design thinking as a liberal art - wordpress.com...jakob thestrup christopher pokarier design...

Jakob THESTRUP　　Christopher POKARIER

Design Thinking as a Liberal Art

早稲田大学国際教養学部Waseda Global ForumNo. 13 （ 2 0 1 6 ）抜　刷

Waseda Global Forum　　　No. 13 March 2017　　　

CONTENTS

巻頭のことば（Introduction）Foreword Adrian PINNINGTON 　1

退職記念論文内田勝一先生のこと勝方＝稲福　恵子　1

論　　文（Article）1.5世代から２世代へ　― ヴェトナム系アメリカ文化の現在麻　生　享　志　1

Fundamental Pitfalls of the South China Sea Arbitration Ruling　　　 Taisaku IKESHIMA 　1

現象学的還元とは何か岩　内　章太郎　1

Japanese Language Education in the Nikkei Community in Peru　　　 Roxana SHINTANI 　1

Design Thinking as a Liberal Art Jakob THESTRUP 　　　 Christopher POKARIER 　1

研究ノート（Research Report）『死にゆく者の孤独』について　― 死と老齢化の社会学大　平　　　章　1

執筆者紹介

ピPINNINGTON, Adrianニングトン　エイドリアン

早稲田大学国際教養学部学部長

麻ASO, Takashi　生　享　志早稲田大学国際教養学部教授

池IKESHIMA, Taisaku　島　大　策早稲田大学国際教養学部教授

大OHIRA, Akira　平　　　章早稲田大学国際教養学部教授

勝KATSUKATA-INAFUKU, Keiko方＝稲福　恵子早稲田大学国際教養学部教授

ポPOKARIER, Christopherカリア　クリストファー

早稲田大学国際教養学部教授

新SHINTANI, Roxana　谷　ロクサナ早稲田大学国際教養学部助教

岩IWAUCHI, Shotaro　内　章太郎早稲田大学国際教養学部助手

ヤTHESTRUP, Jakobコブ　テストラップ

東京大学大学院総合文化研究科博士課程

1

The Chronicle of Higher Education attracted considerable attention in 2015 when it ran an article entitled ‘Is ‘Design Thinking’ the New Liberal Arts?’ Miller, 2015; for reaction see, for instance, Wladawsky-Berge, 2016b, Miller & Linder, 2015）. The report was popular in part because it featured David and Tom Kelley of design consultancy IDEO and Stanford’s d.school which they played a key role in helping to found. The Kelleys and IDEO have been champions of design thinking and are well known through

Abstract

Recently there is discussion of design thinking as a new liberal art, one that might be transformative of both liberal arts education itself and specialist higher education. In part this mirrors its growing influence in the fields of management and business consulting, across the creative industries, and even in development studies. Design thinking is much more than just another management fad though. Its action orientation, methodology, and foundational premises accord strongly with the kinds of personal capabilities that many business leaders say they seek in employees; attributes that liberal arts programs have long laid claim to developing. This article explores why design thinking is increasingly being seen as a means to attenuate the limitations of both liberal arts as an established niche educational model and contemporary mass higher education.

● Article ●

Design Thinking as a Liberal Art

Jakob THESTRUPDoctoral Student, Department of Advanced Social and International Studies,

The University of Tokyo

Christopher POKARIERProfessor of Business & Governance, School of International Liberal Studies,

Waseda University

2

Jakob THESTRUP, Christopher POKARIER： Design Thinking as a Liberal Art

television appearances, such on the American Sixty Minutes program and through influential books on design and creative confidence （Kelley & Kelley, 2013）. Stanford’s d.school is notable not only for putting the prestigious institution’s imprimatur upon design thinking as a foundational pedagogical concept, but also for not being a degree-awarding program in its own right. Apple’s founding CEO Steve Jobs, a long-time collaborator and client of IDEO, advised those establishing the d.school that the world did not need another degree-awarding design school. Students instead belong to other graduate degree programs, typically quite specialised, and apply to take a course or more in the d.school. Design thinking is explicitly understood to be both an educational endeavour, and a practice to be taken out from the academy: valuable for students of all fields and to which all might contribute. Design shifts from being seen as a discrete professional field, on a par with myriad others in our highly specialised, certified, and - in Baker’s （2014） terminology - ‘schooled society’, to an orientation and practice unifying of other fields of knowledge through practice. It stands against credentialism, exclusive professional identities and academic silos. Design is essentially egalitarian in relation to academic disciplines for, as Buchanan （1992） wrote, “...design is fundamentally concerned with the particular, and there is no

science of the particular.” Design thinking insists upon on a respect for the particularity of those for whom it will serve. Moreover, it offers itself up to all who might make use of it for their own ends. If this is indeed a liberal art, as Buchanan argued back in 1992 to an audience largely of designers and scholars of it, then it is modest one without a sanctified canon. Stanford’s cross-disciplinary d.school has liberal arts parallels at the undergraduate level in many American universities. Over several decades so-called ‘honors’ programs have proliferated （Kimball, 2014）. Their rationale usually is to equip potential future leaders with critical thinking and other skills through generalist liberal arts courses beyond the purvey of their major, and tend to accept a high-achieving minority of students. In contrast to the design thinking of the d.school, they typically privilege more traditional forms of learning and sometimes have the character of a ‘sampler’; tastings of a coterie of disciplines arbitrarily deemed central to the liberal arts. More recently, another elitist model of liberal arts as reformist curriculum concept has been evidenced in higher education systems as diverse as Japan, South

3

Waseda Global Forum No. 13, 2016, ●－●

Korea and the Netherlands. Typically large universities have established entirely new faculties or partner institutions that effectively create a quasi-autonomous liberal arts college under the umbrella of a comprehensive university. This has often been coupled with the use of English as a common language of instruction and study abroad experiences as integral parts of the curriculum. There is considerable variance in the degree to which these programs resemble American liberal arts programs, which are themselves diverse and evolving. The rationale for such liberal arts initiatives in Asia and beyond usually is that existing higher education programs are failing to meet the full range of educational outcomes demanded of colleges and universities in a rapidly changing and inter-dependent world. However, in the United States liberal arts programs have long thought to be under grave threat from the dual models of the elite comprehensive research-intensive university and a plethora of other institutions offering vocationally-oriented degree courses. In absolute share of enrolments by organisational type, the liberal arts clearly have been losing out for half a century at least （Kerr, 1963; McPherson & Schapiro, 1999; MacTaggart, 2007）. In part this reflects the allure of ostensibly vocationally-oriented rivals, especially as participation in higher education has expanded well beyond elites to roughly half of all high school leavers. Partly it reflects the difficulty of scaling-up a liberal arts college model in response to growing sector-wide demand, and sometimes locational disadvantages. However, while liberal arts may face profound challenges as a stand-alone higher education product in the United States it retains saliency in the context of the rapidly changing nature of work （McNutt, 2014）. In particular, the anticipated displacement of much routine administrative work by algorithms leads to a renewed emphasis on the important attributes that will remain the domain of all those without the aptitude for programming: empathetic interaction, curating and designing experiences, complexly dexterous non-routine work, creative problem solving, ‘imagineering’, narrative and the like （see, for instance, Wladawsky-Berger, 2016a）. In a more mundane vein, across countries there has been a resurgence of interest in the liberal arts as an apparent corrective to the limitations of current graduate skills. Recurrent surveys of employer expectations produce a mixed list of empathy, critical thinking and problem solving skills, cultural competencies （within and across boundaries）, adaptability, and effective communication skills. Axelrod, Anisef

4


and Lin （2001） suggest that there is often an asymmetry of perspectives between students/parents and employers on university education: the former to be more focused on initial career moves while senior executives, when asked to comment in general on higher education, tend to take longer term perspectives. Axelrod, Aniself and Lin observe that human resource managers tend to have a three-fold orientation to desirable employee capabilities: cognitive, including critical thinking, problem-solving and ‘learning to learn’, presentational, namely oral and written communication skills, and social skills （Axelrod, Anisef & Lin, 2001）. A survey of employers by the Business Council of Canada （Hewitt, 2016: 4） found that soft skills were generally prioritised in entry-level employment candidates, and “...the soft skills most in demand included collaboration and teamwork, communication skills, problem-solving skills and people and relationship-building skills. While grades and educational credentials are certainly important to recruiters, companies are increasingly focused on finding people who can work in teams, solve complex problems and show a willingness to learn.” For mid-level hires leadership skills were the most important attribute sought, followed by the above attributes. In the absence of general familiarity with the emerging field of design thinking, ‘liberal arts’ becomes the default educational model for addressing these skills shortages.

Liberal arts: what and why?

There have been interminable debates over the nature of the liberal arts that, unfortunately, are beyond the scope of this article to map in any comprehensive way. What is it? Who does it? Will it last? Should it? Should it evolve to last? What should be added to it? These are all questions that generate contested answers, and are frequently intertwined. The ‘what’ of liberal arts, like other educational concepts, has two dimensions: inputs and outputs. On the inputs side we may identify disciplinary subjects, pedagogy, and environment. The liberal arts curriculum is generalist rather than specialised, although the curriculum of most liberal arts colleges seek to strike a balance between the two; seeing the tension between the two dimensions at times as a creative one （Lipmen-Blumen, 1995）. As a distinctive educational product in the USA the liberal arts has been associated with a curricula

5


primarily in arts and sciences, delivered through small classes and with close interactions between faculty and students. There are typically ‘breadth requirements’ and then deepening knowledge through a major and capstone research or thesis component to cultivate analytical and writing skills. The Carnegie Foundation has been influential in identifying the following general fields as liberal arts disciplines: English language and literature, foreign languages, letters, liberal and general studies, life sciences, mathematics, physical sciences, psychology, social sciences, visual and performing arts, area and ethnic studies, multi and interdisciplinary studies, philosophy and religion （Ferrall, 2011: 9）. Such a list is simultaneously strikingly broad - far beyond the scope of any small college to offer comprehensively - and yet also limiting. The Carnegie Foundation also identifies, by contrast, ‘vocational’ disciplines, ranging from the rather obvious business fields to engineering, education and even theology. Notably, even an archetypical prestigious liberal arts college such as Swarthmore has an engineering major so there are few ‘pure’ liberal arts colleges in this schematic. As for outputs - the learning outcomes and longer term personal development consequences - there is always assertion and conjecture. Kimball1 （2014: 243） wrote of “the traditional liberal arts mission of fostering culture, community, and character...” In contrast, the conception of undergraduate education that emerged with the rise of the research university from the late 19th century in the USA, following German influence, and finding full force in the second half of the twentieth century, is “the development of critical reasoning and the command of research method.” （Kimball, 2014: 244）. Ferrall （2011: 17） sees liberal arts as providing “thoughtfulness” as a habit of mind; with a ‘broad’ education being associated with liberal-mindedness and so making for more robust societies. He quotes Martha Nussbaum’s notion of ‘narrative imagination’, indicating “...compassion and the inclination and

ability to put oneself in another’s shoes” as a key objective of a liberal arts education. Victor E. Ferrall Jr., former president of Beloit College, hopes that people might arrive at a better-than-average capacity to predict the conduct of others. This aspiration has a strong parallel in the primacy given to empathetic insight-seeking in design thinking approaches but with very different pedagogical proclivities. In Ferrall’s conception, a liberal arts education should cultivate a commitment to service, gain an appreciation of creativity

6


and beauty, of history and its consequences, and foster an “intellectually entrepreneurial spirit”. A liberal arts graduate should set upon ‘an examined life’. Yet an orientation to ‘service’ in the American liberal arts college often had elitist leadership-oriented, albeit ethical, connotations, to be undertaken once students left the splendid isolation of the campus. While, as we shall see, design-thinking prioritises active user-centred iterative inquiry and ideating in diverse teams, in the classic liberal arts conception both empathy and a commitment to service are to be arrived at through a turn at once inwards and to the wisdom lurking in books and the lab. One retreats to the haven of the campus in order to read broadly and deeply, discourse, reflect upon - and prepare for - a life in the world-at-large. Proponents of the liberal arts counter criticisms that students end up with a broad and shallow education by pointing to statistics showing that liberal arts graduates tend to be over-represented in doctoral programs （Ferrall, 2011: 22）. Whilst such statistics offer some assurance as to the efficacy of liberal arts colleges in inculcating a culture of intellectual inquiry, it has been rather more difficult to quantify claims that exposure to the traditional liberal arts canon brings about sustained differences in attributes such as empathy or social efficacy.

In Decline? The shift from elite small scale higher education systems to ones of mass participation has been one of the most striking social and economic transformations of societies across the developed world2 （Marginson, 2016; Garritzmann, 2016）. Owing to both state and private financial constraints, ‘massification’ has generally privileged certain lower cost academic delivery

models. Hence the large scale lecture becomes ubiquitous, excepting those vocational courses in which key skill sets must be modelled by instructors, emulated by students and affirmed. This implies a pragmatic imperative for universities to prioritise thinking over doing. The ideal of a more intimate, intensive interaction between staff and tutor has sometimes been pursued through hybridisation: the mass lecture model coupled with tutorials in smaller classes （albeit on a larger scale than the admired Oxbridge collegial model）. The small liberal arts college, by comparison, is hamstrung by its commitment to a low staff-student ratio. One empirical study of the economics of the liberal arts college put its optimal undergraduate enrolment at 2243 full-time

7


equivalent enrolments （Koshal & Koshal, 2000: 219）. Many colleges are actually somewhat smaller in scale, with a total enrolment smaller than some high schools and many individual faculties in large comprehensive universities. As Kimball explored, for over a century in the US there has been a “declension narrative” that the university, and public ones in particular,

would overwhelm the small, typically private, liberal arts colleges （2014, 243）. The landscape of liberal arts colleges has certainly changed substantially over time. Some comprehensive research universities arose out of colleges, with the organisational and pedagogical artefact of the college remaining in its undergraduate programs. Institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Chicago arguably share these characteristics although have had their own particular organisational trajectories3. The seemingly inexorable expansion of the US higher education system with increasing overall participation masked periods of institutional distress associated with demographic dips, difficult financial times, and the struggles of particular institutions even in times of growing sector-wide enrolments. Brenemen （1994）, an economist and former liberal arts college president, provided an influential account of the financial struggles of liberal arts colleges and how many had compromised their original educational concept with an increased professional orientation in order to maintain attractiveness. Subsequent studies have lent further evidence to this, with one study concluding that only about two-thirds of the sample of institutions studied by Brenemen, or about 130 institutions, remain ‘true liberal arts colleges’ （Baker, Baldwin & Makker, 2012）. There is now a very large literature on the strategic management of institutions, and the impacts of ‘marketisation’, particularly in relation to US institutions. A subset of

this literature focuses specifically on ‘turnarounds’ for distressed liberal arts colleges （MacTaggart, 2007; Martin & Samels, 2009）. Quite a number of minor liberal arts colleges have failed in the past, their assets suffering varied fates. In addition to pragmatic adaptation by particular colleges to the competitive pressures of the market, there are always active proponents for adding to the liberal arts curriculum, whether it be particular area studies and or study abroad （see, for instance Symons and Barnett, 2015 re Asia） or service learning （Barber & Battistoni, 1993）, or information literacy （Shapiro & Hughes, 1996）. Shifting conceptions of citizenship, of the world at large

8


and what individuals will need to understand and be capable of managing personally, all give rise to demands for the liberal arts to change in response. So are the liberal arts actually in decline in the United States? As Kimball （2014） shows, enrolments in liberal arts programs remained generally constant across-the-board, with some small apparent decline from the 1970s. However the widely perceived decline of the liberal arts is principally in its relative share of overall higher education enrolments. In short, the liberal arts has declined in its relative appeal as a stand-alone model of higher education delivery but is periodically elevated as an educational ideal when the mass higher education system as a whole is faulted for not equipping students adequately for an uncertain world. Liberal arts held up if one considers the growth in student numbers in the proliferating liberal arts-oriented honors programs. In Kimball’s judgement （2014: 259） “...the university has triumphed by replicating the liberal arts college”, and as these honors programs are aimed at the best undergraduates “...the university has enshrined the liberal arts college model as the most prestigious form of undergraduate education.” It is our contention that the educational mission of such universities might be better served if design thinking occupied a central place in a more contemporary conception of the liberal arts than prevails in most institutions. It is our intuition that the experience of Stanford’s d.school is a rather more promising model for emulation than what passes for liberal arts in some US honors programs.

From design to design thinking

Design thinking is a slippery term with multiple meanings and interpretations. In order to conceptualise it, this section briefly outlines the emergence of design thinking and its relation to the idea of design. Although a lot of people hold an intuitive understanding of design as being a skill of beautification with little more than surface level impact, design （and later design thinking） holds significant potential for change and innovation.

Development Bousbaci （2008） outlines three major periods in the development of design in the period after the Second World War. Until the late 1950s the

9


designer was similar to the artist in that both were characterised as intuitive and artistic and the classical disciplines of design were not drawing on explicitly articulated methods. By the end of 1950s there was a shift leading to a design ideal, which was more rationalist and logical. The following period, 1963-1983, was influenced by the concept of ‘bounded rationality’ by Herbert Simon, which, in turn, was induced by the increasing level of complexity in society. The last major period in Bousbaci’s schematic dates from 1983 when Donald Schon introduced a new perspective – the designer as a reflective practitioner – that is integrated into design practices whereby the process emphasises practice-based learning and focus on insights （Bousbaci, 2008）. The societal transformation from industrial society to knowledge and service-based society （in the case of USA）, deeply affected the world of design and a number of related design fields have since emerged （Christensen, 2010）. The term design thinking emerged early in the 1990s in academic literature as an attempt to study the cognitive processes of designers （such as Cross, Dorst & Roozenburg,1992）. The research aim, however, was to gain knowledge on design creativity and attitudes. The more popular version of design thinking is arguably a product of the global design consulting firm IDEO, which was in established in 1992 （ideo.com）. Their version of design thinking （as expressed in Brown, 2008; Brown, 2009; Kelley & Kelley, 2013） has catalysed the application of the methodology and transcended the boundaries of traditional design disciplines. In so doing, design thinking has arguably moved from being a constituent of design identity to a thinking-modus （or, as we shall see, an acting-modus） applicable in all areas of social life. Further, and particularly crucial in the context of this paper, the methodology of design thinking has in a sense undergone a democratisation process whereby it is not limited to people with a classical design education, but all who use the method. Additionally, specific tools to engage in design thinking and solve various problems are abundantly available online4. It has matured into a fairly established field of universal methods and many people believe design thinking to be a superior approach when confronting deep complexity （Conklin, 2006）, seeking a competitive advantage （Martin, 2009; Dunne & Martin, 2006）, or achieving social impact （Brown, 2009）. As a consequence, it is currently being implemented on various organisational levels across a wide range of industries （Kolko, 2015）.

10


Design thinking ‒ what is it? As mentioned, the field of design thinking is relatively young and the rapidly growing attention in recent years has led to the body of literature becoming ontologically quite fragmented. Some studies, however, have nicely outlined typographies elucidating the primary literary strings. For good broad introductions see Kimbell （2011）, Hassi & Laakso （2011） and Cross （2006）. Following Kimbell （2011）, literature on design thinking largely centres around three salient perspectives; Design thinking as a cognitive style, as a general theory of design and as organisational resource. Although describing design thinking, each perspective has a different focus, ontology and unit of analysis. For the purpose of this paper, we will draw on the third perspective dealing with design thinking as an organisational resource where its objective is solving problems through innovation （Kimbell, 2011: 297-298: Martin, 2009）. Central to this body of research on design thinking as an organisational resource is Tim Brown’s 2009 book Change by Design. In this widely cited text Brown, CEO of IDEO, defines design thinking as a method “that can be integrated into all aspects of business and society, and that individuals and teams can use to generate breakthrough ideas that are implemented and therefore have an impact” （Brown, 2009: 3）. Although Tim Brown notes that all can utilise a design thinking methodology in order to innovate, the literature has identified four foundational elements at the core of the method: human-centric, collaborative work-style, action-bias and visualising. Firstly, design thinking is ultimately a human-centric approach. Brown （2008）, Kelley & Kelley （2013） and Holloway （2009） emphasise the importance of gaining insights through deep empathy typically obtained utilising ethnographic research methods. Beyond simply uncovering potentially latent user needs, any solution has to add direct value for the individual in focus and this is typically achieved by defining a specific problem from the perspective of an end-user. This part of design thinking is similar to user-driven innovation as presented by Hippel （2005）. Buchanan further underlines the central position of a human focus in design as a whole: “Design is not a trivial aspect of the development of information technology; it is the central discipline for humanising all technologies, turning them to human purpose and enjoyment.” （Buchanan, 1992: 8）. Secondly, a collaborative work-style is another key element of the methodology. Rather than relying

11


on individual work, the emphasis is on interdisciplinary, heterogeneous team composition as well as collaboration with external stakeholders （Brown, 2008; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Drews, 2009）. Thirdly, in what may seem like a misnomer, there is an inherent bias toward action in the method of design thinking （Kelley & Kelley, 2013: Dunne & Martin, 2006: Lockwood 2010）. The process is characterised by early prototyping, which is ideally iterated continuously throughout the project （Drews, 2009）. Prototypes are instrumental in facilitating knowledge creation by supporting idea formulations as well as to make concepts concrete and possible solutions testable. The bias toward action also encompasses a positive view on failure. In order to prototype early and often, failure is a natural part of the process and even encouraged as opportunities for learning rather than viewed as stigmatising and something to avoid （Brown, 2009）. This is potentially a powerful corrective to the fear of failure that is arguably a side effect of zero sum game examination-based contests for college admission and rationed higher grades. Fourthly, visualising is another foundational element and connected to the bias toward action. Rylander （2009） notes that visual sense making （interactions with physical objects as well as people） is the dominant sense-making mode in design thinking as opposed to classical knowledge workers who primarily rely on verbal sense making. Practically, this means that a lot is communicated through other media than words and symbols and a host of different tools are often utilised （Post-its, blueprints, journey maps etc.）（Brown, 2009）. Visuals are typically apt when communicating ideas and intangibles, but also considered a stimulating way to approach a solutions space and reveal relations not accessible through normal conversation （Lockwood, 2010; Sato et al, 2010）. The corrective this offers to the overwhelmingly textual and narrative biases of traditional undergraduate academic curricula, including that of liberal arts programs, is stark. Given recent developments in digital communications, much could be done to enhance visual literacy and efficacy through university programs. Design thinking as a methodology, clearly is a significant departure from traditional management and organizational practices where work is ongoing and linear problem solving typically applied （Tschimmel, 2012: Dunne & Martin, 2006）. This may in and of itself cause resistance when implementing, however, as toolkits and instruction guides are freely available online, the

12


initial costs of exploring such an approach are low. Although design thinking has been discussed in the field of education （Dunne & Martin, 2006）, its potential application in a liberal arts curriculum or, alternatively, in place of one, is yet to attract much attention. In countries, such as Japan and South Korea, where liberal arts education has recently been seen as a panacea for various human resource and educational inadequacies, the fostering of ‘critical thinking’ skills is often emphasised as an objective. Yet understandings of the nature of problem-solving have advanced beyond this.

‘wicked problems’ In 1973 Rittel & Weber introduced the idea of “wicked problems” in their seminal paper ‘Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning’. Rittel & Weber argue that the nature of some problems – such as those of social policy and planning – is the very cause of why confronting them are bound to fail. They argue that wicked problems are in contrast to ‘tame’ or ‘benign’ problems, which are exemplified by a mathematician solving an equation or a chess player strategizing for a checkmate （Rittel & Weber, 1973）. Wicked problems are open-ended in that they are ill-defined, dynamic and characterised by requirements that are often contradictory and incomplete. Further, the information needed to comprehend a given wicked problem depends on the idea of solving it and it is characterized with complex interdependencies. Conklin （2006） notes that every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel and every solution is a ‘one shot operation’ （Conklin, 2006: 9）. Consequently, there is no definitively right or wrong solution, but rather solutions can only be deemed “better” or “worse” （Rittel & Weber, 1973）. Typical linear, or step-by-step problem solving techniques, are obviously inadequate for addressing such problems. Yet schooling and much undergraduate education privileges only such problem-solving. Increasingly, Conklin （2006） argues, problems encountered in contemporary societies have a wicked component due to high social complexity. Especially in the context of projects involving multiple and diverse stakeholders, each with potentially different objectives and expectations, a solution developed by a given project team may hold little value insofar as the stakeholders do not agree. As such, whatever solution may be developed, only holds value if it is recognised as legitimate by the involved social network

13


of stakeholders （Conklin, 2006）. Buchanan （1992）, discusses the notion of wicked problems in the context of design thinking and notes that all wicked problems can be seen as design problems: “Design problems are （...） “wicked” because design has no special subject matter of its own apart from

what the designer conceives it to be.” （Buchanan, 1992:16） Based on the conceptualisation of design thinking above and given Buchanan’s （1992） conceptual connection between design method and wicked problems, the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature combined with the iterative process, is particularly apt in confronting wicked problems. Involving key stakeholders early in the process enables a shared framing and understanding of a given problem field: ‘Dealing with wicked problems is not at all a matter of coming up with the best answer; rather, it’s about engaging stakeholders in a robust and healthy process of making sense of the problem’s dimensions.’ （Conklin, 2006: 18）. Further, it distributes a sense of ownership of the solution space thus synergistically increasing motivation and determination.

Conclusions

We conclude that design thinking is worthy of consideration as a core contemporary liberal art: as a complement to its established disciplines and canon, providing a cohering mode of action. Buchanan’s （1992） paper on wicked problems is one of the most cited in the field of design thinking and he argued for its status as a liberal art. Unfortunately the audience for that article for the last quarter century has primarily been designers and researchers of it rather than liberal arts educators. Beyond the conceptual congruity that Buchanan revealed, we suggest that design thinking may bring considerable value to the pragmatic higher education endeavour in three specific ways. Firstly, from the perspective of students, design thinking offers a chance to develop skills that are more in tune with what is increasingly being expected from employers post graduation. Further, the emphasis on process and output – driven by the bias toward action – is highly compatible with, and could serve as, a practical anchoring of other liberal arts disciplines. Thus it will work synergistically with already established curriculum and should not be seen as a threat to it. Miller （2015）, in pondering seriously the very question of whether design thinking is the （not a） new liberal art, concluded

14


no because of its insufficient attention to the past and the rich lessons history offers us. An historian of historical research, Miller quotes approvingly his sometime collaborator Michael Shanks, a classicist who actually teaches in Stanford’s d.school, who said that design thinking should be thought more of as “necessarily archaeological” and representing “...what prior generations called ‘the liberal arts’ ̶ the belief that knowledge from and about the past is important for living well in the future.” （Miller, 2015） This is an important corrective to both simpler design thinking constructs and narratives about innovation, disruption and the end of ‘old certainties’. A knowledge of history brings perspective and problem-solving resources. Design thinking, well done, does not displace history: it can create new spaces for its lessons in the present. Secondly, another tantalising prospect is the potential for teaching empathy, which has been considered notoriously difficult to do. Research has yet to explore this area, but Lidtka （2015） hypothesises that design thinking is linked to innovation and organisational outcome through cognitive bias reduction. It might help to inculcate in ‘elite’ students a modesty towards contemporaries from all walks of life and not just towards the rarified personas of past great masters and other historical figures. In routinising a focus on empathy （for end-users） in an environment of diverse people （colleagues）, and make usability （in the eye of the user herself） a key success criterion of a given project, it is highly probable that design thinking activates empathic resources that are not typically exercised, especially in auto-didactic practice. Design thinking doesn’t just take the liberal arts off the campus. It has the potential to hand an empowering methodology of problem identification and solving to anybody with an inclination to use it, regardless of whether they have been privileged to experience an extended period on a higher education campus or not. Lastly, integrating design thinking into the curricula may ultimately help improve the relative competitiveness of liberal arts colleges （and programs） by increasing their value proposition to students and society at large. The liberal arts has long had a clear pedagogy for on-campus learning but lacking an orientation to praxis, beyond rhetoric. Advocacy without design has left a long history of failed social interventions and arguably a sense of despondency that some human misfortune is interminable. Design thinking encourages the seeking of hitherto unspecified problems in the communities and

15


environments that surround us. We might search the present for problems that a knowledge of the past and other places might help us both recognise and develop solutions for. In turn, the liberal arts program may more confidently reassert its value as a promoter and enabler of service. We conclude that design thinking as pedagogy, ethos and praxis may reinvigorate and cohere the interdisciplinary aspirations of long-established liberal arts programs, ably complement the educational mission of the ‘new liberal arts’ programs in Asia and Europe and also serve as a corrective to hyper-specialisation in very different types of university programs. The empathetic action orientation of design thinking would add considerable educational value to the now commodified and massified undergraduate education that prevails in many fields, and especially in areas such as business. Design thinking needs to be applied though to the now well-articulated problem of delivering such quality experiential education at relatively low cost.

REFERENCESAnsell, B.W. （2008） ‘University Challenges: Explaining Institutional Change in Higher

Education’, World Politics, 60:2, 189–230.Astin, A.W. （1999） ‘How the liberal arts college affects students’, Daedalus, 128（1）, 77–100.

Axelrod, P., P. Anisef, & Zeng Lin （2001） ‘Against All Odds? The Enduring Value of Liberal Education in Universities, Professions, and the Labour Market’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 31（2）: 47–78.

Baker, David P. （2014） The Schooled Society: The Educational Transformation of Global Culture, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Baker, V., R. Baldwin & S. Makker （2012） ‘Where Are They Now? Revisiting Breneman’s Study of Liberal Arts Colleges’, Liberal Education, 98（3）: 48–53.

Barber, B.J. & R. Battistoni （1993） ‘A Season of Service: Introducing Service Learning into the Liberal Arts Curriculum’, Political Science & Politics, 26（2）: 235–40.

Bousbaci, R. （2008） ‘‘Models of Man’ in Design Thinking: The ‘Bounded Rationality’ Episode’, Design Issues 24: 38–52.

Breneman, D.W. （1994） Liberal Arts Colleges: Thriving, Surviving, or Endangered?, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Brinkman, P.T. & L. L. Leslie （1986） ‘Economies of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research’, Review of Higher Education, 10（1）: 1–28.

Brown, T. （2008） ‘Design thinking’, Harvard Business Review, June 2008, 84–92.Brown. T. （2009） Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and

Inspires Innovation.’ New York: Harper Collins.

16


Buchanan, R. （1992） ‘Wicked problems in design thinking’, Design Issues, 8（2）: 5–21.Busemeyer, M.R., and C. Trampusch （2011）. ‘Review Article: Comparative Political

Science and the Study of Education’, British Journal of Political Science, 41:2, 413–43.Christensen Rind, P. （2010） “Designtænkning”, i （2010） “Strategi & Ledelse”, Børsens

Forum.Clark, B.R. （2001） ‘The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality,

Autonomy, and Achievement’, Higher Education Management, 13（1）, 9–24.Conklin, J. （2006） Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems,

New York: Wiley.Cross, N. （2006） Designerly Ways of Knowing, Berlin: Springer.Cross, N., Dorst, K., & Roozenburg, N., eds. （1992） Research in Design Thinking, Delft,The

Netherlands: Delft University Press. Delucchi, M. （1997） ‘Liberal arts colleges and the myth of uniqueness’, The Journal of

Higher Education, 68（4）: 414–426. Drews, C. （2009） ‘Unleashing the full potential of design thinking as a business method’,

Design Management Review, 20（3）: 39–44.Dunne, D., & Martin, R. （2006） ‘Design thinking and how it will change management

education: An interview and discussion’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5（4）: 512–523.

Ferrall, V.E. （2011）, Liberal Arts at the Brink, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garritzmann, J. L. （2016） The Political Economy of Higher Education Finance: the politics of

tuition fees and subsidies in OECD countries, 1945–2015, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Hassi, L., & Laakso, M.S. （2011） ‘Conceptions of design thinking in the management

discourse’, Proceedings of the 9 The European Academy of Design （EAD）, Lisbon.Hewitt, A. （2016） ’Developing Canada’s future workforce: a survey of large private-sector

employers’, Business Council of Canada, March. Hippel, E. （2005） ‘Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user

innovation’, Journal für Betriebswirtschaft , 55（1）: 63–78.Holloway, M. （2009） ‘How tangible is your strategy? How design thinking can turn your

strategy into reality’, Journal of Business Strategy, 30（2/3）: 50–56.Jakobi, A.P. （2011） ‘Political Parties and the Institutionalization of Education: A Comparative

Analysis of Party Manifestos’, Comparative Education Review, 55:2, 189–209.Jungblut, J. （2014） ‘Partisan politics in higher education policy’, Goastellec, G. & F. Picard,

eds. （2014） Higher Education in Societies: A Multi Scale Perspective, Volume 7, Higher Education in the 21st Century Series, Rotterdam: Sense, 87–111.

Kelley, T. & D. Kelley （2013） Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All, Crown Business.

Kerr, C. （1963） The Uses of the University, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kimball, B.A. （2014） ‘Revising the Declension Narrative: Liberal Arts Colleges,

Universities, and Honors Programs, 1870s–2010s’, Harvard Educational Review, 84（2）: 243–264.

17


Kimbell, L. （2011） ‘Rethinking Design Thinking’, Design and Culture, 3（3）: 285–306.Kolko, J. （2015） ‘Design Thinking Comes of Age’, Harvard Business Review 93: 66–71.Koshal, R.K., & Koshal, M. （2000） ‘Do liberal arts colleges exhibit economies of scale and

scope?’, Education Economics, 8（3）: 209–220. Liedtka, J. （2015） ‘Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes

through Cognitive Bias Reduction’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32: 925–938.

Lipman-Blumen, J. （1995） ‘The creative tension between liberal arts and specialization’, Liberal Education, 81（1）: 17–25.

Lockwood, T. （2010） ‘The bridge between design and business’, President’s Letter, Design Management Review, 21（3）: 5.

MacTaggart, T. （2007） Academic Turnarounds: Restoring Vitality to Challenged American Colleges and Universitites, American Council on Education Series on Higher Education, Westport, CT: Praeger.

McNutt, M.I. （2014） ‘There is value in liberal arts education, employers say’, US. News & World Report, 22 September. Accessed 30 September.

McPherson, M. S. & M. O. Schapiro （1999） ‘The future economic challenges for the liberal arts colleges’, Daedalus 12 （1）, 47–75.

Marginson, S. （2016） ‘The worldwide trend to high participation in higher education: dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems’, Higher Education, 72（4）: 413–434.

Martin, J. & J.E. Samels （2009） Turnaround: Leading stressed colleges and universities to excellence, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Martin, R.L. （2009） The Design of Business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage, Cambridge: Harvard Business School.

Miller, P.N. （2015） ‘Is ‘Design Thinking’ the New Liberal Arts?’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 March.

Miller, R.K. & B. Linder （2015） ‘Is Design Thinking the New Liberal Arts of Education?’, accessed 29 September 2016 at http://www.olin.edu/sites/default/files/oct_15_design_thinking.pdf.

Rittel. H., and Webber, M. （1973）. ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences, 4: 155–169.

Rylander, A. （2009） ‘Design thinking as knowledge work: Epistemological foundations and practical Implications’, Design Management Journal, 4（1）: 7–19.

Sato, S., Lucente, S., Meyer, D. & Mrazek, D. （2010） ‘Design thinking to make organization change and development more responsive’, Design Management Review, 21（2）: 44–52.

Shapiro, J.J. & S.K. Hughes （1996） ‘Information Literacy as a Liberal Art’, Sequence, 31（2）. No pages in on-line version.

Simon, H. （1969） The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Symons, V.J. & S.W. Barnett, eds. （2015） Asia in the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Case

for Asian Studies in Liberal Arts Education, London & New York: Routledge East Gate.

18


First published in 2000.Tschimmel, K. （2012） ‘Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation’, in

Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience, Barcelona.

Wladawsky-Berger, I. （2016a） ‘What’s the Value of a Liberal Arts Education in Our 21st Century Digital Economy?’, Wall Street Journal, March 4.

Wladawsky-Berger, I. （2016b） ‘Is Design Thinking the New Liberal Arts?’, The Wall Street Journal, 4 November.

　　　　　　　　　１ Kimball explains this liberal arts vision as: “Founded initially on the model of the

colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, American liberal arts colleges have emphasised general education in the traditional arts and disciplines. This education has aimed at the discovery of intrinsic values, the formation of character and citizenship, the development of community and close relations between students and faculty, and the nurturing of culture, known historically in Greek as paideia and in German as Bildung.” （Kimball, 2014: 244）

２ The universalisation of universal higher education is well known to both higher education specialists and to development studies experts studying those societies which have not yet reached a threshold level of prosperity that typically sets such an expansion in train. That most developed societies have moved rapidly to have near or more than half of their school-graduating cohort go onto higher education is often overlooked in national debates about their education system, which are patterned by each country’s institutional particularity （Marginson, 2016）. Who pays and how much is a universal issue, and there is considerable variance in the public-private funding and delivery mix. Recent scholarship looks for explanations in electoral politics, sectarianism, and institutional dynamics （Busemeyer & Trampusch, 2011; Jakobi, 2011; Jungblut, 2014）. Garritzmann’s （2016） book length study privileges class interests and related ideologies, manifested through party politics as a historical determinant of the postwar divergence in higher education systems across countries of a similar level of economic development.

３ The college - university distinction is somewhat obscured by the American habit of referring to undergraduate education as college even if undertaken in a university, and also by this persistence of elite undergraduate programs in a collegiate structure as part of what became a larger university entity.

４ Examples include https://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/ and http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/.

design thinking as a liberal art - wordpress.com...jakob thestrup christopher pokarier design...

Documents