course students work together for approximately three weeks, mostly in groups
of three to four persons, each group including both textile and fashion students. The course
normally has a general theme but the choice of design field is left entirely to each group, though we
emphasize that a product, which nobody wants to buy, cannot be sustainable. Any production,
however ecological, consumes resources, which are wasted if the product is taken directly from
production to disposal. The end consumer, cultural aspects, price, etc. must be taken into account,
as well as sustainability, functionality and the product fulfillment of consumer needs and wants.
The students are asked to develop and compare several solution models for the object they
are designing. The comparison has to be done in tables giving relative notes for specific properties
of the models. The choice of properties is left mostly to the estimation of the students but must

3
include cradle to grave properties, functionality and how well it hits the target consumer. The tables
are then used as a basis for further decisions. This holistic way of working seems to give life to
creativity and also to prevent a loss of perspective in the overwhelming amount of information and
challenges.
This academic year, we have for the first time offered a follow-up to the 3rd semester course
in materials and sustainability to 5th semester fashion and textile students. The aim of the 5th
semester course is to give students insight into global production methods and the concept of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). As an industry project is involved (this year with the
Danish company Eurotex Apparel, provider of ready to wear fashion to a number of fashion
companies) the scope of the course is both contextualized and widened as the attention moves
beyond materials to include issues of production, and design responsibility in a professional setting.
As in the 3rd semester the fashion and textile students work together in groups on a design
project during four-week long course. The students are exposed to requirements of an actual
company and are asked to focus on design sustainability and ethics as part of a market strategy.
Faced with the demands of combining business with a sustainable future, we still emphasize to the
students that the first step to creating sustainable products is the quality of the design.
Introducing materials and sustainability to 3rd semester fashion and textile students and
following-up with a more advanced industrial project course in the 5th semester holds significant
educational potentials. First of all, the students become familiar with principles of design
responsibility at an early educational stage. Secondly, we take advantage of the students’ educational
maturation, as student ability to manage the complexity of working with sustainable design visibly
develops from the 3rd to the 5th semester. And last but not least, we imbue the students with the
knowledge and confidence that design and indeed the designer can make a difference.

Teaching Design Criticism

Elbert Hubbard, who inspired by William Morris founded the American Arts and Crafts publishers
Roycroft Press, famously stated: “To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.” As
designers can almost do anything except do, say or be nothing, criticism is an integral aspect of the
design profession. Thus, it is important to provide design students with insight and knowledge
about criticism, which is the aim of the 6th semester course in design criticism.
Design and criticism represent two different ways of communicating. Whereas design
communicates through visual, tactile and other sensual properties, criticism communicates through
the spoken and written language. Design students often feel inadequate when it comes to language,
and are in consequence apprehensive towards design criticism. We seek to challenge this by
introducing the students to the purpose of language in design criticism and creating awareness of
different design discourses and how to use them strategically as a designer, of the significance of
criteria in design and how to use them to solve a design problem, and of the designer’s
responsibility and how to work with the complexity of the design profession.
Whereas the two sustainability courses for fashion and textile students are practice-based
and the students produce a group project over three or four weeks, the 6th semester course in design
criticism is theory-based and consists of a series of three lectures. For the course the students are
expected to read a selection of texts for each session, and as part of the lectures students are given
short discussion assignments related to the topic of the session. The assignments gives the students

4
an opportunity to reflect aloud, first in small groups of two to three persons, and then in an open
plenary discussion.
Developing the course curriculum, we have over the past two years focused on connecting
the theory-based teaching to the practice-based courses. Thus, we have changed the perspective
from a focus on the critical reception of design to a focus on a critical design practice and how
designers can engage in different design discourses through their work, how they can work
consciously and responsibly with criteria to anticipate the effects of their design – desired or
undesired.
The educational potential of the 6th semester course in design criticism is the explicit
connection of theory to practice. As in the sustainability courses, we imbue the students with the
knowledge and confidence that design and the designer can make a difference, by addressing the
students initial apprehension towards the language and consequently design criticism, and
introducing them to criticism as tool for a reflective practice.

Conclusion and Perspectives

The objective of this paper was to argue for the value of teaching design responsibility based on our
own teaching experiences at the Kolding School of Design. We began by describing the responsible
designer as someone who asks questions, tests ideas, sets criteria and takes a stance. Furthermore,
we argued for a connection between design responsibility and Donald Schön’s notion of reflective
practice. We then presented three courses from the design education curriculum at the Kolding
School of Design. First, the two courses in sustainability for textile and fashion students, which
both are practice-based, and represents the double learning perspective identified by Ike Rust as
identifying self and applying self. Secondly, we presented the theory-based course in design
criticism, which introduces students to criticism as tool for a reflective practice.
As any teacher will know, course intentions and course outcomes do not always correlate.
We described how the initial approach to the sustainability course did not elicit the expected
response, and how we changed the focus. Working with industry, is neither a guarantee for the
students to apply self. To succeed it requires an explicit focus from both teachers and the companies
involved. It is as well a challenge to stimulate reflection in a lecture-based course as design
criticism, especially when plenary discussions involves 50 to 60 students.
Despite these difficulties, we argue that teaching design responsibility is valuable in the
design education at the Kolding School of Design, as it creates awareness of the criteria for design,
of the effects of design and perhaps most importantly of the designer’s ability to influence the
design process from an idea to an end product. Furthermore, we contend that connecting and
developing the presented courses will benefit design education. Today, the courses in sustainability
are reserved for 3rd and 5th semester fashion and textile students, though they will be offered to our
industrial design students as well, beginning the next academic year. We believe the courses would
be beneficial to any design student. Moreover, we advocate further development and connection of
the courses. We propose students start with the course in materials and sustainability, then take the
course in design criticism, before they are given the industry project course. As we described the
educational maturation is already proving beneficial between the two practice-based courses,
introducing the course in criticism before the industry project course would strengthen the students’
reflective practice and ability to manage the complexity of working with sustainable design. Ideally,

5
we would like to conclude the series of courses with another criticism course to provide the students
with a theoretical superstructure reflecting the learning from the previous courses.
We stated earlier that design responsibility signifies an attitude towards the value of design
and the role of the designer, and such attitude requires designers to be assertive about their power
and ability to make a difference through a critical and reflective design practice. In the end it is
about the quality of design. As Susan S. Szenay concludes: “Perhaps when we understand that good
design is responsible design, we will no longer need to rely on clumsy, descriptive words. We’ll just
call it design – a noble and necessary human activity” (in Heller & Vienne, 2003, p. 24).

References
Braungart, Michael & William McDonough (2003): Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things.
Rodale Press.
Eurotex Apparel online website: http://www.eurotexapparel.com/
Fletcher, Kate (1999): Environmental Improvement by design: An Investigation of the UK Textile Industry
(unpublished PhD Thesis). Chelsea College of Art & Design, The London Institute.
Fletcher, Kate (2008): Sustainable Textiles & Fashion: Design Journeys. Earthscan Publications.
Graedel, Thomas E. et al. (1995): “Green Product Design”. AT&T Technical Journal (November/December),
pp. 17-24.
Heller, Steven & Véronique Vienne (ed., 2003). Citizens Designer. Perspectives on Design Responsibility.
Allworth Press.
Rust, Ike (2007): “Exploring the Relationship between Industry and Academia” (unpublished paper).
Potentials for Fashion Research. Education – Strategy – Industry. Seminar at Kolding School of Design,
March 24 2007.
Schön, Donald A. (2003 (1983)): The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate.
Skjold, Else (2007): En undersøgelse af den internationale modeforskning (research report in Danish). Online
at: http://www.dcdr.dk/dk/Materiale/Publikationer/En+undersøgelse+af+den+internationale+modeforskning