Innovating Industrial Design Curriculum in a

Knowledge-Based, Participatory and Digital Era

Mauricio Novoa, Western Sydney University, Australia

Abstract
This article discusses three years’ research (2012-2014) on design education towards a
2016 undergraduate industrial design curriculum launch. It contributes a pathway for
conservative courses towards design culture transformation and filling gaps between them
and leading breakthrough education exemplars. The course proposes a collective
knowledge creation model through social constructivism and constructionism that
recognises its place in time and history and allows customisation to individual upbringing.
It catches up with a profession transformed beyond a digital Bauhaus manifesto that joined
and revaluated physical and digital artefacts as per their environment, quality of
experiences, intelligence, networks and relations. Data and findings supported pedagogy
redefinition from master-apprentice and teacher-centred skill transmission models to
heutagogy and paragogy. The new approach required habitus change from a traditional
goods-centred discipline to human-centred focus, critical design and making, design
heuristics, CDIO (conceiving, designing, implementing, operating) and STEAM (science,
technology, arts, mathematics) frameworks. Participants empathetically contextualised,
problem framed and solved by crossing boundaries between disciplines, institutions,
industries, students’ background and society. Research and practice promoted new forms
of industrial design creation happening in physical and digital coexisting spaces of being.
Course units evolved around an e-curriculum component working as a digital spine.
Curriculum progressed from standard top-down transmission to sociotechnical and
organisational networking, industry collaboration, international design studio and Design
Factory model-like projects. In doing so, it became a foundation for future physical-digital
industrial design artefacts, human computer interaction, machine learning, hacker culture
systems, shared information, free open-source software and hardware development
within a 4.0 industrial revolution.

Key words
cultural-historical activity theory, constructivism, constructionism, CDIO, design education,
STEAM

Introduction
Experts propose design has cultural significance beyond wealth creation and situate
designers as change agents, culture generators, and reference point for policy makers and
intellectuals of the future (Hustwit, Beshenkovsky, Geissbuhler, & Dunne, 2009). These
claims evoke Bauhaus artist-designers’ aspiration to lead society into social wellbeing from

Page | 154
a century ago. Yet, today many designers lack the intellectual and commercial preparation
to lead business, politics and social change. Numerous industrial design educations are still
linked to specialised assembly and manufacturing, while higher education relies on
massification of teaching and strong preconditioning of outcomes for its survival. We live in
a knowledge-based economy, decades after a digital Bauhaus manifesto that transferred
design meaning from mass production to experience and knowledge creation. Timely, this
article discusses an undergraduate design degree makeover (2012-2014) which focuses on
an individual and collective knowledge production model through social constructivism and
constructionism. It redefines design artefacts as tangible and intangible knowledge-based
capital that realigns cultural, historical and spatial setting to address relationships between
environment, people and technology. Design heuristics help overcome the physical-digital
divide with empathy, contextualised human-centred and experiential design, and crossing
boundaries between disciplines and participants. Social constructivism defines cognitive
processes as knowledge construction by learners through their own distinctive system of
knowing, making and modelling. Constructionism means the physical, digital and social
process by which those creations materialise through continuous conversation, interaction,
critical design and making.
Educational institutions play a pivotal role in the past and future of social development,
whereas curriculum imparts discipline rules and prepare students for the profession.
Course culture is thus determined within the push-pull between environment, people and
technology that challenges established conventions (Figure 1). In particular, design
courses’ agency depends on innovation while still suffering unresolved dilemmas. A
definitional crisis polarises programs between the extremes of artist-designer (inspired
creative genius) and engineer-designer (scientific calculation resolving complicated
problems). There is also a gap between well-funded benchmarks and design education that
frequently struggles economically because of normative constraints and increasing

Page | 155
pressure towards massification of higher education. New, cheaper information and
communication technologies (ICT) further redefine human relations, their space and time
dimensions (e.g. face-to-face, mediated, distributed, augmented) while also replacing
traditional professions. Lastly, academia is experiencing rising demands to develop
competencies not available in standard design education (e.g. collective, creative,
empathic). Fittingly, this research aims to answer: how can an industrial design curriculum
enable participants’ knowledge construction to develop a design-driven innovation culture
in a digital era? Supporting this, there are questions of how to:
A. Update curriculum when design artefacts are no longer physical only?
B. Diminish uncertainty and stimulate constructive collaboration?
C. Bridge the physical-digital divide while transforming participants from
technology consumers to active cultural producers and mediators for social
benefit?
Figure 1: Environment, people and technology push-pull challenging design education.
Reprinted from Author, 18 January 2012, Vision for Industrial Design Course:
Presentation to Directors of Academics Program Panel, Unpublished internal document .

Method
This paper firstly uses epistemology to define and contextualise the challenge of industrial
design in the current knowledge-based, participatory and digital era. Particularly, research
on theories of knowledge that look into what constitute a design artefact, its historical
context and effects on pedagogy. Cultural-historical activity theory was found to suit the
process of course reformulation best. The paper then looks at the second step in this
project that focused on a curriculum development that recognised education and
technology benchmarks, and developed a new course with collaborative and
interventionist research approach to re-address design education for current times:
Results
Epistemology
The Design Artefact
Design artefacts have experienced semantic shifts alongside social and technological
changes. Industrial design has primarily persuaded society through physical artefacts.
These were understood as objects (entities with purpose), as opposed to things (natural
entities independent from human intention or no longer serving function). Artefacts
resulted from applying practical skill (Latin arte) to make well and good (facere) ‘man-
made’ statements (factum). Social and material culture experts assumed them as tangible,
ready-made and matters-of-fact (empirically measured) material properties capable of
influencing human behaviour. Yet, a design artefact is not just an artefact. It is also a
technical object. (Greek techne: crafted, manufactured, systematic). Concepts of truth,
belief and socio-environmental connections affected how they carried knowledge.
Originally, the English word for design came from old Greek past tense (eschein) for to
have or possess something. The embedded meaning was about loss of possession which

Page | 156
required artefact representation to prevent humans from forgetting (Terzidis, 2007). Its
Latin root (de: out, signare: drawing a sign) meant marking to preserve mental images.
Latour (2004); (2008) argues that design became exhausted last century as it turned into
superficial stylistic representations (relooking) as veneers of fashion taste. He proposes a
constructivist approach redrawing two disconnected narratives together. One of
emancipation, detachment, modernisation, progress and mastery, and the other
completely different of attachment, precaution entanglement, dependence and care in
favour of redesigning effective nature and society ecosystems (e.g. climate change, equity,
globalisation). Current problems are too multifaceted to condense as material matters-of-
fact and input-output productivity. Design artefacts must transform from image
representation to purposely constructed things capable of addressing matters-of-concern
(undefined with relative implications) by appropriate processes that solve ambiguous and
complex challenges.
This curative design strength can help us re-evaluate artefacts beyond possession
(consumption) and relooking (fashion) to re-seeing and seeing-through solutions for
humanity and nature as acts of iterative meaning construction. Consequentially, design is
better defined with active verb expressions (e.g. making, modelling, testing) with non-finite
properties in process of continuous development and interpretation. As with Dutch
description (ontwerp), projected modelling inquires the present to improve future realities
through research, collaborative and evolutionary improvements. Design education can
futureproof discipline and students by teaching design artefacts which are epistemic
instruments. They are characteristically fluid, non-static permeable and porous to their
context, environment and users. A four knowledge construction periods timeline (Figure 2)
assists understanding design artefacts’ past and future incarnations as:
1. Product-Production: Craftsmanship representing inspiration on constructed (a
priori) knowledge.
2. Process-Method: Industrial and material applied research for forming and mass
production.
3. People-Participation: Intricate challenges represented by people as consumers
(e.g. behaviour, cognition), and the start of the electronic era (e.g. information,
productivity, technology).
4. Stages 1-3 are characterised by linear, simple and complicated problem-solving
needing passive or restricted user operation to complete them (e.g. cars, chairs).
5. Place-Time-Practice: Design artefacts as projects figuring out complexity and users
(e.g. choices, decision-making, experience) through practice and forward
(posteriori) knowledge construction in undefined environments. This requires
active redesigning of artefacts as presentative platforms needing user intervention
to generate and regenerate design (e.g. apps, coding, artificial entities).
Characteristically, it involves co-creative and empirical habits based on empathy,
discovery, participatory action research (PAR), modelling, and customised
forecasting and production. Since people can now design their own artefacts while
identity and knowledge are easily reconfigurable through physical-digital

Page | 157
 materiality, spaces, time narratives, networks, cyber-culture, 4.0 industrial
revolution’s automation, generative design and artificial intelligence.

Historical Context
Most industrial designers are Bauhauslers because of heritage. Bauhaus (1919-1933)
merged art and technology to democratise industrialisation. Gropius’ manifesto
denounced artists and designers as glorified craftsmen-decorators, and aesthetes who
were isolated from their socio-historical environment (Gropius, 1919). He opposed
pedagogy’s (Greek paida: children, gogo: to lead) master-apprentice model that guided
passive students via transmission and task replication (Herbart, 1806; Majorek, 1998).
Bauhaus was influenced by other movements (e.g. Deutscher Werkbund,
Novembergrouppe), intellectuals (e.g. Weber, Frankfurt School of Social Sciences) and
Dewey's re-imagining of learning as problem-based, hands-on, pragmatic education
(Bergdoll & Dickerman, 2009; Dewey, 1902; Maciuika, 2005).
A 6-year constructivist artist-designer syllabus consolidated industrial design past crafts
and draughtsmanship into higher art by making it inseparable from research and social
implication (Armengaud, 1853; Betts, 2004). Learners’ iterative trial-and-error
experimentation heuristics (Greek heureskein), transformative dialogue, prototyping and
testing started from foundational analysis to nature, science (e.g. manufacturing,
mathematics, geometry), comparative studies, and final specialisation. Unembellished
design artefacts were the archetypal integration of research science and visual arts, artist
and machine aesthetics (Dondis, 1973; Saletnik & Schuldenfrei, 2013). Ground-breaking,
Bauhaus-visible influence gave designers moral value with worth beyond productivity.
Social change resulted from artefacts’ immediacy as “it is impossible to procure knowledge
without the use of objects which impress the mind” (Dewey, 1975). However, Bauhaus did
not translate well elsewhere.

Page | 158
Figure 2: Industrial design’s four knowledge construction eras. Reprinted from Author, 27
October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and Imperatives for the
New Normal of Innovation and its Education, Unpublished internal document.
Mostly in post-war United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), many designers,
educators and intellectuals tried to engineer society. As an example, the International Style
kept Bauhaus functionalism minus its social significance. Asemantic modernism rejected
ordinary human, social and geographical interests. Government, corporate and education
projects used design as instrument of control that befell users unable to connect with it.
Experts predicated rationalistic methods would automatically make the world better by
stringent procedures. Thus, design followed collected computing data, logical deduction
and mathematical optimisation models (Miller & Tilley, 1984). Simon advocated artificial
intelligence would do any work a man did within 20 years (Simon, 1969), while Habermas
critiqued the notion of social engineering replaced the old with a new Enlightenment
promising to solve all problems (Habermas, 2012). People became dissocialised consumers
Page | 159
at the mercy of financial markets. Designers and their artefacts became mythical high-tech
commodities under technologists’ control that permeated society and institutions (e.g.
academia, law, sciences) with self-supporting processes empty of meaning (Lyotard, 1984;
Zuidervaart, 1993). Adorno pointed to increasing fetishism the further meaning was lost in
the push-pull among production and malfunctioning people’s social mechanisms (e.g. arts,
communications, culture experts, education) needed to figure out their alienation
(Horkheimer, Adorno, & Noeri, 2002).
Elsewhere, in Germany and Northern Europe, design went beyond artist-designer and
engineer-designer ideologies to set the foundation for human-centred design (HCD) and
education thereafter. The HfG Ulm School (1953-1968) proposed design as an everyday life
discipline assisting national reconstruction. Idiosyncratic research methods converted
consumers into user-participants who integrated technology and culture through design
(Olt Aicher, 1919; 1994; Krippendorff, 2008; Maldonado, 1958). Ulm’s research-driven and
project-based program built on humanism, pragmatism, semiotics and Frankfurt School
principles. The 4-year course had a collaborative first-year introducing students to 4
interdisciplinary pillars: industrial design, building, visual communication and information.
Gorman (2003) explained that practice and theory focused on cultural theory, chemistry,
mathematics, methodology (e.g. logic, permutations, topology), perception, physics,
presentation (e.g. drawing, drafting, language, typography), sociology, visual methods (2
and 3-dimensional experimentation), and workshop (e.g. metal, photography, wood). Ulm
argued that information technologies transformed artefacts’ material qualities and users
into abstract data with a new concept of industrial duplication. Representation became
more important as technocrats’ decision-making and modelling perfection succeeded only
if human subjective interference was eliminated (Maldonado, 1972). Yet, design was
neither science nor engineering or artistic intuition. Instead, it was defined by artefacts and
users’ activity, interaction and values. This freed design artefacts from material-oriented
views conceiving that industrial design was to solid materials as graphic design was to
paper (Bonsiepe, 2010; Oswald, 2012).
After the 1970s, following phenomenological analysis of style, methodology and industrial
production, design thinkers proposed design as a third creative culture in-between the two
traditional ones of humanities-social sciences and science-technology (Archer, Baynes, &
Roberts, 1992, 2005). Cross (1982, 2001, 2007) categorised design research as either by,
for or through design. Others argued designers are sense-making beings rather than
problem solvers only (Dorst, 1997; Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995; Gedenryd, 1998). However, Ehn
(1998) was the one who indicated academia had fallen behind from Bauhaus and HfG Ulm
bequest. His Digital Bauhaus Manifesto offered a multidisciplinary, reflective and
participatory course at Sweden’s Malmö University. Students merged arts, crafts, design
and technology. Design expanded to interaction, participatory design (PD) and human
computer interaction (HCI) in an experience economy. Design embraced a digital
revolution that transgressed material space, time, culture divisions and hard (e.g.
materials, manufacturing) and soft (e.g. coding, ethics, management) technologies.
Artefacts, environments, participants and time no longer followed linear patterns. They
also became virtual and fluid. Consumers as users were present, mediated, distributed, co-
present or augmented through participative creation of interactive narratives.
Two decades on, education is slowly adapting to experience design while users are
knowledge workers already living a knowledge-based and innovation-driven economy.
Page | 160
They work on non-routine problem solving and independently produce new knowledge
and ways to transmit it as portable capital assets regardless of their position in a globalised
market (Drucker, 1999, 2011). Fittingly, Bremner and Rodgers (2013) said design is in a 40-
year crisis as a “discipline without a discipline”. Concerns are that professional strengths
are hijacked by non-designers (Cruickshank, 2014; Lockwood, 2010; Martin, 2007; D. H.
Pink, 2006). Business, local authorities and marketing use design methods as common
sense, non-ideological and depoliticised technics (e.g. IDEO’s Design Thinking). Thus, non-
designers may sacrifice design’s innovation if applying its methods as replicable templates
that are indifferent to problems of complexity, contexts and users (Jacob, 2013). Design
can again solve the disconnect in society by re-seeing the industrial (Latin industria:
diligence, manufacturing) in design with a new meaning for manufacturing (Latin manu:
human intervention, facture: making) and wellbeing. Success cannot be measured by
production efficiency and fashion as before. Instead, it should be by defining outcomes at
the other end. Precisely at the moment of design artefact instantiation when users
negotiate design artefact effectiveness. This notion expands designers’ mediation to any
field with similar application of its principles, theory, or classes of objects. It helps to
establish new dialectics between humans and artefacts, and among artefacts. This is a
welcome diversification as industrial design based on material production is changing.
Today’s high-tech design, computer power and hard technology may cost as little as
US$5.00 by 2032 (Stross, 2014).

Pedagogy
Design education agency depends on pedagogy that can reflect the productivity shift from
conspicuous consumption to globalised design-driven digitalisation, experience and
knowledge. With good timing, Fallan (2010) credited industrial design with building a
discourse increasingly independent from art and based on context and artefact-user
interaction. However, the education business is hazardous. Institutions often suffer
contradictions that still affect pedagogy with the legacies of the last century. Funding
constraints increase pressure to massify education to loss of critical thinking (Liem &
Sigurjonsson, 2014). Pope (2016) states that curriculum is used as political tool that
organises, codes, mediates and administers power. Others denounce a slippery slope with
a neoliberal agenda that uses technocratic measures as a Trojan horse, where
managerialism forces teachers into predefined learning outcomes and instrumentalised
education away from quality and critical reflection (Gleeson, 2013). Logically, universities
constantly invest in infrastructure to improve their visible clout and maintain claims of
excellence. Also, ICTs are often sought after to maximise performance, as they are cheaper
than face-to-face and project-based learning. Yet, large and costly physical projects run in
opposite directions to digital knowledge flow costs that are becoming portable,
transmittable and free for users within and outside those institutions. Technological
disruption also brings new players intending to control communication, education and
news on strength of social networking and algorithmic formulae (e.g. Facebook, Google).
Admittedly, Gropius’ departure from the Beaux-Arts academy had a first-year intake more
prepared and a course longer than ours. Yet, Bauhaus underscored the significance of
active construction of knowledge through heuristics. It ran against trends that maintained
the asemantic and preconditioned status quo through modernism and post-modernism.

Page | 161
19th century pedagogy and 20th century adult education (andragogy), behaviourism and
Bloom’s taxonomy, all pursued the approach of efficient skill transfer as instruction that
pre-empted behaviour before it had occurred (Alberto & Troutman, 2012; Bloom,
Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Herbart, 1806; Kapp, 1833; Knowles, 1980;
Skinner, 1974; Watson, 1913). Prescriptive environments greatly disregarded participants’
critical (Greek kritikos: discernment) state of mind. In this century, technology may add to
that tendency against learning if Web 1.0 (data broadcasting), 2.0 (personalised
information), 3.0 (peer-centred, semantic web) and 4.0 (open, linked, intelligent cyber-
physical generation) evolution is thought as solved with ICT decontextualised from changes
to ideology, users and environment.
Recent pedagogical models explain learning for our times as decentralised, experiential,
transmediatic, peer-centred and crossing institutional and disciplinary boundaries
indifferent to physical and digital dimensions (Table 1). Self-determined discovery
(heutagogy) and peer-to-peer generative learning (paragogy) can extend Bauhaus’ and
Ulm’s constructivist and critical theory framework. They encourage learners to query users
and environment, improve and influence the social, historical, and ideological structures
that produce and constrain them (Corneli & Danoff, 2011; Corneli, Danoff, Pierce, Ricaurte,
& Macdonald, 2015; Hase & Kenyon, 2013; Kenyon & Hase, 2001). Fittingly, (2012)
epistemology schema helped curriculum development as a query for changing the status
quo through physical and digital artefacts and activities (Figure 3). Based on a metaphor of
centres, he showed that technical simplification, top-down and fundamental universal
control on design do not help in making sense of and solving current complex, distributed,
dynamic, networked and open challenges, because:
• Abandoned-centre frameworks show typical industrial age syllabus that imparts
skills as single discipline ‘true particular’. Academics risk siloism within walls of
technology, specialisation, lack of shared understanding, content and purpose.
• Soft-centre models represent belief on ‘universal’ generalisable truths that cross
over discipline boundaries as with cross-, inter- and multi-disciplinary relations.
However, stronger disciplines may take over younger ones. As with design, more
powerful and evolved histories (e.g. arts, science, social sciences) have affected it
because of a lack of an independent discourse.
• Hard-centre models propose individual discipline principles depend on a hard core
containing fundamental universal laws (e.g. École des Beaux-Arts aesthetics,
Bloom’s taxonomy determinism).
• Liquid-centre structures show best suited as designers must be flexible and open to
dialogue. Participants’ beliefs and facts conform ‘real particulars’ that inform
customisation, innovation, problem framing and solving, systemic perspective, and
transdisciplinary collaboration.

Page | 162
Table 1: Pedagogy models in relation to design education and technology

Note. Based and adapted from Corneli and Danoff (2011); Corneli et al. (2015); Hase and
Kenyon (2013); Herbart (1806); Kapp (1833); Kenyon and Hase (2001); Knowles (1980).

Figure 3: Design learning epistemology. Reprinted from Nelson, H. G. (2012). The Design
Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World (Second edition. ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, Copyright © 2012 Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman.

Page | 163
1 Cultural and Historical Activity Theory
As per several authors, including Engeström (1987); (1990, 2001, 2009a, 2009b, 2014;
2010); Kaptelinin (2013); Khayyat (2016); Sannino (2011); Yamagata-Lynch (2010), cultural-
historical activity theory (CHAT) intends to understand the relationship between humans’
minds (e.g. thinking, emotion) and actions (what they do). In particular, this research
focused on third-generation (3GCHAT) and fourth-generation (4GCHAT) theory. A first-
generation activity theory (AT) attempted to provide a dialectical materialist analysis of
mediating artefacts that revealed human mind and behaviour. These were cultural
artefacts that broke with traditional explanation of reality as Cartesian dualisms (e.g. mind
versus matter, individual versus rigid social structure). Society could not be explained away
from individuals’ agency in the production of knowledge and use of artefacts. Similarly,
individuals were no longer isolated from their cultural means. Psychological and social
stimulus and response depended on the mediation of those artefacts. This relationship was
represented with a triangular model having mediating tools and signs (M) in the top vertex
above a subject (S) and an object (O) that occupied left and right horizontal vertices below
respectively. A second-generation theory (CHAT) made a case of reconstructing human
activity’s culture and history as indispensable to understand learning. That was achieved by
expanding AT unit of analysis from individual action to a collective system defined by rules,
community and division of labour. However, CHAT had methodological shortcomings
presented by its focus on singular activities and a descriptive nature in relation to
qualitative research in western countries.
Gaining momentum since late 1980s, 3GCHAT fitted the project as it proposed the
researcher should take a participatory and interventionist role in participants’ activity
while avoiding being predictive and pre-emptive of their creative contribution.
Collaborative process and analysis aimed to find and ask the right questions to figure out
complex real-life problems rather than providing ready-made answers. 3GCHAT upgrade of
AT recognised that mediating artefacts and objects “exhibit multiplicity. They represent
multiple perspectives, voices, dialogues, contexts and boundary crossings” (Spinuzzi, 2015).
CHAT also expanded from a single unit of analysis that focused on individual psychology to
encompass the means capable of bringing about organisational change. This was a needed
revaluation of the theory. Education and psychology mainly had not embraced the
dialectical and materialistic conception of humanity as creator and transformer of culture.
3GCHAT multiple activity relations were investigated based on an activity system analysis
(ASA) that built from a minimum expression of two-activity systems modelled as shown in
Figure 4. Research depended on cultural-historical background, context, inner relations
and contradictions between stages of production, consumption, exchange and distribution.
Accordingly, specific circumstances affected humans’ and non-humans participants’ roles
and degrees of influence within the nodes of that model from subject (observer), to object
(person or thing observed or acted upon), mediating instrument (e.g. technology, tool),
mediating activity, theory and practice (e.g. critical thinking process), power play (e.g. rules
of management), community (e.g. socio-cultural capital), division of labour (e.g. people’s
allocated tasks), and outcomes as artefacts that were either physical, digital or abstract
(e.g. products, services, theoretical models, behaviour).

Page | 164
Figure 4: 3GCHAT model. Adapted from Engeström, Yrjö, 2014, Learning by Expanding:
Cambridge University Press, Copyright © Yrjö Engeström 1987, 2015.

ASA captured change as it ensued instead of the way it was hypothesised. Researchers
recognised CHAT’s origin in psychology but revealed its concepts of activity and artefact
had inter- and transdisciplinary nature and problems that could only be resolved by
including other research fields. Design research in education and innovation was one such
contributor since it focuses on the making and use of artefacts while crossing boundaries
among disciplines, media and networks. Border crossing has already subverted traditional
business talk about users and students as objects. Many professionals still design for an
illusionary user that is assumed but not consulted. Similarly, universities tend to model
education around an archetype of student (from Latin studere: applying oneself to,
painstaking application) who individually acquires and is transmitted skills. Following
(Krippendorff, 2005), there is a great need to include both users and students as active
stakeholders in the process of design and education today. Recent trends have promoted
the building of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) and co-working in flexible and
open workplaces. However, the former has proven ahistorical and reliant heavily on a sole
craft or profession, and conditional on a single skill or authority emanating from a leader.
The latter frequently results in a working alone together habit that is not conducing to
border crossing and true collaboration (Spinuzzi, 2012).
Better yet, 4GCHAT upgrades communities of practice to a concept of collaborative
communities particular to knowledge-intensive firms and learning that is cultural,
contextual and historically based. It recognises that users and students bring with them
contingencies not normally considered by old teaching models which prefer to simplify
business and make it efficient. Engeström (2008); (2013) has named these contingencies
runaway objects, referring to contested cultural and historical objects that have been
traditionally disregarded and hidden. Runaway objects are not under any one discipline’s
control. They normally start as marginally small, with peculiar individual issues having a
chance to grow if not considered. Their expanding influence generates opposition and
controversy that can disrupt, and potentially emancipate, design and education by creating
radical instances for development and wellbeing.
4GCHAT also upgrades co-working to co-configuration as a new scenario of dialogical
knowledge production where designers, users and learners become guides, negotiators

Page | 165
and boundary-spanners (individuals linking internal innovation systems). Co-configuration
promotes sociotechnical networks that produce new knowledge, customer-intelligent
artefacts, products and services that learn and adapt to individual experiences since
humans endlessly create new objects, meanings and have changing needs. This is a new
landscape of knowledge construction moving away from central authority, status or
hierarchy to value-rationality that holds designers, users, lecturers and learners as peers of
each other. Yet, co-configuration is frail. It depends on the time a project takes and the
space it is held (e.g. closed, open, fixed, flexible, co-present, tele-present) before new
teams form with another goal. Effective collaborative communities arise from co-creating
values woven as knots in a grid of runaway objects, and contradictions that affect single
discipline skills and participants (e.g. academics, students) in similar way to mycorrhizae-
like activities (symbiotic association between fungus and roots that helps production of
nutrients, growth, and underground communication among plants and trees).
3G and 4G CHAT were significant recognising that essential tinkering of design and learning
(gaining knowledge by making) cannot be measured bi-dimensionally (length of schooling,
technical skill width) anymore. Evaluation needed to be three-dimensional by including
time and space as variables helping to discover participants’ knots of relations, runaway
objects and mycorrhizae-like activities that affect knowledge construction and learning
(Figure 5). The time variable would assist contextualising a participatory curriculum
evolution while the space variable would describe participants’ depth of critical
development. Active students as learners (old English leornian: to get knowledge, be
cultivated) had to progressively tinker into deeper spaces of knowledge over time to form
a continuum of artefacts (e.g. abstract, digital, physical, discipline and language related)
and activities without preconditioned boundary. Hence, design learning had to its earlier
cultural and historical base represented by phases of product-production, process-method
and people-participation to recent complexity involving place-time-practice. Yet, those
artefacts were not to represent general, global, and value-neutral knowledge as in the
natural and social sciences. Counter to traditional disciplines, design developed artefacts
for particular moments, purpose and people (Kuutti, 2005).

Curriculum Development
Curriculum and Infrastructure Benchmark
A new gameplay required a move from assumed knowledge and material-oriented
descriptions to a curriculum based on informed knowledge. Course success depended on
identifiable signatures that enable significance and attractive reputation. Students had to
learn more (e.g. economy, environmental issues, politics, social sciences) and discover
modern critical thinking, in order to shift away from technology’s oppression to
empowerment of people (Norman, 2010, 2015). Yet, widespread differences positioned
design and education as contested concepts that needed contextualisation (Gallie, 1955;
Tucci & Peters, 2015). The traditional definitions of industrial design by the Industrial
Design Society of America (IDSA) and the International Council of Societies of Industrial
Design (ICSID) as appearance and manufacturing of three-dimensional machine-made
products, were especially telling. ICSID kept its 1957 definition until its 2017 relaunch as
World Design Organisation (WDO). It then updated its definition of industrial design to the

Page | 166
“strategic problem-solving process that drives innovation, builds business success, and
leads to a better quality of life through innovative products, systems, services,

Figure 5: ASA course space-time paradigm. Reprinted from Author, 27 October 2014,
Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and Imperative, Unpublished internal
document.

and experiences” (WDO, 2017a). This description intends to embrace extreme descriptions
such as: “to entertain us, to make sure we are comfortable and warm, safe and wealthy”
(Seno, 2010); “service design which does not stick to the product form but wisely used in
all public fields” (Shenzhen Industrial Design Association); “primarily about better user
experience” (Dublin Institute of Technology); or as the Strate School of Design, Paris, claim:
“industrial design is dead, long live design! We define ourselves as a post-industrial design
school’ …. ‘Today, the issues are no longer industrial ones. They are societal challenges; it is
about’ …. ‘life quality’” (WDO, 2017b).
European benchmarks were seen as leading international breakthrough education
exemplars to follow. Still, it was inappropriate to transplant ready-made solutions given
that European redesignings were built on unique points in culture and history time ago.
Instead, attention went to U.S. because of its influence on industrialisation in Australia and
the U.K. Both had a similar Anglo-Celtic base to the Australian context and their
redesigning happened more recently. Data showed a shift away from industrial assembly
and manufacturing. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017a) described industrial design
as “art, business, and engineering to make products that people use every day. Industrial
designers focus on the user experience in creating style and function for a particular
gadget or appliance”. As per Table 2, that definitional change has parallel effects on the

Page | 167
skills sought by the industry now. Traditional skills seem to trend down and are less
determinant for gaining jobs in the last decade (PayScale, 2017).
The U.S. case is similar to changes in U.K. 20 years earlier, when the latter needed new
competencies for business and innovation due to globalisation (Figure 6). Tony Blair’s
government established a Creative Industries Task Force (CITF) in 1997. It included
industrial design in an array of economic activities to generate knowledge and exploit
creativity as the ultimate economic asset. Leading U.K. thinkers coined new terms such as
the ‘creative economy’ that placed capital value on knowledge workers’ novel imagination
instead of traditional forms of capital, such as property, labour, and input-output
production (Howkings, 2001). In addition, the Design Council U.K. promoted their Creative
Britain agenda (Cox, 2005; Design Council, 2005). Echoing that change, Deloitte elaborated
recently a four-competencies model with skills needed by designers today, as shown in
Figure 7 (Deloitte, 2015).
Ranking carried out for this research showed 96 U.S. universities and colleges contained
some kind of design content. Specifically, 64 had specific industrial design courses (30
undergraduate, 30 undergraduate and postgraduate mix, 4 postgraduates only). U.S.
Design courses are accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design.
Yet, not all schools adhere to it, nor disclose information about them. Only 40 were IDSA
registered (Industrial Designers Society of America, 2014). Curricula, teaching approaches
and outcomes highlighted divisions between engineering and artistic perspectives that
suffered a shake-up a decade ago. Subsequently, several design schools redefined their
role and agency. Before 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), many programs failed
students for not gaining real design process education. Often, engineering programs
claimed to be design ones. Students learned design thinking which lacked insights from
cultural, aesthetic and form intelligence. Most graduate portfolios showed 3D CAD and
model-making skills missing creativity (Amit, 2010).
U.S. education post-GFC started to change, filling the gap between traditional education
and market expectations, and to address complex and yet undefined social and technology
challenges. Surveys from 2009 onwards demonstrated a significant shift in education and
industry concerns. As per grey highlighting in Tables 3 and 4, approximately the same
design courses remained in the top 10 list in the last decade after cross-referencing data
among Deans, Department Heads and experts’ views from 2,237 firms and organisations.
Signature programs led by cooperation, participatory design, integrative design that
extended onto HCI and service design, well rounded and trans-disciplinary programs,
design maturity, advocacy, technical strengths, flexible curriculum, learner and user-based
design, strategy, research and methods, theory, industry ties and sustainable design
practice. Their approach also positioned them among leading programs at international
level (Design Future Council, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016; Graphiq, 2017; PayScale, 2017; Q. S.
Top Universities, 2016, 2017; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017b; U.S. Department of
Labor, 2017).

Page | 168
Table 2: U.S. skills trends affecting salaries for industrial designers as per PayScale (2017)

Note. Reprinted from PayScale, 2017, Industrial Designer Salary, by PayScale Human
Capital, retrieved from
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Industrial_Designer/Salary, Copyright ©
2018 PayScale, Inc.

Figure 6: U.K. skills designers lack the most. Reprinted from Design Council, UK, 2005, The
Business of Design: Design Industry Research in 2005, retrieved from
www.designcouncil.org.uk, Copyright © 2005 Creative Commons.

Page | 169
Figure 7: Critical skills for jobs employing industrial designers. Reprinted from Deloitte,
2015, Industrial & Product Design, Data USA, retrieved from
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/500404/, Copyright © GNU Affero General Public License
v3.0 (GPLv3).

Two design schools often in the top 2 positions in the last decade were significant in
understanding the shift needed for modern design education. Rhodes Island School of
Design (RISD) was awarded the 2011 Forbes Best School after changing their traditional
and analogue course to incorporate digitalisation, critical making (hands-on object-
oriented process that merges physical and digital exploration and promotes
conceptualisation and shared acts of making instead of focusing on evocative objects), and
STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and design, mathematics) in 6 years. STEAM
upgraded STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) that had difficulty
translating skill into creative innovation (Guyotte, Sochacka, Costantino, Walther, &
Kellam, 2014; 2015; Maeda, 2012; Somerson & Hermano, 2013).
The Carnegie Mellon program defined the 21st century need to transition towards a
sustainable society within a globally interconnected and interdependent world. A multi-
year change process transformed academic culture based on a new pedagogical
framework of design iterations and making of artefacts spanning among the built, social
and natural worlds. Three design tracks were offered: product, communications, and
environments. The latter recognised that the previous two now happen together in
physical and digital spaces and ecologies. Consequentially, students had the choice of
customising pathways that focused on a continuum of design approaches: service, social
innovation and transition. They were encouraged to shift focus from products to quality of
interaction and experiences, social, cultural and economic problems, and to research and
speculate long term vision to reformulate lifestyles and society’s infrastructure (policies,
energy resources, transport, manufacturing, economy and food, healthcare, and education

Page | 170
systems), develop new mindsets, theories and ways for designing and change (Irwin, 2015;
Irwin, Tonkinwise, & Kossoff, 2013).
The comparison of U.S design programs overall revealed a complex array of offerings and
setups; nevertheless, official rankings were not always complete. On the one hand, leading
programs were neither purely engineering nor art focused. Instead, they intended to build
design as a solid innovation-driven discipline with transdisciplinary collaboration, user-
centred, participatory and meaningful research. On the other, several traditional programs
ranked high and attracted many students based on institutional reputation. Data, as per
Figure 8, indicated that U.S. online real-time job market prospects shown to the public still
profiled conventional pathways for the profession (PayScale, 2017).
There was an oversupply of U.S. graduates for an industry that was ahead of education,
but that was still not catching up with the effects of globalisation and technology. 2015
surveys showed 1,819 new graduates that year, with expectations of graduate growth of
2% per year in an industry of 38,400 industrial designers, and only 800 further jobs offers
by 2024. Course fees also affected students’ access, performance and job prospects
depending those were private or public (e.g. education, institutional assets investment per
student). Ideal students-to-teacher ratio showed as 12:1 to 15:1 for project-based learning
and critical thinking. Private courses had an average of 13:1 with a minimum of 3:1. All
ratios in the public-sector courses were too high, averaging at 18:1 with margins between
16:1 and 27:1. Internationally, four courses ranked 10 bests, eleven in the 11-50, and eight
among the 51-100 ranking. U.K. Quacquarelli Symonds showed leading U.S. and European
courses now compete against upcoming Asian offerings; this is a sign that education,
industry and innovation are no longer the patrimony of first world countries.
International benchmarks revealed the need to transform mindsets and to close skill gaps
in an Australian context that is characteristically conservative but that needs to compete in
a globalised market. It is noteworthy that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) classified
industrial design as “technical commerce” together with fashion and jewellery in 2006
(ANZCO 232312). The ABS still embeds it with mass and batch production saying designers
“plan, design, develop and document industrial, commercial or consumer products for
manufacture with particular emphasis on ergonomic factors, marketing and
manufacturability” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Recently, the proposal of
industrial design within the creative industries followed overseas trends. However,
education and professional practice need to reshape to achieve that goal. Professional and
state bodies have not changed much in the last 20 years.

Page | 171
Table 3: 2017 U.S. industrial design courses and majors ranking (a)

Note. Data for industrial design courses rankings from U.S sources as per Design Future
Council (2009, 2013, 2014, 2016), Graphiq (2017), PayScale (2017), U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2017b), U.S. Department of Labor (2017), and Europe as Q. S. Top Universities
(2016, 2017).
Page | 172
Table 4: 2017 U.S. industrial design courses and majors ranking (b)

At last count, 2,925 industrial designers were mainly concentrated in New South Wales
(990, 33.8%) and Victoria (1,223, 41.8%). 362 registered companies (12 more after a
decade) employed 1,725 designers (10 average per firm). Major markets were packaging
(32%), commercial infrastructure (21%), home goods (19%) and consumer goods (16%).
However, the two main employment sectors, manufacturing (49%), and professional,
scientific and technical services (32.8%), have trended down for 30 years. National
manufacturing’s GDP plummeted by 2013 (6.8%). A further drop is expected following the
2017 car industry shut down (5%) which has impacted mainly Victoria (200, 15%). High-
tech exports (2.3%) are not filling the void as several companies have left the country.

Page | 173
Other fields of employment, like retail (8%) and construction (3%), do not show significant
change (Andersen, Ashton, & Colley, 2015; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013, 2017;
Cahill, 2010; Creative Industries Innovation Centre, 2015; Cully, 2016; Dixon, 2013; Dos
Santos Duisenberg, 2010; Labour Market Information Portal, 2017; Roberston, 2013a,
2013b; G. Roos, 2012; Wright, Davis, & Bucolo, 2013). Academically, 29 universities and
technical and further education institutions (TAFE) deliver design content. Universities
offered 14 Bachelors, 5 Masters, 6 PhD courses specifically. One university’s course made
the top 25, and five universities had the 50 best Bachelors in world rankings. Graduations
are unregulated and increasing over a shrinking market demand, despite statistical
estimates of 2% per year growth and forecasts of 800 more new jobs by 2020 (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Industry and academic experts who were interviewed during
the project recommended redefinition, since education did not clearly teach new
competencies to compete internationally. Accordingly, several courses have changed to
names such as ‘product innovation’ and ‘integrated product design’ (BachelorsPortal,
2017; HotCourses, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d; Q. S. Top Universities, 2016; StudyPortals,
2017; University of South Australia, 2017).

Figure 8: U.S. traditional pathways for industrial designers. Reprinted from PayScale,
2017, Industrial Designer Salary, by PayScale Human Capital, retrieved from
https://www.payscale.
com/research/US/Job=Industrial_Designer/Salary, Copyright © 2018 PayScale, Inc.

Digitalisation Benchmark
Curriculum development also needs to deal with disruptive technologies, such as ICT.
Design education should be well suited for digitalisation since its participants are thought
of as innovators. However, the education business in general has proven slow to adapt to
digitalisation. Often top-down management buys quickly into these types of infrastructure
investment, while academics in abandoned, soft and hard-centre learning models may be
reluctant to change. Inertia against technology adoption follows a model that has seen
higher education rarely disturbed by innovation for 100 years. Still, the impending change
follows a known pattern. Expertise does not necessarily lose to better replacement, but

Page | 174
cheaper and simpler know-how that later improves and displaces the incumbent
(Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Meanwhile, students are generally thought as digital natives
who are comfortable with change. Yet, international research demonstrates higher digital
use does not necessarily equate to innovative learning (Carneiro, 2011).
Using the U.S as a benchmark, university-wide multi-year studies such as Chen, Seilhamer,
Bennett, and Bauer (2015) revealed students’ mobile technologies in education generally
turn into greater social networking, music, social media, navigation, entertainment,
photography and games, for above-learning use (Figure 9). Similar in Australia, our
university supported digitalisation of learning and mobile technologies. It is worth
mentioning a 2012-2015 iPad project for all first-year students that has now converted to a
BYOD (acronym for Bring Your Own Device) initiative (Kirkpatrick, 2017; Russell, 2014;
Russell & Jing, 2013). By 2017, students had greatly shifted to mobile and online use
alongside up-surging devices like iPads (Figure 10). The data did not specify learning quality
though, while registering hit rate for access to apps and information. Still, it is indicative
that social networking, teacher vodcasting and web sharing increased. Otherwise, digital
tools use that lean towards active learning and communication, such as lecturer-student
emails exchange, making web pages, blogs, virtual worlds and sims, stayed the same or
diminished (Figure 11).
Research is gradually uncovering shortcomings of a global rave for digitalisation in favour
of massification of learning and economies of scale. Older generations do not adopt and
use new technology at the rate expected, while younger generations, Millennials and
Generation Z (GenZ), communicate with mobile consumer-like tools but find difficulties
working at higher-level thinking. Digitalisation is changing their capacity to think, read,
store, recall and convert information into knowledge (Allen, 2015). Bettinger and Loeb
(2017) discovered many students fare worse through online learning than traditional
classes, since they cannot follow process, take action or elaborate deep meaningful
reasoning (Carr, 2011). Microsoft measured increasing media consumption, digital
lifestyles and multi-screening decreases users’ ability to focus, learn and filter distractions
by an average of 8 seconds (Gausby, 2015). Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2017) also found
cultural gaps among digital natives. Millennials said GenZ are less prepared (e.g.
experience, patience, maturity, integrity) and need to be humble, willing to learn and work
hard.

Page | 175
Figure 9: 2012-2014 University of Central Florida most popular personal app use per
category (N=1,181). Reprinted from Chen, Baiyun, Seilhamer, Ryan, Bennett, Luke, &
Bauer, Sue. (2015), Students' Mobile Learning Practices in Higher Education: A Multi-Year
Study. Educause Review, 7.

Figure 10: Students shift to mobile devices Reprinted from Kirkpatrick, Denise. (2017),
Learning and Teaching: Digital Strategies and Enabled Environments, Keynote presented
at the University of Canterbury’s Teaching Week Christchurch, New Zealand.

Page | 176
Figure 11: 2010-2013 Frequency of online study activities Retrieved from Russell, Carol.
(2014), Herding Cats And Measuring Elephants: Implementing And Evaluating An
Institutional Blended And Mobile Learning Strategy. Rhetoric and Reality: Critical
perspectives on educational technology, 211-221, Copyright © 2013 Christopher Allan,
Mark Symes, and Jill Downing
New Curriculum
The Australian circumstances of the course redesign were unique. A new curriculum
needed to address the industrialisation and declining of education standards, digitalisation
and globalisation while capitalising on academics’ traditional skills, students’ cultural-
historical background, and design capacity to trigger social construction of knowledge by
promoting participants’ adaptable elastic mind and imagination (Antonelli, 2008).
Assessing students’ skills and incumbent teaching models were critical to comprehending
the potential and obstacles that might influence design intervention and adoption of a new
curriculum.
Analysis of students interviews and outcomes from first year onwards revealed that their
array of skills and retention rate (close to 50% rate) echoed those of larger national and
international assessments. The OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
and Australian National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data
revealed a decrease of STEM skills coming from high-school regardless of high or low
performers. This is at a time when 75% of the fastest growing occupations require STEM
skills (Ainley & Gebhardt, 2013; Australian Industry Group, 2015). Higher education was
rigid because slight customisation meant high bureaucratic cost (Corneli & Danoff, 2011).
The Australian uncapping of supply of Commonwealth-supported places (CSPs) in

Page | 177
universities made it difficult to keep cohort equity because there was no longer a minimum
skill set on the low performers’ side (Harvey, 2016). The cohort was characterised by more
than 100 ethnicities, with 62% being first in a family at university, 39% speaking a different
language at home, and 27.9% being from low socio-economic status (Centre for Western
Sydney, 2017).
The industrial design curriculum was also a mix of teaching models. The program had
strong institutional universal preconditioning based on Bloom’s taxonomy (hard-centre),
whilst academics handcrafted teaching based on technical skill transmission (abandoned-
centre) that replicated traditional disciplines. All students’ needs, interests and abilities
were treated the same (Twigg, 2003) in a manner of social reproduction that maintained
pervasive inequalities. The lecturer-to-student ratio was 1:25 officially. However, classes
were often run with 1:30 or more. Instruction was greatly based on general knowledge
(e.g. materials sciences, ergonomics, 3D CAD drafting) and assumptions on design’s final
users and market. The course only ventured into initial design inquiry and practice-based
research in the final semester of the course.
A behavioural, cultural and epistemological break was needed to enable a curriculum
change based on practice and object-oriented social construction of knowledge. Bourdieu
helped in contextualising design education as practical logic that allows habitus to escape
from a subject-object dichotomy through free choice (agency). Habitus means the
internalised social system of being, seeing, acting and thinking since young age. A plurality
of views was key to learning how to deal with the uncertainty of power play and social
position within the design program (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990; Bourdieu & Biggart, 2002;
Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Design agency needed to avoid intellectual bias that
objectifies participants and requires undisputed acceptance of traditional good design and
aesthetics definitions (taste). This was no easy task as incumbent mechanisms tried to keep
status quo. Nonconforming individuals risked alienation. Consequently, academic
reproduction risked failing the design imperative of leading by innovation. Participants
deserved to reprise design learning and innovation as three types of capital: academic
capital as a new discourse based on continuity among practice and theory; cultural capital
to embody social and symbolic assets (e.g. authority, education, goals, qualifications,
taste); and design capital by redesigning curriculum through

1. Renovating attitudes, behaviour and skill,

2. Allowing predisposed influences into the learning experience (e.g. outside
experiences, family, relations),
3. Avoiding inequalities and academic divisions (e.g. lecturer, student), and
4. Promoting a new culture of learning.
Socio-cultural benefits would come from a collaborative community that raised the bar
from skills to competencies (know-how collections) and convert all participants into
engaged practitioners in joint enterprises, shared repertoires and transdisciplinary
integration. Learning by tinkering was to help develop a new learning environment based
on playing with artefacts and data to find new information, building knowledge, fostering

Page | 178
imagination, creativity, peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing, and open networking (Engeström,
2013; Thomas & Brown, 2011).
ASA clarified social construction of knowledge complexity when placing participants
(academics, institution, students), internal and external scenarios in the same space-time
paradigm. Rules, outcomes, objects and divisions of labour depended on social positions.
The institution applied infrastructure and management measures aiming to precondition
competitiveness, excellence and profit. Academics focused on keeping graduation numbers
up to protect their course survival and saw top-down administration and application of
technology as interference (e.g. campus relocations, ICT). Students had limited
understanding of benchmarks on design, education, and industry excellence. Therefore,
they normally fitted to status quo, believing that was the best way to obtain good
qualifications and future employment. As per Engeström (2008), these were opposed,
rather than shared views, that unleashed runaway objects that either hindered
participants’ outcomes if interference was dictated and unexplained, or encouraged them
into meaningful learning if they were able to contextualise and participate in that
disruption (Figure 12). Therefore, the ASA analysis revealed that a foundational base was
needed, for:
1. Continuous leadership to shift from old to up-to-date design education;
2. Periodic ASA snapshots on process (semester and year to year diagnosis), based on
specific space (the interval between artefacts) and time (the interval between
events);
3. Building common ground for collaborative activity among participants (academics,
institution, students) to facilitate radical emancipatory possibilities for design
education.
Hence, small exemplars with participants were developed (e.g. assessments, units) to later
apply to larger curriculum change. Students and academics forums were held over three
years. Participants built capacity from insight, imagination and foresight. Eight curriculum
advisors, industry experts and an external advisory committee contributed. Students were
open to curriculum reformulation. They noticed differences between the old course and
their everyday experiences. Interestingly, two thirds of academics saw no need for change.
Then, one third proposed changing back to artistic illustration. Another wanted more 3D
CAD drafting. Both views echoed national shortcomings, regarding translation of education
investment to innovation, that believe teaching is about transmitting operational skills
instead of building new knowledge (Innovation and Science Australia, 2017). A last group
believed the course missed the increasing convergence between design and algorithms,
bioengineering, cybernetic intelligence, computer sciences, cultural studies, HCI, ICT, user
experience (UX), and HCD since 1960s electronic age (Brand & Rocchi, 2011; Cross, 1993;
Overbeeke & Hummels, 2014).

Page | 179
Figure 12: Participants’ ASA evaluation within space-time paradigm. Reprinted from
Author, 27 October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and Imperative,
Unpublished internal document.

A vision and mission were written for the first time for the course to assist participants to
collaboratively bring up creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship into our School of
Computing, Engineering and Mathematics which has 22 undergraduate and 18 graduate
courses. Participants had to become independent all-rounders working responsibly,
sustainably and transdisciplinary to add value to users, society and industry in today’s
creative economy. Curriculum renewal followed Bauhaus, HfG Ulm, Malmö, and recent
manifestations of open school movement. It took Dewey’s learning-by-doing further to
Papert’s constructionism (situated project-based learning building and internalising new
knowledge) and Brown’s entrepreneurial learner who knows by finding and evaluating
(homo sapiens), learns by building content and context hands-on (homo faber) and creates
new culture by playing and experimenting (homo ludens) with lateral thinking and feeling,
not just logical calculus (Brown, 2013; Harel & Papert, 1991; Papert, 1986).
The new curriculum aligned with critical pedagogy through critical design and making as
material speculations that reconnect conceptual, linguistic, physical and digital acts of
knowing, discussing and thinking with artefacts (Freire, 1970; Wakkary, Odom, Hauser,
Hertz, & Lin, 2015). Critical design prototyped artefacts that challenged everyday
reinforcing of status quo (affirmative design) to query product optimisation and social
norm (Dunne, 1999; Dunne & Raby, 2001). Critical making by iterative prototyping
witnessed a constructionist process reconnecting critical thinking (abstract, explicit,
cognitive, linguistic) with material, tacit, embodied, external and community-oriented
making (Ratto et al., 2011; Ratto & Hockema, 2009). Computers were intervened with

Page | 180
coding and physical intervention more than just using them as consumer-like tools (e.g. MS
Word, Photoshop, SolidWorks). STEAM supported CDIO (conceiving, designing,
implementing, operating) framework that validated design by proving it works practically
(use, adoption). Instead of accepting design as completed and successful at concept
proposal stage (conceiving), as had been done previously.
Transition into the new program was staged progressively and the curriculum was
inverted. As an example, a new unit called Contextual Inquiry replaced and moved the only
third year design research unit in the old course to first year and semester with the name
Introduction to Industrial Design Methods. Likewise, the course’s Design Studio stream
increased from 4 to 6 units that now started in the first year and semester instead of the
second year. Students had to build a fresh discourse that helped in working out their
predisposed influences through applied research and tinkering from first day in the course.
Design value relied on openly identified, discussed and accepted knowledge that has
specific history, culture, people status and available technology. Lecturers and students
started with what they knew, to later dive deeper and solve social and technology
relations. Then, they enabled users and themselves to mix and create new experiences and
projects through bottom-up maker, hacker culture, and networked platforms independent
from traditional experts (Lessig, 2008). The new course contained a curriculum structure
three-dimensionally wrapped around a digital spine called Lab Space (Figure 13, Table 6),
that connected all levels of critical depth represented horizontally (technical skill),
vertically (length of schooling), diagonally (social construction of a continuum of
constructionist-constructivist learning). It also capitalised on digitalisation and P2P
through:
• Maker Hub (Makerspace, Hackerspace, FabLab, TechShop)
• Individual ePortfolios as open reference on progress from first-year
• Industry projects increasing in complexity from first year
• Design Factory model-like in senior years intending to bring together researchers,
students, industry partners and entrepreneurs in working integrated learning approach to
solve complex challenges (Aalto University, 2008).
Specifically, ePortfolio was chosen as a constructionist digital instrument to assist changing
students’ habitus. They would use it as a learning space to gather and share information,
recall memory, ideate, research, and develop new design narratives through heuristic
prototyping and experimentation. This researcher sought university funds for this as a
project; it grew to supporting a three schools pilot from 2012 to 2014 (Table 7). The
University chose Pebble+ platform since it worked as Blackboard add-on. Pebble+ allowed
scaffold learning as active reflection and presentation, private and networked sharing,
discussion and feedback. Pilot Schools had different views about ePortfolios. Subsequently,
two of the Schools dropped out. They treated ePortfolios either as basic Dropbox file
repositories or as online MS Word processing (e.g. essays, CV file attachments). Students
found ePortfolios unintuitive, confusing and unfriendly since templates, rubrics and text
formatting were difficult, and became reluctant to use them. They frequently lost their
unsaved essays while trying to format work live without saving (Blom, Rowley, Bennett,
Hitchcock, & Dunbar-Hall, 2013; Mason, Langendyk, & Wang, 2013; Rowley, Bennett, &
Blom, 2014).

Page | 181
Figure 13: New design curriculum within space-time paradigm. Reprinted from Author, 27
October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and Imperative,
Unpublished document.

By contrast, industrial design students’ work was called sophisticated and is still in use
(Figure 14). As per Black and Rankine (2013), weekly ePortfolio work was intended to
“reinforce the different aspects of design process, emphasising the importance of visual
and structural planning alongside textual descriptions”. They collaborated on a range of
design projects to “demonstrate their research and development process through
submission of rich media evidence such as diagrams and videos as well as discussion and
reflection”. These students had higher demand use than other participants because of the
need for designer and user control typical to this creative field. Admittedly, they initially
had mixed responses to regular feedback on design process. Characteristically, students
needed to modify any habits to work weekly with frequent constructive critique, design
heuristics and some constraints due to ePortfolio software development (e.g. video
format). Interestingly, several managed to personalise their ePortfolios by hacking the
system (HTML5) before and after making them public to the internet. Participants who
used ePortfolio the most were also those who performed best overall.
The four-year curriculum progressed alongside an evolution timeline, from pedagogy to
paragogy, where a collaborative community reached inwards to the discipline and
outwards to other degrees and industry. The first year focused on product making,
introduction to design research, learning by playing, experimenting, tinkering, and general
knowledge. The second year added process and methodology. The third year concentrated
on people and behaviour, and the fourth year enveloped all and contextualised complexity
as per place and time. Course attention expanded from assembly and manufacturing to
HCD, design research and intermediation of human experience, new sociotechnical
parameters as preeminent model of modern organisation, new maker culture, industry 4.0

Page | 182
and open design (e.g. physical-digital artefacts, machines and systems built on shared
information, free open-source software, hardware). As per several authors, including
Gibson (2014); Maier and Fadel (2001); (2009); Norman (1999); (2013), this development
catered for artefacts and systems potential actions to construct knowledge (affordances)
beyond industrial age parameters. Also, action possibilities, which are normally latent in
the environment until perceived by humans and animals, had by now evolved onto artefact
to artefact affordances that sense each other and act without human intervention (e.g.
algorithms, Google bots, Internet of Things).

Table 6: Course including ASA diagnosis, Lab Space, International Design Studio, Design
Factory

Note. Reprinted from Author, 27 October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New
Vision and Imperative, Unpublished internal document.
Page | 183
Table 7: Pebble+ ePortfolio project Likert scale for three schools as per Black and Rankine
(2013)

Note. Reprinted from Black, Elizabeth, & Rankine, Leanne. (2013). Pilot Evaluation Report -
PebblePad, Part 1. Retrieved from Internal document (previously available in university
website)

Figure 14: Constructivist and constructionist industrial design ePortfolio use. Reprinted
from Author, 27 October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and
Imperative, Unpublished internal document.

Page | 184
Bloom’s Taxonomy was a bridge among disciplines (Anderson et al., 2001) but offered
limited freedom to redefine design education. So, 12 unique course learning outcomes
(CLOs) were developed afresh for the program. These shifted from the hard-centre and
abandoned-centre models to a liquid-centre model, focused on both, empowering
participants as agents of change and innovation based on creative intelligence parameters.
CLOs started with Exploring and Discovering via research and knowledge mining before
Bloom’s stage of Remember. Design does not start with remembering, but inquiring what
problem to disentangle. Framing, Evaluating, Applying and Working promoted framing and
solving new knowledge landscapes through serious play (e.g. metaphor, 3D probing,
scenario building), game theory (e.g. strategic decision-making), critical design and making
(J. Roos & Victor, 1998, 1999; 2004). These activities connected the physical-digital gap
with associative exploration pivoting between relations, concepts, prototyping, testing and
scaling solutions to final artefact or service. Bloom’s stage Create was diversified into 6 as
Producing, Delivering and Envisioning artefacts that mark future trends, Innovating
behaviours, products and services, Creating meaningful and effective sustainable solutions,
and Leading by transcending affirmative design and social reproduction (Table 8).
Skills were grouped into competency envelopes. Per benchmarks (e.g. d.School, RISD, TU
Eindhoven), they assisted in constructing design intelligence spaces that transcended
disciplinary boundaries. Being in space completed the last century’s definition of being in
time for artefacts, disciplines and users. It acknowledged that thinking, doing and making
happen in networked and hybrid human spaces of coexistence. This is the common ground
among runaway objects that instantiate successful design and learning through interaction
(Heidegger, 1962; Latour, 2009; Sloterdijk, 2011). Four envelopes containing skills for
Making, Interaction, Visualisation, Strategy and Decision Making (Figure 15) fitted the new
curriculum through user experience and new forms of manufacturing as knowledge-based
innovation (biological, electrical, interactive, mechanical) amid users, users and artefacts,
and between artefacts.
Starting with Dreyfus’ cognitive acquisition model (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980), the new
course units built students’ initial aptitudes up to ability dealing with novel design learning
narratives (Product-Production, Process-Method, People-Participation, Place-Time-
Practice). Students started as Naïve participants in first year. They became aware and
empowered learners who increased their ability (e.g. gained depth, competency and
proficiency) from Novice to Advanced Beginners. Several trials indicated they did learn by
self-diagnosis (e.g. ePortfolio). Expertise, Mastery and Visionary stages were the result of
transformative learning and ownership (e.g. practical wisdom, designing, making) capable
of generating new knowledge, artefacts, experiences, and ecosystems (Table 9). Four new
specialisation tracks were proposed for fourth year Honours program in the course. These
dealt with industrial design’s physical-digital challenges set as pathways for new mindset,
theories and ways of designing that help transitioning into new ecosystems, lifestyles and
society infrastructures: Human Environments, Responsible Design, Human-Centred Design,
and Technology Development. Based on these same four design research concentrations,
these pathways were discussed for further double degrees and postgraduate courses
(Masters, PhD) to be considered in a next curriculum development.

Page | 185
Table 8: Industrial design course learning outcomes aligning with Creative Intelligence.

Note. Data for CLOs from (Author, 2011 – 2013), for Bloom Taxonomy from Anderson et al.
(2001) and for Creative Intelligence by Nussbaum (2013).
Contrary to earlier academics’ fears, the new curriculum also attracted support and
endorsement from school, university and outside community (academic, industry). Positive
results showed along exemplar trials and when larger curriculum change occurred. This
was a University-funded course change (over AUD 1.5 million) that evidenced prompt
positive outcomes. It is worth noting that the industrial design ePortfolio project led to it
being categorised as university exemplar in the area. Additionally, student retention
improved, together with Student Feedback on Units (above school and university means
for trial units), alongside the implementation of a collaborative and computing learning lab,
design workshop, 3D printing lab (24 prototype machines from low to high fidelity and
materials), MakerSpace and initial TechShop, software licenses that facilitated informed
knowledge (e.g. material intelligence Granta CES Edupack), HCI and UX implementation
with open source software support (e.g. Arduino, C++, Processing, Unity), and traditional
tools and machinery. Renewed students’ self-esteem was evidenced with participation in
national competitions. First, second and commendation awards had no course precedent
in events conventionally dominated by other universities (Cormack, 2013 - 2015). The

Page | 186
MakerHub concept benefited work-integrated learning that included Aalto Design Factory
model-like projects.
Industry partners wanting to transform from traditional manufacturing to knowledge-
based and design-driven innovation were attracted by this culture change towards the
creative industries. Public acknowledgements were encouraging. As with a citation by The
Creative Industries Innovation Centre, UTS Innovation and Creative Intelligence (Andersen
et al., 2015) in relation to assisting Infasecure, a leading company in child safety and car
restraint devices, to strategise design-driven innovation. An academics and students team
led by Professor Mark Armstrong (Monash University) and this author assisted the
company to deliver business growth, their first R&D industrial design department, and full
employment for the participating students. Students’ projects specifically aimed to
improve children car safety and diminish driver distraction by introducing physical-digital
industrial and HCI design intelligence. Sensors in seats and buckles detected child
behaviour and symptoms to communicate with parents through colour, sound and wireless
communication (Figure 16).

Figure 15: Competencies envelopes and spaces of coexistence. Reprinted from Author, 27
October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and Imperative,
Unpublished internal document.

Page | 187
Table 9: Competencies and intelligence mapping

Note. Reprinted from Author, 27 October 2014, Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New
Vision and Imperative, Unpublished internal document.

Page | 188
Discussion
This article has described a three-year research project towards a new industrial design
program launched in 2016. A new curriculum needed to consider cultural and historical
constraints and potential, while capitalising on designers’ and learners’ adaptable and
elastic minds. It also had to reconnect new forms of education and professional practice
with its discipline heritage. Redesigning came to place with the realisation that successful
design education should not only be about showing how to create physical objects for
mass production in an input-output economy. In this new 21st century era, education
should go beyond, into learning critically about a society characterised by highly
interconnected sociotechnical and organisational networks within a creative and
knowledge-based economy.
This repositioning of education allowed a new perspective from which to answer queries
about whether an industrial design curriculum was capable of enabling a transformative
design-driven innovation culture. This was especially pertinent when a transmission
teaching model was the starting point and participants seemed in disadvantage comparing
with international benchmarks. Findings showed successful local design learning was
possible if the focus was changed to:
• Outcomes accomplished by stakeholders (users, learners, institutions, designers
and academics) instantiation.
• Redefining design artefacts as epistemic instruments in the form of digital-physical
platforms and projects that seek to address matters-of-concern, human activities
and ecosystems
• Users’ experience based on activity mediated by artefacts, their relationships and
contradictions.
• Collaborative communities that emerge by co-creating values as knots in a grid of
interactions and runaway objects.

Figure 16: Children car safety design-driven innovation through physical-digital industrial
and HCI design intelligence. Reprinted from Mubin, O., Novoa, M., Ferguson, J., & Taylor,
J. (2014), Leveraging the design of child restraint systems to reduce driver distraction, In

Page | 189
Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM Conference on Human factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 1771-1776): ACM.
Fittingly, the new program assisted students’ cultural-historical development along the
lines of a proposed industrial design history evolution (Product-Production, Process-
Method, People-Participation, Place-Time-Practice). A constructivist and constructionist
strategy were implemented to transition towards and align with international benchmarks
that were based on empathic, exploratory and experimental liquid-centre learning models
welcoming of other disciplines and users’ real particulars. Significantly, from the first year,
the curriculum was inverted to learn through and by applied research and critical making.
Similarly, incorporation with outside user and industry communities was set to progress
from industry coaching to final year Design Factory-like projects with a work integrated
learning approach. Initial uncertainty was overcome by collaborative construction of
knowledge that transformed participants from technology consumers to active cultural
producers and mediators for social benefit. This opened the course to envisioning future
human and industrial digital-physical iterations, space and time narratives, cyber-culture,
4.0 industrial revolution’s automation, generative design and artificial intelligence.
Research results also helped the proposal that digitalisation could enhance, but not
replace, many physical heuristic project-based forms of learning. A new curriculum had to
address digital benefits and constraints. Used properly, digitality would assist learning,
high-level thinking and reasoning to convert design into cultural, aesthetic and form
intelligence. As a case in point, students intending to undertake fourth year Honours
appreciated the ePortfolio process and methodology instilled in them. Similarly, those
transferring to their teaching degree said ePortfolio was valuable and they would intend
using it when teaching professionally. Furthermore, contributions from students indicated
industrial design education should expand into digital materiality since 21st century
knowledge flows are accelerating the discipline into the notion of living in a digitalised
culture that blurs the physical and digital divide. Millennials and GenZ participants
(students) did not make a big distinction between this divide when compared to
Generation X and Baby Boomers (academics and other staff).
Remarkably, digital materiality borrows definitions, principles and properties from physical
materiality to justify its existence and integrate design process (Leonardi, 2010;
Negroponte, 1996; S. Pink, Ardèvol, & Lanzeni, 2016). This presents a new challenge for
design and its education that now compete against contenders crossing over from other
knowledge-based fields. Adversaries come from markets with the force of co-makers, open
source technology communities, hackers, crowd-sourced ideas, subversive innovation,
crypto-currencies, and new nature. People are considered products and platforms while
patents are old-fashioned and design stars are no longer worshipped (Ardern & Jain, 2015;
Jain, 2013, 2015).
A constructivist, constructionist and critical design curriculum offers a transformation
pathway to design education still embedded within conservative institutional legacies. It
greatly depends on customised and staged change, continuity of leadership, vision, and
keeping true to new design artefact values. Similar to any design artefact, course success
will be proven at the point of everyday instantiation by interaction amid users, users and
artefacts, and between artefacts. Design learning is no longer about affirmative design.

Page | 190
Instead, it needs to assist academic, industrial and social change through design research
and innovation-driven practice within physical-digital coexisting spaces of being.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks for their support and advice to Western Sydney University (WSU)
management, PVC Education Prof Kerrie-Lee Krause, Associate PVC Education Prof Betty
Gill, Dean School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics (SCEM), Prof Simeon Simoff,
Deputy Dean Prof Jonathan Tapson. Also to our External Advisory Committee members,
especially, Prof Matthias Rautenberg (TU Eindhoven), Dr Mark Evans (Loughborough
University), Prof James Arvanitakis (WSU Dean Graduate Research School), Mr Gaurang
Desai (American University of Sharjah), Assoc. Prof Surendra Shrestha (WSU SCEM), Dr
Omar Mubin (SCEM), Mr Richard Basladynski (Thales Australia), Mrs Deborah Brennan (SAP
Australia), Mr Enrique Esquivel (The Roads & Traffic Authority), Mr Derek Wainohu
(Infasecure), Mr Tony Tawfik (Aristocrat Leisure), Mr Ian Wilson (Wilson Gilkes), Mr Lu Papi
(Papi and Associates), Mr Ben Lipp (Powerlite), Mrs Corinne Turner (Penrith Business
Alliance), industry experts, academics, alumni and students in Australia and other countries
for their collaboration, experience, participation and support in this research and project.
Finally, to Prof Bob Hodge, Assoc. Prof Juan Salazar at WSU Institute for Culture and
Society, Dr Brandon Gien (CEO, Good Design Australia) and my wife Eliana, for their
mentoring and wisdom.

References

Aalto University. (2008). Aalto Design Factory | Love for Business, Design and Engineering.
Retrieved from https://designfactory.aalto.fi/

Aicher, Olt. (1919). The Bauhaus and Ulm. In Philipp Oswalt & Melissa Thoroson Hause
(Eds.), Bauhaus Conflicts 1919 -2009 (Vol. 2009, pp. 174-186). Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje
Cantz.

Aicher, Otto. (1994). World As Design: Writings of Design: John Wiley & Sons.

Ainley, John, & Gebhardt, Eveline. (2013). Measure for Measure: A Review of Outcomes of
School Education in Australia. Melbourne: ACER.

Alberto, Paul A, & Troutman, Anne C. (2012). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers:
Pearson Higher Ed.

Allen, S. (2015). The Hyper-Connected Workforce. Harvard Business School Publishing (Ed.)
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/sponsored/2016/04/the-hyper-connected-workforce

Amit, Gadi. (2010). American Design Schools are a Mess, and Produce Weak Graduates.
Fast Company, retrieved from
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662634/americandesignschools-are-a-mess-and-produce-
weak-graduates.

Page | 191
Andersen, Lisa, Ashton, Paul, & Colley, Lisa. (2015). Creative Business in Australia Learnings
from the Creative Industries Innovation Centre, 2009 to 2015. Sydney, Australia: UTS ePrint.

Anderson, Lorin W, Krathwohl, David R, Airasian, P, Cruikshank, K, Mayer, R, Pintrich, P,

Wittrock, M. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing. Artz, AF, & Armour-Thomas, E.(1992).
Development of a Cognitive-Metacognitive Framework for Protocol Analysis of
Mathematical Problem Solving inSmall Groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.

Antonelli, Paola. (2008). Design and the Elastic Mind. New York, N.Y.: The Museum of
Modern Art.

Archer, Bruce, Baynes, Ken, & Roberts, Phil. (1992). The Nature of Research into Design and
Technology Education. U.K.: Loughborough University of Technology, Department of
Design and Technology.

Archer, Bruce, Baynes, Ken, & Roberts, Phil. (2005). A framework for Design and Design
Education. Wellesbourne, UK: The Design and Technology Association.

Ardern, Jon, & Jain, Anab. (2015). Superflux. Ubiquity: The Journal of Pervasive Media, 4(1-
2), 69-74.

Armengaud, J. E. (1853). The Practical Draughtsman's Book of Industrial Design, giving a

Complete Course of Mechanical Engineering and Architectural Drawing (pp. 423-423).
London: J. Frances, etc.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). 5271.0.55.001 - Discussion Paper: Cultural and

Creative Activity Satellite Accounts, Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/5271.0.55.001Main%20Feature
s52013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=5271.0.55.001&issue=2013&num=
&view=

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Unit Group 2323 Fashion, Industrial and Jewellery
Designers. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Product+Lookup/1220.0~First+Edition,+Revisio
n+1~Chapter~UNIT+GROUP+2323+Fashion,%20Industrial%20and%20Jewellery%20Designe
rs

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). 8155.0 - Australian Industry, 2015-16.

Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/DetailsPage/8155.02015-16/

Australian Industry Group. (2015). Progressing STEM Skills in Australia. AIGroup (Ed.)
Retrieved from
http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2015/14571_STEM_Skills_Report_Final_-.pdf

BachelorsPortal. (2017). Industrial Design Bachelor's Degrees in Australia. from

StudyPortals https://www.bachelorsportal.com/study-options/271745077/industrial-
design-australia.html

Page | 192
Bergdoll, Barry, & Dickerman, Leah. (2009). Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity:
The Museum of Modern Art, New York; 1st Edition.

Bettinger, Eric, & Loeb, Susanna. (2017). Promises and Pitfalls of Online Education.
Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/ccf_20170609_loeb_evidence_speaks1.pdf

Betts, Paul. (2004). The Authority of Everyday Objects: A Cultural History of West German
Industrial Design (Vol. 34): Univ of California Press.

Black, Elizabeth, & Rankine, Leanne. (2013). Pilot Evaluation Report - PebblePad, Part 1.
University of Western Sydney (Ed.) Retrieved from Internal document (previously
available in university website)

Blom, Diana, Rowley, Jennifer, Bennett, Dawn, Hitchcock, Matthew, & Dunbar-Hall, Peter.
(2013). Two-Way Impact: Institutional E-Learning Policy/Educator Practices in Creative Arts
through ePortfolio Creation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th European
conference on e-Learning, Sophia Antipolis, France.

Bloom, Benjamin S, Engelhart, Max D, Furst, Edward J, Hill, Walker H, & Krathwohl, David
R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company. Inc.(7th Edition 1972).

Bonsiepe, Gui. (2010). Design and democracy: Bedford Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1990). The Logic of Practice: Stanford Univ Pr.

Bourdieu, Pierre, & Biggart, Nicole Woolsey. (2002). The Forms of Capital. Readings in
Economic Sociology, pp. 280-291.

Bourdieu, Pierre, & Passeron, Jean Claude. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society, and
Culture (Vol. 4): Sage Publications Ltd.

Brand, Reon, & Rocchi, Simona. (2011). Rethinking Value in a Changing Landscape: A
Model for Strategic Reflection and Business Transformation. Retrieved from
http://www.design.philips.com/philips/shared/assets/design_assets/pdf/nvbD/april2011/
paradigms.pdf

Bremner, Craig, & Rodgers, Paul. (2013). Design Without Discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), 4-
13.

Brown, John Seely. (2013). Learning in and for the 21st Century. In CJ Koh No (Ed.),
Professorial Lecture Series. Singapore: National Institute of Education.

Cahill, Lisa. (2010). Australian Design Alliance Launch Event Report. Retrieved from
http://australiandesignalliance.com/publication/ada-launch-report-pdf/

Page | 193
Carneiro, Roberto. (2011). Discovering the Treasure of Learning. In Jin Yang (Ed.),
Conceptual evolution and policy developments in lifelong learning. Hamburg: Unesco
Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Carr, Nicholas. (2011). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains: WW Norton
& Company.

Centre for Western Sydney. (2017). Data and Visualisations - Western Sydney University.
Retrieved from: https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/cws/gws_research

Chen, Baiyun, Seilhamer, Ryan, Bennett, Luke, & Bauer, Sue. (2015). Students' Mobile
Learning Practices in Higher Education: A Multi-Year Study. Educause Review, 7.

Christensen, Clayton M, & Eyring, Henry J. (2011). The Innovative University: Changing the
DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out: John Wiley & Sons.

Cormack. (2013 - 2015). Home | Cormack Innovation Awards. Retrieved from

http://cormackia.com.au/?page_id=48

Corneli, Joseph, & Danoff, Charles Jeffrey. (2011). Paragogy: Synergizing Individual and
Organizational Learning. Wikiversity,(Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License),
Cit, 33.

Corneli, Joseph, Danoff, Charles Jeffrey, Pierce, Charlotte, Ricaurte, Paola, & Macdonald,
Lisa Snow. (2015). Patterns of Peeragogy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd
Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs.

Cox, George. (2005). Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK's Strengths.
Crown HM Treasury. U.K. (Ed.) Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080910135408/http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/cox_review/coxreview_index.cfm

Creative Industries Innovation Centre. (2015). Valuing Australia's Creative Industries: Final
Report. A report prepared by SGS Economics & Planning for Creative Industries Innovation
Centre, Sydney. Retrieved from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/34865

Cross, Nigel. (1982). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.

Cross, Nigel. (1993). A History of Design Methodology Design Methodology and

Relationships with Science (pp. 15-27): Springer.

Cross, Nigel. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science.
Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.

Cross, Nigel. (2007). From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding

Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking. Design research now, 41-54.

Cruickshank, Mr Leon. (2014). Open Design and Innovation: Facilitating Creativity in

Everyone: Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Page | 194
Cully, Mark. (2016). Australian Industry Report 2016. Retrieved from
https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-
Economist/Publications/AustralianIndustryReport/index.html

Deloitte. (2015). Industrial & Product Design. Data USA.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. (2017). The 2017 Deloitte Millennial Survey : Apprehensive
Millennials - Seeking Stability and Opportunities in an Uncertain World: Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited.

Design Council, U.K. (2005). The Business of Design: Design Industry Research in 2005. The
Design Council: London.

Design Future Council. (2009). Design Intelligence : America's Best Architecture and Design
Schools (9780996440189). Retrieved from Norcross, GA:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=deEwngAACAAJ

Design Future Council. (2013). Design Intelligence : America's Best Architecture and Design
Schools (9780996440189). Retrieved from Norcross, GA:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=deEwngAACAAJ

Design Future Council. (2014). Design Intelligence : America's Best Architecture and Design
Schools (9780996440189). Retrieved from Norcross, GA:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=deEwngAACAAJ

Design Future Council. (2016). Design Intelligence : America's Best Architecture and Design
Schools (9780996440189). Retrieved from Norcross, GA:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=deEwngAACAAJ

Dewey, John. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, John. (1975). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of

Education: Free Press New York.

Dixon, Tim. (2013). NSW Creative Industries Economic Profile (ISBN 978-1-742565212).
Retrieved from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/46904/1/Creative-Industries-
Economic-Profile.pdf

Dondis, Donis A. (1973). A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, Mass. :
MIT Press.

Dorst, Kees. (1997). Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms: Technische Universiteit

Delft.

Dorst, Kees, & Dijkhuis, Judith. (1995). Comparing Paradigms for Describing Design Activity.
Design Studies, 16(2), 261-274.

Dos Santos Duisenberg, Edna. (2010). Creative Economy Report 2010. Creative Economy: A
Feasible Development Option: UNCTAD United Nations, Geneva.

Page | 195
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved
in Directed Skill Acquisition: Storming Media.

Drucker, Peter F. (1999). Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. The

Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000-2001.

Drucker, Peter F. (2011). Landmarks of Tomorrow: A Report on the New: Transaction

Publishers.

Dunne, Anthony. (1999). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience and
Critical Design: Art Books Intl Ltd.

Dunne, Anthony, & Raby, Fiona. (2001). Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects:
Springer Science & Business Media.

Ehn, Pelle. (1998). Manifesto for a Digital Bauhaus 1. Digital Creativity, 9(4), 207-217.

Engeström, Yrjö. (1987). The Emergence of Learning Activity as a Historical Form of Human
Learning, Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental
Research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, 29 - 127.

Engeström, Yrjö. (1990). Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity
Theory: Orienta-konsultit.

Engeström, Yrjö. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical

Reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
doi:10.1080/13639080020028747

Engeström, Yrjö. (2008). From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration

and Learning at Work: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Yrjö. (2009a). The Future of Activity Theory: A Rough Draft. Learning and
Expanding with Activity Theory, 303-328.

Engeström, Yrjö. (2009b). Wildfire Activities: New Patterns of Mobility and Learning.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(2), 1-18.

Engeström, Yrjö. (2013). From Communities of Practice to Mycorrhizae. Communities of

Practice (pp. 51-64): Routledge.

Engeström, Yrjö. (2014). Learning by Expanding: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Yrjö, & Sannino, Annalisa. (2010). Studies of Expansive Learning: Foundations,
Findings and Future Challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.

Fallan, Kjetil. (2010). Design History: Understanding Theory and Method: Berg.

Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Continuum, 65-80.

Page | 196
Gallie, Walter Bryce. (1955). Essentially Contested Concepts. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society.

Gausby, Alyson. (2015). Attention Spans. Consumer Insights. Microsoft Canada.

Gedenryd, Henrik. (1998). How Designers Work-Making Sense of Authentic Cognitive

Activities (Vol. 75): Cognitive Science.

Gibson, James J. (2014). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition:
Psychology Press.

Gleeson, Jim. (2013). The European Credit Transfer System and Curriculum Design: Product
before Process? Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 921-938.

Gorman, Carma. (2003). The industrial design reader: Skyhorse Publishing Inc.

Graphiq. (2017). Best College Comparison - Rankings, Degrees & Reviews. StartClass.
Retrieved from
http://colleges.startclass.com/?launch_filters=%5B%7B%22field%22%3A%22cipcode_clon
e_app_data_filter%22%2C%22operator%22%3A%22%3D%22%2C%22value%22%3A%2250.
0404%22%7D%5D

Gropius, Walter. (1919). Bauhaus Manifesto and Program. Weimar: The Administration of
the Staatliche Bauhaus.

Guyotte, Kelly W, Sochacka, Nicki W, Costantino, Tracie E, Walther, Joachim, & Kellam,
Nadia N. (2014). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces.
Art Education, 67(6), 12-19.

Guyotte, Kelly W, Sochacka, Nicola W, Costantino, Tracie E, Kellam, Nadia N, & Walther,
Joachim. (2015). Collaborative creativity in STEAM: Narratives of art education students’
experiences in transdisciplinary spaces. International journal of education & the arts,
16(15).

Habermas, Jürgen. (2012). Modernity: An Unfinished Project [1980]. Contemporary

Sociological Theory, 444.

Harel, Idit Ed, & Papert, Seymour Ed. (1991). Constructionism: Ablex Publishing.

Harvey, Andrew. (2016, 17 June 2016). Uncapping of University Places Achieved What it
Set Out to Do. So Why Is It Dubbed a Policy Failure? The Conversation. Retrieved from
http://theconversation.com/uncapping-of-university-places-achieved-what-it-set-out-to-
do-so-why-is-it-dubbed-a-policy-failure-61082

Hase, Stewart, & Kenyon, Chris. (2013). Self-Determined Learning: Heutagogy in Action:
A&C Black.

Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Being and Time: Harper Collins, San Franciso.

Page | 197
Herbart, Johann Friedrich. (1806). Allgemeine Pädagogik: Aus dem Zweck der Erziehung
abgeleitet: JF Röwer.

Horkheimer, Max, Adorno, Theodor W, & Noeri, Gunzelin. (2002). Dialectic of

enlightenment: Stanford University Press.

HotCourses. (2017a). Australian Institutions Offering Industrial Design Courses. Retrieved

from https://www.hotcoursesabroad.com/study/training-degrees/australia/industrial-
design-courses/loc/9/cgory/f10-3/sin/ct/programs.html

HotCourses. (2017b, 2017). Australian Institutions Offering Industrial Design Masters

Degrees Courses. Retrieved from https://www.hotcoursesabroad.com/study/training-
degrees/australia/masters/industrial-design-courses/loc/9/slevel/57-3-3/cgory/f10-
3/sin/ct/programs.html

HotCourses. (2017c). Industrial Design Courses at University of Technology Sydney - UTS.

HotCourses. (2017d). Institutions in Australia Offering Postgraduate Industrial Design

Courses. Retrieved from https://www.hotcoursesabroad.com/study/training-
degrees/australia/postgraduate/industrial-design-courses/loc/9/slevel/3/cgory/f10-
3/sin/ct/programs.html

Howkings, J. (2001). The Creative Economy–How People Make Money from their Ideas: The
Penguin Press. Allen Lane.

Hustwit, Gary, Beshenkovsky, Joe, Geissbuhler, Luke, & Dunne, Kristian. (2009). Objectified.
London, UK: Swiss Dots Limited.

Industrial Designers Society of America. (2014, 2014/10/03). ID Schools. Industrial

Designers Society of America - IDSA. Retrieved from http://www.idsa.org/education/id-
schools

Innovation and Science Australia. (2017). Performance Review of the Australian Innovation,
Science and Research System 2016: Australian Government - Department of Industry and
Science.

Irwin, Terry. (2015). Redesigning a Design Program: How Carnegie Mellon University is
Developing a Design Curricula for the 21st Century. Solutions, January-February 2015, 91-
100.

Irwin, Terry, Tonkinwise, Cameron, & Kossoff, Gideon. (2013). Transition Design: Re-
conceptualizing Whole Lifestyles. Paper presented at the Head, Heart, Hand: AIGA Design
Conference.

Jacob, Sam. (2013). One of the Culprits behind Prism? Design thinking (Really). Wired.
Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2013/06/the-real-culprit-behind-prism-design-
thinking-yes/

Page | 198
Jain, Anab. (2013). Design for the New Normal. Paper presented at the Next Conference,
Berlin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaL80fzcan8

Jain, Anab. (2015). Superflux - Translating Future Uncertainty into Present Day Choices.
Retrieved from http://superflux.in/

Kapp, Alexander. (1833). Platon's Erziehungslehre, als Pädagogik für die Einzelnen und als
Staatspädagogik. Oder Dessen Praktische Philosophie aus den Quellen Dargestellt von
Alexander Kapp: F. Essmann.

Kaptelinin, Victor. (2013). Activity Theory. In Mads Soegaard & Rikke Friis Dam (Eds.), The
Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed (2nd Ed ed.): The Interaction Design
Fundation. Chr. Molbechs Vej 4 DK-8000 Aarhus C. Denmark.

Kenyon, Chris, & Hase, Stewart. (2001). Moving from Andragogy to Heutagogy in
Vocational Education.

Khayyat, Mashael. (2016). A Proposed Model for the Fourth Generation of Activity Theory
to be Applied on the Smart City Research.

Kirkpatrick, Denise. (2017). Learning and Teaching: Digital Strategies and Enabled
Environments. Paper presented at the University of Canterbury’s Teaching Week
Christchurch, New Zealand.

Knowles, Malcolm. (1980). What is Andragogy. The Modern Practice of Adult Education,
from Pedagogy to Andragogy, 40-62.

Krippendorff, Klaus. (2005). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design: crc Press.

Krippendorff, Klaus. (2008). Designing in Ulm and off Ulm. In K-A. Czemper (Ed.), HfG, Ulm;
Die Abteilung Produktgestaltung (pp. 55 - 72). Dortmund, Germany: Verlag Dorothea Rohn.

Kuutti, Kari. (2005). Defining an Object of Design by the Means of the Cultural-Historical
Activity Theory. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM) by University of
Arts Bremen.

Labour Market Information Portal. (2017). Employment Projections. Retrieved from

ttp://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/EmploymentProjections

Latour, Bruno. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to
Matters of Concern. Critical inquiry, 30(2), 225-248.

Latour, Bruno. (2008). A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps toward a Philosophy of Design
(with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008
annual international conference of the design history society.

Latour, Bruno. (2009). Spheres and Networks. Two Ways to Reinterpret Globalization.
Harvard Design Magazine(30), 138-144.

Page | 199
Leonardi, Paul M. (2010). Digital Materiality? How Artifacts without Matter, Matter. First
Monday, 15(6).

Lessig, Lawrence. (2008). Remix : Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.
New York: New York : Penguin Press.

Liem, André, & Sigurjonsson, Johannes B. (2014). Positioning Industrial Design Education
within Higher Education: How to face increasingly challenging market forces? Uniped, 1,
44-57.

Lockwood, Thomas. (2010). Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience,

and Brand Value: Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Lyotard, Jean-François. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Vol.

10): U of Minnesota Press.

Maciuika, John V. (2005). Before the Bauhaus: Architecture, Politics, and the German State,
1890-1920 (Vol. 2): Cambridge University Press.

Maeda, John. (2012). STEM to STEAM: Art in K-12 is Key to Building a Dtrong Economy.
Edutopia: What works in education.

Maier, Jonathan RA, & Fadel, Georges M. (2001). Affordance: The Fundamental Concept in
Engineering Design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and
Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. Paper no. DETC2001/DTM-21700.

Maier, Jonathan RA, & Fadel, Georges M. (2009). Affordance Based Design: A Relational
Theory for Design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13-27.

Majorek, Czeslaw. (1998). The Interpretation of Herbartian Pedagogics in the 19th Century
Polish Teacher Training Seminars. Paedagogica Historica, 34(sup1), 471-481.

Maldonado, Tomás. (1958). New Developments in Industry and the Training of Designers.
Ulm 2. Germany: Ulm School of Design (Hochschule für Gestaltung – HfG).

Maldonado, Tomás. (1972). Revolution: Toward a Critical Ecology, trans. Mario Domandi.
New York: Harper and Row, 60(Design, Nature), 65.

Martin, Roger L. (2007). The Opposable Mind : How Successful Leaders Win through
Integrative Thinking. Boston, Mass.: Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.

Mason, Glenn, Langendyk, Vicki, & Wang, Shaoyu. (2013). The Introduction of an Online
Portfolio System in a Medical School: What Can Activity Theory Tell Us? Paper presented at
the ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual
Conference.

Miller, Daniel, & Tilley, Christopher Y. (1984). Ideology, Power and Prehistory: Cambridge
University Press.

Page | 200
Mubin, Omar, Novoa, Mauricio, Ferguson, Joel, & Taylor, Joel. (2014). Leveraging the
Design of Child Restraint Systems to Reduce Driver Distraction. Paper presented at the
CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Negroponte, Nicholas. (1996). Being Digital: Vintage.

Nelson, Harold G. (2012). The Design Way : Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World
(Second edition. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Norman, Donald A. (1999). Affordance, Conventions, and Design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.

Norman, Donald A. (2010). Why Design Education Must Change-Core77. Design Magazine
and Resource.

Norman, Donald A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition:
Basic Books (AZ).

Norman, Donald A. (2015). The Future of Design: When You Come to a Fork in the Road,
Take It. December. Retrieved from
https://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_future_of_design.html

Novoa, Mauricio. (2012). Vision for Industrial Design Course: Presentation to Directors of
Academics Program Panel. Retrieved from Unpublished internal document:

Novoa, Mauricio. (2014). Industrial Design Curriculum 2016: New Vision and Imperatives
for the New Normal of Innovation and its Education. Retrieved from Unpublished internal
document:

Nussbaum, Bruce. (2013). Creative Intelligence: Harnessing the Power to Create, Connect,
and Inspire. New York, N.Y.: Harper Business.

Oswald, David. (2012). The Information Department at the Ulm School of Design. Blucher
Design Proceedings, 1(1), 46-50.

Overbeeke, Kees , & Hummels, Caroline (2014). Industrial Design. Aarhus, Denmark: The
Interaction Design Foundation.

Papert, Seymour. (1986). Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science

Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and
Learning Group.

PayScale. (2017, 2017). Industrial Designer Salary. PayScale Human Capital. Retrieved from
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Industrial_Designer/Salary

Pink, Daniel H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers will Rule the Future:
Penguin.

Pink, Sarah, Ardèvol, Elisenda, & Lanzeni, Débora. (2016). Digital Materialities: Design and
Anthropology: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Page | 201
Pope, Richard. (2016). Power, Design and Possibilities: Designing Digital Services that Are
Accountable, Understood, and Trusted. Paper presented at the OSCON 2016
https://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/open-source-eu/public/schedule/detail/53909

Q. S. Top Universities. (2016). QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016 - Art & Design.
QS Top Universities. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-
rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/art-design

Q. S. Top Universities. (2017). QS World Universities by Ranking: Art & Design. Top
Universities. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-
rankings/university-subject-rankings/2017/art-
design#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=

Ratto, Matt, Atkinson, P, Avital, M, Mau, B, Ramakers, R, & Hummels, C. (2011). Open
Design and Critical Making. Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive.
Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. URL: http://opendesignnow.org.

Ratto, Matt, & Hockema, Stephen. (2009). Flwr Pwr: Tending the Walled Garden. Walled
Garden. Virtueel Platform Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 51-60.

Roberston, David. (2013a). Australian Design 2013. Issues & Concerns in the Design
Professions. PN 034 Issue B. Retrieved from
https://www.design.org.au/documents/item/127

Roberston, David. (2013b). Design Sector Statistics. Design General. PN 033 Issue A.
Retrieved from https://www.design.org.au/documents/item/126

Roos, Göran. (2012). Manufacturing into the Future. Government of South Australia
Retrieved from http://www.makingmarion.com.au/4880/documents/11779/download.

Roos, Johan, & Victor, Bart. (1998). In Search Of Original Strategies: How About Some
Serious Play. IMD Perspectives for Managers, 56(15), 1-4.

Roos, Johan, & Victor, Bart. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy-making as serious
play. European Management Journal, 17(4), 348-355. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00015-8

Roos, Johan, Victor, Bart, & Statler, Matt. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy. Long
Range Planning, 37(6), 549-568.

Rowley, Jennifer, Bennett, Dawn, & Blom, Diana. (2014). ePortfolios in the Teaching of
Music and other Creative and Performing Arts in Four Australian Universities. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the International Society for Music Education: 31st World
Conference on Music Education, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 20‐25 July 2014.

Russell, Carol. (2014). Herding Cats And Measuring Elephants: Implementing And
Evaluating An Institutional Blended And Mobile Learning Strategy. Rhetoric and Reality:
Critical perspectives on educational technology, 211-221.

Page | 202
Russell, Carol, & Jing, Qi. (2013). Evaluating an Institutional Blended & Mobile Learning
Strategy. Paper presented at the ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education Annual Conference.

Saletnik, Jeffrey, & Schuldenfrei, Robin. (2013). Bauhaus Construct: Fashioning Identity,
Discourse and Modernism: Routledge.

Sannino, Annalisa. (2011). Activity Theory as an Activist and Interventionist Theory. Theory
& Psychology, 21(5), 571-597.

Seno, Alexandra. (2010). The Future of Industrial Design. Interview with Ron Arad. Wall
Street Journal.

Simon, Herbert A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA.

Skinner, BF. (1974). About Behaviorism. NY: Alfred A: Knopf.

Sloterdijk, Peter. (2011). Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology. Cambridge MA: MIT
Press.

Somerson, Roseanne, & Hermano, Mara L. (2013). The Art of Critical Making. Hoboken,
New Jersey.: Wiley, City.

Spinuzzi, Clay. (2012). Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative

Activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399-441.

Spinuzzi, Clay. (2015). Toward a Typology of Activities: Understanding Internal

Contradictions in Multiperspectival Activities. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 29(1), 3-35.

Stross, Charlie. (2014). YAPC NA Keynote : Programming Perl in 2034. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPQLKTcJ26s

StudyPortals. (2017). Industrial Design Degrees in Australia. Retrieved from

https://www.bachelorsportal.com/search/#q=ci-202|di-53|lv-
bachelor,preparation&start=0&length=10&order=relevance&direction=desc

Terzidis, Kostas. (2007). The Etymology of Design: Pre-Socratic Perspective. Design Issues,
23(4), 69-78. doi:10.1162/desi.2007.23.4.69

Thomas, Douglas, & Brown, John Seely. (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the
Imagination for a World of Constant Change (Vol. 219): CreateSpace Lexington, KY.

Tucci, Christopher, & Peters, Tilo. (2015). Design and Design Frameworks: Investment in
KBC and economic performance (No. EPFL-CHAPTER-213643). Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/Chapter6-KBC2-IP.pdf

Twigg, Carol A. (2003). Quality, Cost and Access: The Case for Redesign. The wired tower:
Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education, 111-143.

Page | 203
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017a, 2017). Industrial Designers : Occupational Outlook
Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/industrial-
designers.htm#tab-2

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017b). Industrial Designers : Occupational Outlook

Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/industrial-designers.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. (2017). 27-1021.00 - Commercial and Industrial Designers.

Retrieved from https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/27-1021.00

University of South Australia. (2017). Study Bachelor of Design (Product Design) at the
University of South Australia (UniSA). Information for Australian students. Retrieved from
http://study.unisa.edu.au/degrees/51-8817

Wakkary, Ron, Odom, William, Hauser, Sabrina, Hertz, Garnet, & Lin, Henry. (2015).
Material Speculation: Actual Artifacts for Critical Inquiry. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives.

Watson, John B. (1913). Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological review, 20(2),
158.

WDO. (2017a). WDO | About | Definition of Industrial Design. Retrieved from

http://wdo.org/about/definition/

WDO. (2017b). WDO | About | Vision and Mission. Retrieved from

http://wdo.org/about/vision-mission/

Wenger, Etienne. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity:

Cambridge University Press.

Wright, Natalie, Davis, Rebekah M., & Bucolo, Sam. (2013). Knowledge Economy Market
Development Mapping Study. Retrieved from

Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa C. (2010). Activity Systems Analysis Methods. Boston, MA: Springer
US.

Zuidervaart, Lambert. (1993). Adorno's Aesthetic Theory: the redemption of illusion.

Page | 204