Content uploaded by Mariano Ramirez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mariano Ramirez
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability in the education of
industrial designers: the case
for Australia
Mariano Ramirez
Industrial Design Program, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The paper intends to determine the extent to which environmental sustainability issues
are integrated in the curricula of industrial design programs in Australian universities.
Design/methodology/approach – Industrial design lecturers and program heads were invited to
participate in a web-based survey on their university’s industrial design curricula. Online university
handbooks were also examined to determine which courses cover sustainability aspects. Survey
results were then tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics.
Findings – The study shows that, while there is a concern that sustainable development issues are
important and relevant to design courses, the permeation of environmental sensitivity through most
industrial design curricula, and indeed among design academics, is only starting to gain ground.
Comparative examination of the curricular structures in Australian universities offering degree
programs in industrial and product design revealed that, on average, 12 out of every 100 credit points
earned have sustainability content.
Practical implications – The paper informs industrial design academics that much more work has
to be done in order to educate the next generation of designers about their responsibilities to the planet
and its people. It tells them where we currently are and the gaps that we have to bridge in order to
achieve environmental sustainability.
Originality/value – The paper is original in the field of Australian industrial design education,
and builds on work in other disciplines about incorporating sustainability aspects in tertiary
education.
Keywords Sustainable development, Sustainable design, Education, Industrial design, Curricula,
Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The need to implement sustainable strategies in product development and design is no
longer a question. The disastrous consequences of the unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption of the last century are now part of humankind’s everyday
experience: in the polluted air, land and waters around us, in our changing climate, in
the loss of biodiversity, and so on. Global ice melting is accelerating, wetlands are
drying up, forest loss continues, and air pollution is still a menaces (Worldwatch, 2005).
Overall energy use, carbon dioxide emissions, number of threatened species, and water
pollution levels all continue to increase; extreme weather events and other
environmental disasters clearly indicate our increasing pressure on the planet
(UNEP, 2005). The living planet index, a measure of the Earth’s ecological health, fell
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm
Portions of this paper were previously presented at the Futureground International Conference of
the Design Research Society, 17-21 November 2004, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Education of
industrial
designers
189
International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education
Vol. 7 No. 2, 2006
pp. 189-202
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1467-6370
DOI 10.1108/14676370610655959
by 40 per cent from 1970 to 2000, while humanity’s ecological footprint, or total burden
on the global environment, grew by 70 per cent during the same period (WWF, 2004).
The rising consumption of resources is more than the planet can bear (Worldwatch,
2004): in fact, it was calculated that, on average, 1.21 planet Earths were required to
supply humankind’s demands in 2001 (WWF, 2004).
Design of humankind’s built environment – be they objects, houses, interiors, cities,
landscapes or systems – factors heavily in the despoliation of the natural environment.
Well-designed human artefacts and systems harmonize with the ecological patterns in
which they are embedded, while poorly designed ones undermine those larger patterns,
creating pollution and social stress (Orr, 1995). Manufacturing industry is often blamed
for flooding the market with irresponsible or “poorly design ed” products and packaging.
These include equipment, gadgets and toys which guzzle excessive materials and
energy; fashionable objects which are doomed to be passe
´too soon; fast-moving and
short-life consumer goods; unrepairable appliances which promote a throwaway
mentality; and the list goes on. Manufacturers not only make more, bigger and less
durable products, but also spend heaps of money to sell to consumers the belief that
increased consumption and the accumulation of goods will lead to more fulfilling lives.
For instance, in the USA, there are more private vehicles on the road than people licensed
to drive them, and households are acquiring more and needlessly larger refrigerators
(Worldwatch, 2004). By working hand in hand with irresponsible manufacturers in
creating objects that perpetuate unbridled consumption, industrial designers are
implicated in the ensuing environmental crisis (Fletcher and Dewberry, 2002).
Thirty four years ago, this potential of industrial designers to contribute to ecological
damage was brought to the forefront by leading design educator Victor Papanek, when he
censured the industrial design profession as being the second “most harmful” profession,
after advertising design (Papanek, 1971). Industrial designers, he claimed, concoct “the
tawdry idiocies hawked by advertisers”, who persuade people to “buy things they don’t
need, with money they don’t have, in order to impress others who don’t care”. Papanek
passionately challenged the mainstream design profession to redirect its activities from
one which fosters conspicuous consumption and rapid obsolescence, to one that advocates
social ethics and environmental responsibility. He questioned why industrial designers
were obsessed in devising seemingly senseless gizmos, concluding that “...by creating
whole new species of permanent garbage to clutter up the landscape, and by choosing
materials and processes that pollute the air we breathe, designers have become a
dangerous breed”. Twenty-five years later he continues to attack in his writing the
designers’unceasing complicityin the manufacture of superfluous and wasteful consumer
paraphernalia and their enslavement to the whims of advertisers and marketers, resulting
in a design profession that “conforms, performs, deforms and misinforms” rather than one
that “informs, reforms and gives form” (Papanek, 1995).
Paradoxically, industrial designers can be both the cause of the problem and the
source of solutions (Yang and Giard, 2001). Industrial designers are well-trained in the
process of creative innovation, which can be used to seek out alternative solutions to
the wasteful lifestyles of contemporary society, and to influence positive change
through the conception of more responsible goods and services (Papanek, 1995). And
yet, there can be no responsible design without a responsible designer (Findeli, 2001),
so design education should be redirected to the development of an ethical designer, one
who could rethink and radically “design out design that delivers environmental
IJSHE
7,2
190
problems” (Fry, 1993). Indeed, design education for sustainability now can help usher a
promising future by transforming the industrial designers of tomorrow.
It is about time that the issue of integration of sustainability aspects in design
education be addressed for several reasons. The year 2005 marks the commencement
of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, which is a
chance and a challenge for educators of all stripes to reorient their teaching, research,
and community outreach towards sustainability. Another motivation is the Talloires
Declaration, a ten-point sustainability and environmental literacy action plan to which
over 300 university leaders worldwide are committing their institutions, one point of
which is “ensuring that all university graduates have the awareness and
understanding to be ecologically responsible citizens” (ULSF, 1990).
Environmental educator David Orr underscored:
... the fact that the environmental crisis is not primarily the work of the ignorant and
uneducated; rather, it is that of so-called well-educated people who... have been educated to
think that human domination of nature is our rightful destiny (Orr, 1992b).
He contends that, “for the most part ...we are still educating the young as if there were
no planetary emergency” (Orr, 1994). A response to this predicament is to establish a
new educational agenda with entirely new ways of thinking and new intellectual
priorities to rescue the environment and the human prospect, such that “those now
being educated will have to do what we, the present generation, have been unable or
unwilling to do”.
The approach, however, should not be simply equipping the curriculum with
environmental electives, which have a tendency of devastating students in the
complexity of the issues and making them lose hope. By themselves, environmental
education courses can leave students feeling overwhelmed, insignificant and hopeless
that their individual contributions would not be enough to alleviate the already
complicated global environmental ills (Maniates, 2002). Environmental education
should thus be more optimistic and empowering, and Orr (1992a) contends that “the
study of environmental problems is an exercise in despair unless it is regarded as only
a preface to the study, design, and implementation of solutions”.
So how has the design education community responded to this challenge for
responsible and sustainable solutions? Is ecological sustainability now sufficiently
integrated within industrial design academic programs? Do studio projects engage
students into long-term visioning into the environmental implications of their design
outcomes? Does mainstream studio thinking include the minimization of ecological
impacts of the products and systems that are created within student projects? Are
academics and students adequately informed of strategies for environmentally
oriented product development, and if they are, do they apply those in their teaching?
Are students provided with opportunities for imagining solutions that foster
sustainable behaviours of production and consumption? Are environmental aspects
considered along with traditional design criteria in assessing student works? Do
industrial design graduates exit university with a sense of responsibility towards
promoting ethical and sustainable design?
Various design education surveys and studies done elsewhere in the disciplines of
architecture (Fowles et al., 2003), engineering (Nguyen and Pudlowski, 1997), interior
design (Elliott, 2004; Metropolis, 2003) and mixed design disciplines (Metropolis, 2002)
Education of
industrial
designers
191
have generally shown that sustainability issues are hardly penetrating into core design
programs. Among American industrial design educators, only 12 per cent reported
ecodesign to be integrated in some fashion in their curricula (IDSA, 2001).
In 2001 industrial designers from around the world declared that “industrial design
will no longer regard the environment as a separate entity” and that “we, as global
designers shall pursue the path of sustainable development by coordinating the
different aspects influencing its attainment, such as politics, economy, culture,
technology and environment” (ICSID, 2001). The model code of professional conduct of
the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design also recognizes that an
industrial designer should “accept professional responsibility to act in the best interest
of the ecology and of the natural environment” (ICSID, 1987).
Methodology
To shed further light on these issues in the context of Australian industrial design
education, a questionnaire using the Zoomerang
w
online survey software (www.
zoomerang.com) was fielded to 89 fulltime academic staff in the 12 universities that
offered undergraduate degrees in industrial design or product design. The universities
with industrial design or product design programs were:
(1) Curtin University
(2) Griffith University
(3) Monash University
(4) Queensland University of Technology
(5) Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
(6) Swinburne University of Technology
(7) University of Canberra
(8) University of New South Wales
(9) University of Newcastle
(10) University of South Australia
(11) University of Technology, Sydney
(12) University of Western Sydney
Twenty-six academics (29 per cent), including ten program heads, replied, and all
12 universities have been represented by at least one respondent.
The relatively low level of response might suggest other design educators’ lack of
interest on sustainability issues, but it could well be that some invited participants
were not able to access the online questionnaires. In telephoned follow-ups to four
program heads, non-receipt of the emailed invitations due to institutional security
firewalls, not opening unsolicited messages, or other technical reasons have been cited.
Another reason for non-response could be the usual lack of available time or interest to
participate in surveys.
This study recognizes that some respondent bias could be present, since the more
ecologically passionate academics are more likely to answer than those who are less
concerned with these issues. These survey results could thus depict a more affirmative
view than what is actually the case.
IJSHE
7,2
192
Results
It appears that sustainability aspects are at least considered in most Australian
industrial design curricular offerings. When asked to select how sustainability is
incorporated into their design programs, between 38 and 50 per cent of respondents
reported that their students learn sustainability either through non-design electives on
the environment or sustainable development, through sustainability modules within
their design theory or methodology courses, or through dedicated sustainability design
studio courses. A lesser number (22 per cent) asserted that their conventional
studio courses included at least one project on sustainability, while three respondents
(11 per cent) felt that sustainability was only marginally addressed in their program
(Figure 1).
Survey respondents were requested to identify which of their studio-type and
lecture-type subjects covered sustainability aspects. In addition, a text analysis of
course descriptions appearing on the undergraduate course handbooks of all
universities was conducted, as published on their websites, using such search terms as
“green”, “ecodesign”, “sustainable”, “ecological” and “environmental”. While there are
distinctions between these terms, for the purposes of this survey, the above keywords
were considered synonymous.
In general, it was found that some of the handbook descriptions were too vague or
generic on what the courses actually cover, and in practice it is well known that
academics do deviate from the published course content or intentions. Telephone
conversations with several academics showed that many of them have not updated
their course descriptions on their university websites or handbooks. In many instances,
respondents to the survey claimed that certain studio or lecture courses included
teaching aspects of sustainability in design, and yet the published descriptions for
those courses did not mention touching on sustainability at all. In such cases, the
lecturers’ claims on course content were used to override the published descriptions.
Figure 1.
Extent of sustainability
inclusion in Australian
industrial design curricula
Students take generic
electives on environment
or sustainability
Theory or methodology
course with 1 or 2 lectures
on sustainability in design
D
edicated studio course on
sustainable design
At least 1 project on
sustainability, within
c
onventional studio course
Sustainability only
marginally addressed
0246810121
4
13
12
10
6
3
Education of
industrial
designers
193
The various studio and lecture courses which were found to have the
sustainability-related keywords or which were mentioned by the respondents as
covering sustainable design issues, were tabulated into a worksheet. The total value of
credit points required to receive the industrial design degree in that university, as well
as the credit point values of the various sustainability-related studio and lecture
courses, were entered into the table.
The worksheet revealed that 19 of the 23 studio courses identified as covering
sustainable design were simply titled “Product Design x”, “Industrial Design x”, “Design
Studio x”, “Design Studies x” or “Design Project x”, xbeing a number representing the
curricularstage or semester level of the studio. This nomenclature suggests that teaching
sustainability appears to be fairly integrated into the teaching of mainstream studio
thinking. Only four of the 23 courses had special titles which highlight their sustainability
content, such as “Industrial Design & Society” or “Sustainability & Design”.
The lecture courses covering design and sustainability issues had more divergent
titles. These titles included the terms “sustainable”, “environment”, “ecology”, “society”,
“science”, “technology”, “materials”, “manufacturing”, “theory”, “processes”, “history”,
“strategies”, “futures”, “studies”, “critical issues” or “contemporary discourse”.
Using the tabulated data, a calculation was made of the proportion of the credit
points of courses that covered design for sustainability, in relation with the rest of the
program units required to earn the degree. Courses which had the entire syllabus
dedicated to learning sustainability – whether studio or lecture type – were given the
full value of the credit points. Those which covered sustainability as a portion of the
syllabus were given a half value. The calculations showed that, on average, 12 out of
every 100 credit points earned in an Australian industrial design program has
sustainability content (Figure 2). This finding is not significantly different from the
results of other surveys mentioned earlier in the USA and in other design disciplines,
and certainly the proportion could be better.
Figure 2.
Proportion of credit points
of courses with
sustainability content in
the 12 universities
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Average
12%
0% A
3% 8% 8% 8% 13% 13% 13% 14% 16% 16%
22%
Sustainability studios Sustainability lectures Rest of courses
BCDEFGHI JK
IJSHE
7,2
194
Half of the respondents noted that their ID students took generic electives on ecology,
environment, or sustainable development somewhere in their university. These generic
electives, often pursued within faculties of environmental, biological, chemical or social
sciences, and taken with non-design students, systemically examine broad ecological
issues or interdependencies between nature and human society, but the course content
is often not directly linked to informing design students on schemes for planning more
sustainable products or services. As mentioned at the start of this paper, students’
environmental awareness and literacy are heightened by being bombarded with
studies and images of a threatened future, but as designers they often struggle to
decipher how to make sense of this mass of information and how they could in fact
contribute towards providing a remedy.
An almost equal number replied that their program has built in a design theory or
methodology course which includes one or two lectures touching on sustainability
aspects in industrial design, but with no design activity. These include materials and
manufacturing technology subjects, as well as courses that foster debate on critical
issues and contemporary trends in design practice. Studio lecturers often find that
although their students have been attending these theory and methodology courses the
same students characteristically fail to demonstrate their understanding of these learnt
theories in their studio work. Students typically “box” the different courses in their
curriculum as different “learning packages”: they often think that studio is studio and
theory is theory, in the same way that many students declare that “maths is maths and
I can’t see its relationship to my studio projects”. They fail to routinely engage
themselves into integrating their learning outcomes from the different courses that
they take. It thus becomes the responsibility of the studio lecturer to attempt to
demonstrate to the students the interconnectedness of the various subjects within the
degree program, and how they all fit together in helping transform the industrial
design student into a well-rounded graduate.
Thirty-eight per cent of respondents stated that their programs had a dedicated
“green design” studio course, where students actually generated design solutions
within the context of traditional industrial design education. In three universities,
students can earn a sustainable design degree sub-major or minor by enrolling in a
stream of sustainability-related electives (UniSA, 2004; UTS, 2004; UWS, 2004).
About a quarter of the respondents said that environmental issues were covered by
engaging students in at least one design project focused on sustainability, within their
conventional studio courses.
Sustainability in studio teaching
Without looking at individual briefs and outcomes it was difficult to determine the
range of “green design” projects that students explored in the various university
programs. Some of the respondents mentioned that their students have worked on
projects which had a sustainability focus, ranging from human-powered devices,
energy and water saving appliances, digital product replacements, furniture, lighting,
transportation, packaging, and product-service systems. There was also mention of
final-year major projects that addressed sustainability concerns.
Of the many strategies for designing for the environment, the one most academics
used as a focus for student briefs were those addressing end-of-life concerns (design for
reuse, recycling and disposal) and those addressing the distribution phase, such as
Education of
industrial
designers
195
more efficient packaging or goods transportation (Figure 3). These were closely
followed by design using low-impact materials, such as recycled or biodegradable
materials. The least used strategy was design for dematerialization, but only slightly
lesser than the others. There is not much difference on the employment of any of these
ecodesign strategies in studio projects.
In terms of the different ecodesign tools which students utilized in their studio
projects, the most frequently used ones were environmental impact scenarios, ecodesign
checklists or rules of thumb, and simplified lifecycle analysis methods (Figure 4). It
appears that ecological impact assessment software such as Simapro or EcoScan were
not widely used. The MIPS, or material-intensity per service unit, was also not popular.
Figure 4.
Requirement to use
sustainable design tools in
studio projects
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Environmental
impact scenarios EcoDesign
checklists or rules
of thumb
Simplified LCA
Often Not yet
11 9853
3
4
7
9
7
87
11
15 18
Several occasions
Software LCA MIPS
Figure 3.
Focus on Ecodesign
strategies in studio
teaching
Dematerialisation
Cleaner manufacturing
Energy & water efficiency
Longevity
Low impact materials
Efficient distribution
R
euse, Recycling, Disposal
05
Major focus Minor focus
10
14
12
11
13
11
10
13 8
12
12
13
10
13
11
15 20 2
5
IJSHE
7,2
196
Sustainability in teacher education
The most common mode by which Australian ID academics educate themselves on
sustainable design is by attending seminars, symposia, conferences or other modes of
continuing education (Figure 5).
An almost equal number considered themselves as “self-taught” on aspects of
sustainable design, citing books and magazines as their most widely used resource for
self-education.
About 10 per cent of respondents had the opportunity to learn by working on a
final-year project or doing a postgraduate thesis on sustainable design, and an even
smaller number said they were exposed through their university courses on ecology or
sustainable development (but not sustainable design).
In studies elsewhere, lack of academic staff training, as well as lack of time for
education, have frequently been acknowledged as the most common obstacles against
integrating sustainability themes into design education (GSDEP and FFTF, 1999;
Metropolis, 2002; Yang and Giard, 2001). The Australian Academy of Design, in
identifying ecodesign as one of the main issues in design education, also recognized
that there is a shortage of expertise, curriculum content and training resources (Ryan
et al., 1991).
It seems that design educators fall into three loose categories of ecodesign fervour.
A UK study found that one third of design teachers dedicated over 15 per cent of their
time teaching sustainability concepts; one third said such issues occupy less than
10 per cent of their teaching time; and the other one third did not spend any time at all
(GSDEP and FFTF, 1998).
It was thus reassuring to find that 92 per cent of our survey respondents agreed to
the statement that they were “passionate about getting students to advocate
sustainability in their design endeavours” (Figure 6). Moreover, 77 per cent considered
themselves to be adequately informed about sustainability in design.
Figure 5.
Modes of teacher
education on sustainable
design
Self-taught
41%
Major graduation
project or
postgraduate thesis
10% University courses on
ecology or sustainable
development
5%
University studio
courses on
sustainability
0%
Continuing education,
seminars, symposia,
conferences
44%
Education of
industrial
designers
197
Sustainability integration
Nine out of ten respondents agreed that sustainability should be integrated in all
industrial design curricula in Australia within the next five years (Figure 6).
Three-quarters disagreed when asked if sustainability issues should be discussed in
detail in a separate course instead of consuming time in the regular design studios.
Respondents were equally divided when asked if evidence of sustainable design
work in a student’s portfolio can be a key factor in getting a job. This is not surprising,
as ecodesign knowledge or understanding does not seem to be in the current hiring
criteria of employers. A survey of leading Australian design consultancies (UC, 1998)
showed that nine out of the “top 10 skills for emerging ID graduates” were on various
visual and verbal communication abilities; understanding of sustainable design
principles was nowhere in the list.
Interestingly, a special report by the Industrial Designers Society of America listed
“environmental impact” among the spectrum of 44 technical skills that the graduate
needs to master to get the industrial design job that they really want (Siegel, 1994).
Another US survey showed that 41 per cent of design professionals would prefer to
hire a student from a school that incorporates green design (Metropolis, 2002). Thus
sustainable design abilities can potentially provide a candidate an employment edge.
The overwhelming majority of respondents (85 per cent) agreed that sustainability
is relevant and important in most studio projects. Three-quarters considered
themselves as being adequately informed about aspects of sustainable design, while
86 per cent claimed that they are passionate about getting students to advocate
sustainability in their design endeavours. More than half thought that their graduates
exhibited a reasonable understanding of sustainable design issues.
There were slightly more teachers who sensed that environmental impacts of design
proposals are assessed in studio projects, and that they give sustainability a similar
value to what is normally given to form, function and other criteria. On this point it is
Figure 6.
Academic opinions on
sustainable industrial
design education
Sustainability should be integrated
in all ID curricula in Australia
Sustainability relevent & important
in most design studio projects
I'm passionate abt students
advocacy of sustainable design
I'm adequately informed about
sustainable design
Our graduates show reasonale
understanding of sustain design
Sustainability at par with form,
function etc when assessing projects
Typical students evaluates
susutainability of own concepts
Typical students elected to work on
ecologically sound major project
EcoDesign work in student's
portfolio can help obtain design job
Sustainability should be in separate
course instead of in design studios
0%
Completely agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Completely disagree
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1517 13
475101
110 11 5 0
0
0
04816
18 4 121
102515
19782
47 781
48105
91143
IJSHE
7,2
198
worth noting that the prestigious international Industrial Design Excellence Awards
weigh ecological issues on equal footing with other design qualities (White et al., 2000).
The group was equally divided on the question whether, when given an open brief,
the typical student would include ecodesign criteria in evaluating his/her own
concepts, such as by reflecting that “the disadvantage of my second concept is that it
cannot be upgraded”. Slightly more respondents believed that their typical student
would elect to work on a final year project that has explicit sustainability benefits.
Respondents from only five universities identified an academic in their faculty who
specializes in green design. Those from the seven other institutions who did not
identify in-house specialists might not know which of their colleagues are engaged in
teaching or researching about sustainable design, or there might actually be none.
The great majority of the universities in the study have a dedicated research centre
or unit for various aspects of sustainability or the environment. Interestingly, when
asked for the presence of such a research centre in their university, a third of the
respondents did not mention any. This lack of response or awareness might suggest
the absence of a cooperative relationship between industrial design programs and
sustainability research centres in universities. Most of these research units do not focus
on sustainable design anyway, the exception being the Centre for Design at RMIT,
which in the mid-1990s had run the national EcoReDesigneprogram in collaboration
with Australian industries, aimed at improving the environmental performance of their
products by employing design for environment principles.
Conclusions
The paper demonstrated that aspects of environmentally sensitive design is currently
being incorporated in most Australian industrial design degree programs, albeit to a
minor extent. The higher challenge is to go beyond “ecodesign” into the greater sphere
of “sustainable design”, of which ecodesign is a subset, as suggested by Tischner et al.
(2000) in Figure 7. In fact, a vision for sustainable society would be incomplete if we
only look at the environmental picture and ignore the social-ethical and economic
issues: these three branches together form the building blocks for a sustainable society,
one which is “ecologically restorative, socially just, and reliably prosperous”,
“adaptable to local ecosystems and cultures, and yet universal in their applicability”
(Cowan, 2002).
Figure 7.
The relationship between
ecodesign and sustainable
design
Source : Adapted from by (Tischner et al., 2000)
Education of
industrial
designers
199
Papanek (1995) observed that industrial designers tend to myopically focus on the
needs of the 20 per cent of the wealthiest in the population, and thus neglect their social
responsibilities. He calls this condition a “vacuum of conscience”, and noted that most
designers do not seem to feel comfortable with a term like “social responsibility”,
considering it “somewhat of an embarrassment”.
For most of the history of industrial design, education programs around the world
have focused on the growth of economic capital. In the last decade we saw many
designer attempts at nurturing the natural capital. In the new millennium, education
should explore the enhancement of social capital in addition to the natural and the
economic, thus addressing and integrating all the “triple bottomline” factors, and
facilitating a viable transition to total sustainability. As the Earth Charter declared:
“we stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose
its future” (EarthCouncil, 2000).
Engendering among students an understanding and passion for our planet’s future
may not be easy, but in the end we will reap the fruits of our efforts: a legion of twenty
first-century industrial designers who acknowledge and value their responsibility for
providing holistic and pragmatic solutions for a just and environmentally sustainable
world. If we are able to achieve this in our lifetime as design educators, what more
could we ask for?
References
Cowan, S. (2002), Pattern Language for a Conservation Economy, Ecotrust, Portland, OR,
available at: www.conservationeconomy.net/pdfs/ce_pattern_map.pdf
EarthCouncil (2000), The Earth Charter: Values and Principles for a Sustainable Future, Earth
Council, Costa Rica, available at: www.earthcharter.org/files/resources/acf328.pdf
Elliott, J. (2004), “Teaching sustainability to tomorrow’s interior designers”, Metropolis, available
at: www.metropolismag.com/html/sustainable/case/tomorrowsinteriordesigners.html
Findeli, A. (2001), “Rethinking design education for the 21st century: theoretical, methodological,
and ethical discussion”, Design Issues, Vol. 19 No. 1.
Fletcher, K.T. and Dewberry, E.L. (2002), “Demi: a case study in design for sustainability”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 1.
Fowles, B., Corcoran, M., Erdel-Jan, L., Iball, H., Roaf, S. and Stevenson, F. (2003), Report of the
Sustainability Special Interest Group (Architectural Education), Centre for Education in the
Built Environment, London.
Fry, T. (1993), “Re-thinking ecodesign”, Object, Vol. 43.
GSDEP and FFTF (1998), Design Curriculum Audit, Government Sustainable Development
Education Panel & Forum for the Future, London.
GSDEP and FFTF (1999), Sustainable Development Education: Design Specification, Government
Sustainable Development Education Panel & Forum for the Future, London.
ICSID (1987), ICSID Model Code of Professional Conduct for Designers, International Council of
Societies of Industrial Design, Essen.
ICSID (2001), ICSID Seoul 2001 Industrial Designers Declaration, International Council of
Societies of Industrial Design, Seoul.
IDSA (2001), Industrial Designers Society of America, Washington, DC, available at: www.idsa.
org/whatsnew/sections/ecosection/sites.htm
IJSHE
7,2
200
Maniates, M. (2002), “Of knowledge and power”, in Maniates, M. (Ed.), Encountering Global
Environmental Politics: Teaching, Learning and Empowering Knowledge, Rowman &
Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Metropolis (2002), “Teaching green: making sustainability integral to every designer’s education
& business”, Metropolis, Vol. 22 No. 3.
Metropolis (2003), “School survey 2003: taking the pulse of sustainable design education in North
America”, Metropolis, Vol. 23 No. 1.
Nguyen, D.Q. and Pudlowski, Z.J. (1997), “A comparative study of the perspectives of academics,
students and industry on environmental education in engineering courses”, Global Journal
of Engineering Education, Vol. 1 No. 3.
Orr, D.W. (1992a), Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Post Modern World,
State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Orr, D.W. (1992b), “Environmental literacy: education as if the earth mattered”, paper presented
at the Twelfth Annual E F Schumacher Lectures.
Orr, D.W. (1994), Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect, Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Orr, D.W. (1995), “Educating for the environment: higher education’s challenge of the next
century”, Change, Vol. 27 No. 3.
Papanek, V.J. (1971), Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, Thames &
Hudson, London.
Papanek, V.J. (1995), The Green Imperative: Ecology and Ethics in Design and Architecture,
Thames & Hudson, London.
Ryan, C., Broadbent, J., Healy, D. and Byrne, G. (1991), Design Education in Australia for the
1990s and Beyond: A Review of Design Education Programs at the TAFE and University
Levels in Australia: A Report to the Australian Academy of Design, Key Centre for Design
at RMIT, Melbourne.
Siegel, R.S. (1994), “Getting an industrial design job, Part 3: how to evaluate your skills”,
Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 13.
Tischner, U., Dietz, B., Masselter, S. and Hirschl, B. (2000), How to do Ecodesign? A Guide for
Environmentally and Economically Sound Design, Verlag Form, Frankfurt.
UC (1998), Top 10 Skills for Emerging ID Graduates, University of Canberra, Canberra, available
at: www.core77.com/design.edu/skillz.html
ULSF (1990), Talloires Declaration: University Presidents for a Sustainable Future, University
Leaders for a Sustainable Future, Talloires FR.
UNEP (2005), GEO Yearbook 2004/5: An Overview of our Changing Environment,
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
UniSA (2004), Undergraduate Programs: Architecture and Design, Adelaide.
UTS (2004), Undergraduate Handbook: Design, Architecture & Building, University of
Technology, Sydney.
UWS (2004), Undergraduate Handbook: Engineering and Industrial Design, University of
Western Sydney, Sydney.
White, P., Goodrich, B., Kusz, J.P., Brawer, W. and Geurin, S. (2000), Business-Ecodesign
Tools: Ecodesign Methods for Industrial Designers, Industrial Designers Society of
America, Portland, OR, available at: www.idsa.org/whatsnew/sections/ecosection/
idsa-businessecodesigntools.pdf
Education of
industrial
designers
201
Worldwatch (2004), State of the World : The Consumer Society, WW Norton, New York,
NY/London.
Worldwatch (2005), Vital Signs 2005, WW Norton, New York, NY/London.
WWF (2004), “Living planet report 2004”, World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland.
Yang, Y. and Giard, J. (2001), “Industrial design education for sustainability: structural elements
and pedagogical solutions”, paper presented at the IDSA National Design Education
Conference, Boston, MA.
About the author
Mariano Ramirez is a lecturer in the Industrial Design Program at the University of New South
Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia. His doctoral dissertation at the Technological University of
the Philippines concerned the delivery of EcoDesign education via available online tools. He did
his Master of Industrial Design at UNSW, and studied Sustainable Technology and Product
Development at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands. His current research
projects include studying the integration of environmental sustainability aspects in design
education and practice, the dematerialization of contemporary lifestyles via product sharing,
and the influences of culture in industrial design practice. Mariano Ramirez can be contacted at:
m.ramirez@unsw.edu.au
IJSHE
7,2
202
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
