Critiquing Design: Perspectives and World Views on Design and Design and Technology Education, for the Common Good

  • Kay StablesEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


This chapter critiques design and design practices from historical, social, cultural and sustainable perspectives as a basis for opening up a broader perspective on the ways design and designing are seen within mainstream design and technology education in schools. This chapter is divided into four broad sections. The first section explores the ways that design practitioners, theorists and historians critique past and present practices of design from within the profession. This is followed by an outlining of approaches that some designers have taken in using design itself as a way of critiquing society and culture. The focus then turns to design and technology education and highlights concerns that have been identified both at school and higher education level. Finally, consideration is given to examples that illustrate positive approaches to bringing broader and more critical approaches to design and technology in classrooms, including ways that are developed in detail in further chapters in this book.


Design practices World views Critical design Design activism Utopian and dystopian design 


  1. Archer, L. B. (1992). The nature of research in design and design education. In B. Archer, K. Baynes, & P. Roberts (Eds.), The nature of research into design and technology education (pp. 7–14). Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balaram, S. (2011). Thinking design. New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London/Singapore: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardzell, J. & Bardzell, S. (2013). What is “Critical” about critical design? Paper presented at the CHI ‘13 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.Google Scholar
  5. Baynes, K. (2010). Models of change: The impact of ‘designerly thinking’ on people’s lives and the environment, seminar 4 modelling and society. Occasional paper 6. Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  6. Clune, S. (2008). How you define is how you design: Problematitic definitions in design for sustainability education. Paper presented at the Changing the change: Design, visions, proposals and tools, Turin.Google Scholar
  7. Coward, T., & Fathers, J. (2005). A critique of design methodologies appropriate to private-sector activity in development. Development in Practice, 15(3–4), 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vries, M. J. (2012). Utopian thinking in contemporary technology versus responsible technology for an imperfect world. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 64(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  9. Dorrestijn, S., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2013). Technology, wellbing and freedom: The legacy of utopian design. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 45–56.Google Scholar
  10. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  11. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction and social dreaming. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elshof, L. (2006). Productivism and the product paradigm in technological education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(2), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elshof, L. (2009). Toward sustainable practices in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Feenberg, A. (2006). What is philosophy of technology. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 5–16). New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleming, R. (2013). Design education for a sustainable future. London/New York: Earthscan (Routledge).Google Scholar
  17. Flowers, J. (1998). Problem solving in technology education: A Taoist perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flowers, J. (2010). The Problem in technology education (A definite article). Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fry, T. (2012). Becoming human by design. London/New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  20. Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism: Beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. Earthscan from Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Gámez, J. L. S., & Rogers, S. (2008). Introduction: An architecture of change. In B. Bell & K. Wakeford (Eds.), Expanding architecture: Design as activism (pp. 18–25). New York: Metropolis Books.Google Scholar
  22. Gaver, W., Blythe, M., Boucher, A., Jarvis, N., Bowers, J., & Wright, P. (2010). The prayer companion: Openness and specificity, materiality and spirituality. Paper presented at the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’10). Atlanta,Google Scholar
  23. Huygen, F. (1997). Report from Holland: Design criticism after postmodernism. Design Issues, 13(2, A critical condition: Design and its criticism), 40–43.Google Scholar
  24. Ihde, D. (2006). The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards and epistemological framework (pp. 121–132). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Julier, G. (2013). From design culture to design activism. Design and Culture, 5(2), 215–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kemper, B. (2004). Evil intent and design responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiem, M. (2014). When the most radical thing you could do is just stop: Or, why the doyens of ‘critical’ design are the problem with critical design.Google Scholar
  28. Kimbell, L. (2009). Design practices in design thinking. Paper presented at the European Academy of Management Conference, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity—A framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macnaghten, P., Davies, S., & Kearnes, M. (2010). Narrative and public engagement: Some findings from the DEEPEN project. In R. von Schomberg & S. Davies (Eds.), Understanding public debates on nanotechnologies: Options for framing public policy (pp. 13–30). Luxemberg: European Union.Google Scholar
  31. Malpass, M. (2013). Between wit and reason: Defining associative, speculative, and critical design in practice. Design and Culture, 5(3), 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Margolin, V. (1998). Design for a sustainable world. Design Issues, 14(2), 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitcham, C., & Holbrook, J. B. (2006). Understanding technological design. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 105–120). New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orr, D. W. (2002). The nature of design: Ecology, culture and human intention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  37. Petrina, S. (2000). The political ecology of design and technology education: An inquiry into methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 207–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sayer, A. (2000). For postdisciplinary studies: Sociology and the curse of disciplinary parochialism and imperialsim. In J. A. Eldridge (Ed.), For sociology: Legacies and prospects (pp. 83–91). Durham: Sociologypress.Google Scholar
  40. Stables, K. (2012). Designerly well-being: Can mainstream schooling offer a curriculum that provides a foundation for developing the lifelong design and technological capability of individuals and societies? Paper presented at the The PATT 26 Conference: Technology education in the 21st Century, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  41. Stables, K. (2013). Social and cultural relevance in approaches to developing designerly well-being: The potential and challenges when learners call the shots in design and technology projects. Paper presented at the technology education for the future: A play on sustainability, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  42. Thompson, I., Stott, N., & Kerridge, T. (2006). Biojewellery: Designing rings with bioengineered bone and tissue. London: Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  43. Vu, T. (2011, February 11). Critical design as constructive provocation. MIND Design, 36.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, S. (2006). Sustainable by design. London/Stirling: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, S. (2010). Sermons in stones: Argument and artefact for sustainability. Les Ateliers de l’ethique, 5(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
  46. Whitely, N. (1997). Introduction. Design Issues, 13(2, A critical condition: Design and its criticism), 1–3.Google Scholar
  47. Wilkinson, T., & Bencze, J. L. (2015). With head, hand and heart: Children address ethical issues of design and technology education. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 231–244). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Wood, J. (2007). Designing for micro-utopias: Thinking beyond the possible. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations