Dans une interview récente qu'elle a la gentilesse de m'avoir fait parvenir, Brigitte Borja a présenté Allan Whitfield qui a été à l'origine d'une étude portant sur l'état des lieux du design en Australie. les résultats sont intéressants, et comme d'habitude, on regrette le retard français en la matière....
The professional status of Designers :a national survey of how designers are perceived
Interview of one of the researcher Allan Whitfield
By Brigitte Borja de Mozota Université Paris X Nanterre Laboratoire CEROS
1.Could you please introduce yourself and your co –researcher as well as your university ?
I am Director of the National Institute for Design Research at Swinburne University of Technology and Gillian Smith was my research student undertaking a PhD. Swinburne University of Technology is a Government funded university located in Melbourne, Australia. It has specialised in research into various facets of design.
2. Why did you start this survey on the professional status of design in Australia?
My background is psychology. Ever since finishing my PhD 25 years ago, I have always worked in the field of Design. I have even been the Head of a University Design School in England, even though I am not a designer.
Why my interest in the professional status of designers? Well, it followed some research I did into the professional status of physiotherapists. I found that physiotherapists have a much lower status in the UK than they do in Australia. The reason is, basically, that in the UK anyone can call themselves a physiotherapist, while in Australia they have to be registered to use that title. The role of a professional body for registration and accreditation is very important for the status of an occupation.
I was curious about the perceived status of designers. My initial work compared the public’s views in Korea and Australia. From there it led to the first national survey of how people see the various design groups: a study conducted in Australia. Incidentally, the Koreans regard the design groups as having a much higher status than do the Australians. They see them as more highly educated, more useful as a profession, and having greater responsibility. Why should this be? This wasn’t part of the study, and therefore I can only speculate. However, it seems that the Koreans recognise the value of design to ‘add value’ to products. Korea is, after all, an export-driven country with few natural resources. It must compete with its near neighbour, Japan, for lucrative export markets, and it must compete now also with the emerging economy of China. It cannot compete on price with China, and therefore it must compete with Japan on quality and design. Japan is a hard competitor on quality, and therefore design and quickly marketed new technology are its main thrusts. Importantly, in Korea design is recognised even by the public as an important economic force. Unfortunately, Australia, with its wealth of natural resources doesn’t see this. Australia, as with France, is a looser of manufacturing jobs to Asian economies. Australia hasn’t quite understood this. But Korea has and it is doing well.
3. What was the context of this research :research laboratory ,fundings.. ?
We decided to carry out a large scale survey into how the Public, Design Educators, and Designers saw the main design professions. Naturally, being in Australia, we did it in Australia. About 1600 people took part in the study. This consisted of focus groups, followed by a national questionnaire survey.
4. You study examine six design occupations and measure the familiarity of the general public with these occupations.You asked whether they had heard of the design occupations,if they knew the main tasks of the job, and finally if they knew someone with this coocupation .
Could you tell us the main results and what was you opinion in front of the results ?
The study examined six design occupations, interior design, industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, furniture design, and product design. We knew that industrial design and product design are really the same thing, but we were curious about how the Public saw this.
The first stage examined if the Public had heard of these professions and what they did. Our results showed that the design professions – or occupations – came well down the list that the public were familiar with. In fact, they came near the bottom. Not only that, but Industrial Design came virtually at the bottom. Industrial Designers will not like this, but the Public have no idea who they are and what they do. Guesses on the part of the Public were that they did such things as designing factories, designing cranes, and designing infrastructure. Most members of the Public thought that they owned nothing designed by an Industrial Designer. It is sad to say, but Industrial Design is the mysterious profession – it does not exist in the minds of the Public.
Even more disturbing is that the various design disciplines do not meet the agreed requirements for being a profession. Effectively, they are occupations. In order to achieve professional status they need to regulate entry into the profession, to maintain agreed professional standards, to undertake research, and to determine educational qualifications. The role of a professional body is crucial to achieve this. Unfortunately, professional design bodies are ‘professional’ in name only. They have little control, unlike in the fields of medicine and law.
5.Then you investigate more in depth the cognitive side of the design profession asking first if the public thought designers as naturally creative or if design is a learnt skill ?
What were the results?
The Public see designers as naturally creative: it is not a learnt skill. However, they think that creativity needs to be built upon and nurtured. For this reason they see education and training as important.
6. Design is often referred to as art . What was the opinion of the public between art and design . Are they understood as distinct occupations or not ?
Designers erect fences to separate themselves from artists. They are insistent that design is not art, that design is a commercial activity resulting from a client’s brief. The Public, however, do not think this way. The Public blur the boundaries between art and design. While designers see the differences, the Public see the similarities. To the Public, design is ‘applied art’, and designers are mainly stylists. This is not an insult to designers. On the contrary, the Public admire the talent of the designer as a stylist. It is something that they cannot do, and they value it highly. Designers, however, seem horrified at the idea of being stylists. I suspect that the Public are largely correct. Most designers are simply stylists. If they want to be more, then they have to demonstrate this. Being a stylist sounds rather trivial – though not to the Public. Designers want to be regarded as highly intellectual people who engage in important activities. They have a long way to go to persuade the Public of this!
7.From the standpoint of cognitive psychology your study shows that the design profession lacks a clear topography . without this clear topography this is no professional category or the profession is subsumed to a more meaningful category
Since design is not a category in itself what were the categories design were submitted to ?
(Art,architecture ID no category )
As we go through life we construct cognitive (mental) categories. We put objects into these categories. So, for example, we recognise a tree because it fits into our ‘tree’ category. We recognise a dog because it fits into our ‘dog’ category. Once the object is put into a category, our brains get access to performance information about the object. For example, we know that trees don’t run up and bite you, but that dogs can. Occupations and professions operate the same. We construct cognitive categories into which we put the various ‘jobs’.
Our research shows that the Public do not have a clear cognitive category for design. The strongest category is fashion design, and the weakest are industrial design / product design and furniture design. Industrial design simply does not exist as a cognitive category to the Public. There is nothing there. Furniture design does exist as a cognitive category, but not necessarily as a design category. Rather it is a woodworker / joinery category.
The Public have strong art and architecture categories. In the absence of a clear category, we tend to put the object or occupation into a nearby clear category. Thus, design tends to be subsumed by art, while architecture subsumes interior design. Design is in the extremely difficult position of being associated with two powerful cognitive categories. Design must differentiate itself from these two. This would be a priority for a professional body.
8. In your study you interviewed also designers and design educators ,what were the main fields where designers and design educators diverge from the opinion of the general public ?
(tertiary qualification , design as an occupation for the very intelligent ,level of professionalism)
One of the big surprises of our research was the finding that designers themselves do not regard design as a profession / occupation for the highly intelligent. In other words, they do not regard high intelligence as a requirement for being a designer. While we might expect this from the Public, we did not expect this from designers – and design educators. Also, we found that designers did not consider tertiary qualifications (university degrees) as essential for being a designer. In combination, these two findings argue against design as a profession. Essential requirements of true professions – e.g. medicine and law – are that they require high intelligence and high levels of tertiary education. I suspect that it is inconceivable that professions such as medicine, law, and architecture would hold these views, whether in Australia, France, the UK, or the USA.
9. Your study shows that design is not a profession.Since your results will probalby be similar in our country what are the main characteristices that make a profession ?
As indicated above, to be a profession, design needs a registration and accreditation body with ‘teeth’, as exist for true professions. Design also needs to develop its own body of research. This means developing specialist knowledge, and not just anecdotes and waffle. It needs to become more scientific and evidence-based. This is a big problem for design, as traditionally its roots are outside of the normal university world and, as I said above, anyone can call themselves a designer. It must face up to this challenge. It can remain as a self-deluded, ‘so-called’ profession, or it can remodel itself and ‘professionalise’ itself.
This challenge can only be taken up by designers themselves. Bear in mind that other occupational groups are also seeking professional status. In Australia these include teachers, computer scientists, nurses, and accountants. Each is requiring higher levels of tertiary education to be accepted into employment. My point is that there is nothing special about design. Do not expect favours. Do not think that somehow you are special. Each occupational group thinks that they are special. There are many other occupational groups seeking the same privileged status of being a profession. The answer lies with designers themselves. Can they bury their internal differences (graphic design versus interior design versus industrial design etc)? Can the older generation who are probably less academically qualified bury their pride and accept high level qualifications as entry into the ‘profession’ – even though they themselves don’t have them? Can the designers stop bickering? If not, then other occupational groups will overtake them. The answer lies with designers themselves. If not, then, in the words of that now famous song: “They had it coming, they had it coming, they only had themselves to blame…………………………”
THANK YOU
