Content uploaded by Ulla Ræbild
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulla Ræbild on Aug 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Richard Herriott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Herriott on Jul 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Design as Common Good Educating for the Common Good
Re-Orienting Design Education
Implementing Design
for the Common Good
in an MA Curriculum
This paper reviews the approach of NAME (hereafter “the
School”), a third-level design school in LAND towards design for the
common good. The expansion of the concept of design to include
social goods and sustainability (protecting people and the planet)
shows a profound shift in the focus of design teaching and design
education. It follows from an earlier and perhaps not fully mature
shift from “structure- and process-based to competency-based edu-
cation and measurement of outcomes” (Carracio et al. 2002), the
“disappearance of things” (Findelli, 2000) and “in response to new
developments, new tools, new situations, and new technologies”
(Friedman, 2019).
Design for the common good makes demands on the means/
ends relation in design, the ontology of art school organisation and
puts into focus the junction between non-legal stakeholder em-
powerment and legalistic, static approaches.
The change to design for the common good could be inter-
preted as a change from indirectly addressing the common good
to directly addressing the common good. It can also be seen a
change of what is considered to be the means and ends of design.
In the traditional model, the means to design are the processes
and methods required. The ends are elaborated goods and servic-
es. Under the new conceptualization, the means of design are the
processes and methods and the goods and services. The ends are
the social or common good.
The School has integrated UN SDGs into its curriculum. It is
also presently renewing its commitment to accessibility in teaching
and research. The result has been a re-engineering of the MA pro-
grammes. Whilst the BA programmes retain their classic division
into industrial design, communication, textiles and fashion, the MA
programme has been divided under notions of society, sustainabil-
ity. Design for the common good thus adds to ”the paradox of am-
biguity at the centre of art school ontology” (Orr and Shreve, 2017).
Ulla Ræbilda,
Richard Herriotta
aDesign School Kolding, Denmark
© 2021. This work is licensed CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 946 − 947
In part this is reected in the blending of traditional disciplines (an
ontological structure) and the risk of loss of the handy short-hand
the disciplines represented for communities of activity (fashion de-
signer, communication designer etc).
This paper considers the organisation of the MA programme
with regard to course structure, progression and modes of teach-
ing and the impact on assessment and guidance. It is a conse-
quence of the ontological shift of the “product” from ends to means
that some reconsideration of the nature of design is required. The
shift also necessitates the consideration of how economy, policy,
management and law that may not be in-line with students´ skills
or expectations. These things are implicit in the courses only. The
students have to unravel the bigger picture though they might not
have the ability to really grasp it.
Easing this transition has been the School´s long-standing fo-
cus on co-creation, participatory design and co-design. The intellec-
tual framework can be seen as consistent with Buchanan´s notions
of fourth order design (2001), David Pye´s concepts of design as
recognition of the humanity of the users (1995, Ch. 13) and Arn-
stein’s concept of citizen participation (1969).
The aim of teaching design for the common good is set against
the context of the legalization of culture (Hastrup, 2003) where legal
norms replace moral and normative claims on “the good”. Work by
Herriott (2019) also indicates that design thinking is possibly, though
not necessarily, at odds with legalistic thinking and also legislative
methods of the pursuit of the common good. Design for the com-
mon good runs into an interesting barrier as design (dynamic) ex-
pands into the larger systems of societal organisation that are typi-
cally the purview of law and legislation (which are relatively static).
The paper concludes by reecting on the self-critical aware-
ness needed to compensate for the ontological untidiness of de-
sign for the common good and how to orientate design in relation
to pre-existing social structures also aimed at the common good
(law, legislation and politics).
Before launching into the topic, the authors wish to begin with
a statement. That is: despite diculties and the inevitable short-com-
ings of design for the common good, it is worth it. We agreed that
this was the essential message after which came the analysis of
pedagogic shifts and re-structured ontologies. We hope a presenta-
tion of these points can make it easier for others in design educa-
tion to teach design for the common good.
1 Introduction
The change to design for the common good could be inter-
preted as a change from indirectly addressing the common good to
directly addressing the common good. It can also be seen a change
of what is considered to be the means and ends of design. In the
traditional model, the means to design are the processes and
methods required. The ends are the elaborated goods and servic-
es. Under the new conceptualization, the means of design are the
processes and methods and the goods and services. The ends are
the social or common good. This means designers may work on
things or they may work on systems and things or only systems.
To conclude this section, we address how the common-good
themes reshape the structure of the design education. And we also
discuss how this structure plays out when it is implemented.
In this section we take a short look at design education general-
ly, looking in particular at publications relevant to the School´s case.
The diculty of designing design was recognised as long ago as
1971 when Papanek wrote “Education for designers (like nearly all ed-
ucation) is based on learning skills, nourishing talents, understanding
the concepts and theories that inform the eld, and, nally, acquiring a
philosophy. It is unfortunate that our design schools proceed from
wrong assumptions. The skills we teach are too often related to process-
es and working methods of an age that has ended.” Papanek was
thinking back over the span of time from the emergence of formal-
ised design at the Bauhaus through the post-war years of economic
expansion. His 1971 book echoed the concerns of Carson´s (1962).
Findelli (2001) makes a bridge from Papanek (1971) to more
recent discussions. Findeli observed that design was, at the end of
the last century in a period of stagnation but awaiting reform in the
light of the problems inherent in the forces that formed it:
“the determinism of instrumental reason, and central role of the
economic factor as the almost exclusive evaluation criterion; an ex-
tremely narrow philosophical anthropology, which leads one to consid-
er the user as a mere customer or, at best, as a human being framed by
ergonomics and cognitive psychology; an outdated implicit epistemolo-
gy of design practice and intelligence, inherited from the nineteenth cen-
tury; an overemphasis upon the material product; an aesthetics based
almost exclusively on material shapes and qualities; a code of ethics
originating in a culture of business contracts and agreements…”
If we fast forward, past intermediary landmarks such as the
maturation of human-centred design and the emergence of design
for sustainability, we nd that we still grappling with the problem of
tting design education to a world beset by social and environmen-
tal crises.
2 Then…
2.1 A short Look at design
Education
Design as Common Good Educating for the Common Good
Re-Orienting Design Education
Implementing Design for the Common Good
in an MA Curriculum
948 − 949
3 Now
Design teaching has also faced pressure to change from within
[1].During this time there has been the discussion of the merits of
studio based teaching (Green and Donello, 2003). As third level ed-
ucation has expanded and the time allowed been reduced, the way
the studio has been used has altered such that one course might
be aiming to teach two or more subjects simultaneously. Sander
and Stappers et al (2007) argue that the point that design has shift-
ed from outcome-led to criteria-led (e.g. being sustainable). Ede-
holt (2015) discusses how demands for sustainability is pressuring
design away from traditional concerns such as marketability and
product competitiveness.
Lastly, design´s very identity is an unresolved issue as the ex-
tended discourse on design´s relation to the humanities and sci-
ence demonstrates (e.g. Cross, 1982 ). Meyer and Norman (2020)
conclude in their statement of teaching of design by saying that
other disciplines may be assume to be able to deal with the prob-
lems design is best suited to handle and in so doing tackle “the root
cause rather than the symptom; emphasizing the role of people;
considering the entire system; and capitalizing on the value of rap-
id prototyping, testing, and iteration. These elds are apt to focus
upon technology, cost, and eciency without a deep understand-
ing of the societal impact, and the role that communities can play”
(ibid). In short, the overarching constant in design education is
change in why it is taught, what is taught and how it is taught.
This section is about the MA programme at the School up until
2018 which was structured according to classic design disciplines:
industrial design, communication, textiles and fashion design.
The teaching of design may be carried out either inside a larger
research university or at a stand-alone institution. Mayer and Nor-
man (2020) write that “stand-alone schools emphasize practice,
while research universities emphasize scholarly work, evi-
dence-based principles, and theory development.” The NAME is an
institution which is a hybrid of the former and the latter modes. Its
work was originally practiced-based but in the last decade has
moved more towards a university-style of education, accredited in
2010 as research based higher education. However, it is retaining
its basis in design-by-doing even as it adds more and more theoret-
ical support for its teaching.
[1] Perhaps this pressure is always with us.
Like many art schools, the School was founded as a vocational
institution with an emphasis on practical skills. The teaching sta
were primarily drawn from industry. In the last 20 years the School
has endeavoured to become a research as well as teaching institu-
tion. More of the sta are PhDs than in 2000 and a cadre of re-
searchers joined since then and have carried out their work in par-
allel with teaching. And since 2006, the School has been awarding
PhDs (in cooperation with another design institution, OTHER
NAME), the rst being in 2006. This change to a more academic
prole allowed a stronger emphasis on the teaching of theory of
design but also teaching the meta-level of the nature of research
generally and the nature of design research in particular.
For many years, as noted above, the MA design education at
School had four components. These exactly paralleled the BA edu-
cation. Students of industrial design, communication design, textile
design and fashion could graduate and proceed to an MA candida-
ture with the same titles. Whilst the undergraduate course dealt
with building up skills through course-based learning and drew
from academic theory, the focus had a clear practical slant. On the
MA level (table 1) the course had more theoretical and meta-level
content. The School´s conception was that the students on the MA
distinguished their studies from the BA by means of the critical use
of design theory and by a much greater emphasis on its role in their
projects. However, as the teachers supervising project work and
theoretical curriculum at MA level were not always the same, this
intention was not consistently implemented. In some ways, the MA
was merely the BA continued.
In 2016 the School´s management embarked on a course of
renewal for the MA programme. The chief motivation was the sense
that the design education at MA level was not reecting the world
into which the students were going to emerge.
As has been noted by Findeli (2001) product design was dimin-
ishing as a proportion of design work (and Findeli was referring to
an exhibition on this matter in 1985). Social and environmental is-
sues were becoming more pressing at the same time. This trend
has only continued in the rst decades of this century. Also, and
3.1 The School´s Early History
3.2 Preferences
for the New MA Programme
1st semester 2nd semester 3rd semester 4th semester
Internship Longer disciplinary
projects/
Exchange abroad
Theoretic module a cross
disciplines
‘one step closer’
Pre-thesis project
Theoretic module a cross
disciplines
Thesis
Practical part and theoretical
part (academic text)
Table 1: Old MA structure before 2018.
Design as Common Good Educating for the Common Good
Re-Orienting Design Education
Implementing Design for the Common Good
in an MA Curriculum
950 − 951
signicantly, students at the School wished for there to be a strong-
er ethical relation to their work. There was also more and more
cross-disciplinary project teaching at the School. So, these three
developments – 1) less focus on product, 2) a desire for ethical de-
sign and 3) more cross-disciplinary teaching – showed good grounds
for a thematic programme.
Additionally, there were changes in the School´s internal struc-
ture, outside of teaching, that also suggested a re-arrangement
might be needed. These changes also had an ethical, common-good
dimension. The School had formed project development teams,
staed by professional designers and centred in the school’s stra-
tegic focus areas: social design and design for sustainability. The
groups gained the appellation of “lab”. The labs worked from 2008
over a 10-year period with companies and municipalities to drive
change through design - however, this was in complete parallel to
the education. The designers in the Labs did not teach. Teaching
was conducted by practitioners and researchers.
In 2018, by joining together research (academic), practice
(consultancy, design and artistic development) and education (MA)
under the strategic areas social design and sustainability the
School aligned its activities in one swoop. The aim was to fruitfully
capitalise on the potential synergies between activities. For the MA
programmes, this change brought about obvious benets in terms
of alignment of knowledge foundation and practice understanding
- as well as what was assumed to be a clearer prole under the
new joint names for the MA programmes and Labs: Design for
People and Design for Planet.
The change was radical, as it disintegrated the former discipli-
nary design hubs as primary organisational structure in the institu-
tion, and formed new multi- and interdisciplinary Labs to become
the backbone of the organisation. Thus, it could with some convic-
tion be described as a change in primary topics that foreseeably
can spur discussions around hierarchies (within the MA structure
and between the BA and MA) and ontologies (the relations of the
elements of the design education are altered).
The new programmes are cross disciplinary in the sense, that
students from various design backgrounds can apply and will be
taught in class a cross these. Students applying for the MA pro-
grammes are now applying for either People or Planet. However,
applicants must document a BA in design (or design related) as a
main criterion. Furthermore, applicants must indicate which one of
the ve design disciplinary hub they wish to be assigned to at
School. These hubs are based from the disciplines at BA level, and
formed to provide students with disciplinary tutoring and peer
community along with the people and Planet communities. Teach-
ers from Programmes and well as disciplines evaluate applications.
3.3 The Current Structure
of the MA Programmes
The two new MA programmes (from now named People and
Planet) follow the same structure. The 1st and 2nd semester each
comprise two courses. These four courses are used to introduce to
key ways of approaching and working within social design and de-
sign for sustainability. In the 3rd semester People and Planet join
forces to let students learn from each other and work together.
First they work in a course on co-creation for behavioural change,
and following, a course on research through design and scientic
knowledge production. The 4th semester is used for the MA thesis
work. (See table 2, below).
The rst-year courses are structured as follows: three weeks
introduction to theory and methods in workshops and assignments.
This is often group based and supported by weekly disciplinary su-
pervision. Then there follows four weeks for the students to explore
and prototype in workshops. There are users/collaboration part-
ners supported by supervision from programme tutors and the dis-
ciplines. Then one week nalising and presenting the work. The 3rd
semester is taught by programme only (meaning no interdiscipli-
nary work). For the thesis project, students can select supervisors
and choose to combine programme and disciplinary supervisors, or
work by programme only. It is always the programme managers
that are responsible for the courses in terms of course descriptions,
learning goals, briefs and examination. The discipline is represented
in the evaluation and examination as censors, internal as well as
external. In this arrangement the basic disciplines and the themed
disciplines have varying degrees of prominence. However, there is
still the need within the themed structure to support the students´
discipline identity.
After the fact, Meyer and Norman (2020) discussed the kinds of
issues the School´s MA attempts to dealt with, especially its curric-
ulum recommendations for design (ibid. p38). After underlining the
value of both education for practice and education for a continued
academic career, they write “Basically, we suggest that all students
engage in a common, foundational set of courses, followed by a
3.4 Programme Structure
Planet 1st semester 2nd semester 3rd semester 4th semester
Material Narratives Preferred Futures Behavioural Change Thesis
Learning from the Past Holistic Systems Deep Research
People 1st semester 2nd semester 3rd semester 4th semester
Situating Reality Critical Framing Behavioural Change Thesis
Empathic Equality Collaborating Real
Time
Deep Research
Table 2: modules on the revised
MA programme.
4 Discussion
Design as Common Good Educating for the Common Good
Re-Orienting Design Education
Implementing Design for the Common Good
in an MA Curriculum
952 − 953
Means Ends
Before Design Methods Products and services
After Design methods, products and services The common good
Table 3.
specialization, which is where they would spend most of their time.”
Meyer and Norman outline four types of knowledge needed for de-
sign to deal with “performance challenges, systemic challenges,
contextual challenges and global challenges”. Interestingly, they
clearly suggest that a combination of practical and academic knowl-
edge aimed at these challenges “do not necessarily match with
courses. Some concepts might require, several courses, some
might be covered much more rapidly, probably best if integrated
into other course material or projects”. This is pretty much what the
School has found in its slicing and dicing of content. Some of it
keeps coming back into play and some other parts need careful
course construction so as not overwhelm the students with rele-
vant parameters.
Design for the common good makes demands on 1) the means/
ends relation in design. This table shows the change in the ontology
of means and ends in design. The most important box is the lower
left one.
In the “before” condition, design methods which is all the skills
and theory are directed towards an outcome, the design of goods
and services that meet the demands of the market. Only implicit is
the idea from this arises a social good or common good. And even
that eventual outcome was predicated on another link, that produc-
ing competitive consumer goods was good for society: satised cus-
tomers, protable producers and economic growth. In the “after”
condition, in the revised MA, the link from design to the common
good is made direct: we are designing to be ethical. The product, the
service become a means to an explicit end, the common good.
Design methods and products and services are grouped as
the means for the common good. However, in the old “before”
situation one had only to look at a nal design proposal to assess
it. Now we look at the process and the product and assess them
against their expected socially benecial outcome, a rather harder
task. Or do we still look at the product and assume its goodness is
a heuristic for its ability to improve the common good?
A second diculty relates to examinations. Since a course as
students from four disciplines at least one of the examiners must
be from that discipline. This means a course in theme X has ve
examiners: one to assess the theme X and one of four to match the
student´s discipline. Arising from this might be problems of grad-
ing consistency. Thirdly, the programme must correctly describe
the content both for teachers and students (Christiansen et al 2015;
Katis et al. 2018). It will take time for the course descriptions and
their operationalisation to align.
The consequence of teaching design for the common good is a
change in the ordering of the curriculum which means the way the
course content is divided. First, and most marked is redistribution
(for want of a better term) of the traditional disciplines into new
categories. First, this was done as part of the process of structuring
the programme. The course leaders had to nd a way to divide the
elements and communicate to one another and to the school man-
agement. This then becomes an ontological issue. “Ontologies are
used to establish eective communication between dierent
agents. Ontologies specify the terms used in agents’ communica-
tion and provide the exact meaning of those terms relative to other
ontology terms and within a specic context. Ontologies provide
the agent with the domain knowledge and enable it to function in-
telligently” (Hadzic et al. 2009). We would say the ontologies struc-
ture the domain knowledge (what is to be taught) and enable that
knowledge to be placed in a time sequence divided across the new
programmes.
The diagram below shows how the course content was re-divid-
ed under the “common good” theme of the revised MA programme.
Fig. 1: model showing the arrangement
of elements in the classic MA and the new,
common-good MA. (The People and Planet
courses are run alongside the MA for Play).
Design as Common Good Educating for the Common Good
Re-Orienting Design Education
Implementing Design for the Common Good
in an MA Curriculum
954 − 955
Gruber´s idea of ontology is that it is “a body of formally rep-
resented knowledge is based on a conceptualization [...] A concep-
tualization is an abstract, simplied view of the world that we wish
to represent for some purpose. Every knowledge base, knowl-
edge-based system, or knowledge-level agent is committed to
some conceptualization, explicitly or implicitly. An ontology is an
explicit specication of a conceptualization.” (Gruber, 1993). Gru-
ber makes the point that ontology is a social relation, about the
relation of knowledge being accepted by a group. The construction
of the programme depended on the course heads reaching a com-
mon understanding of what was being constructed. The model
shows that under the process of transition from the design-the-
matic “classic” MA to the “common good” MA, there were necessary
redivisions of course content and a modied approach to the pro-
gression. The progression of, say, the textiles design content would
have accommodate expected progression with either sustainability
(Planet) and social design (People).
Redström (2020) writes “[...] I have argued that complexity and
uncertainty are intertwined in design, but perhaps not necessarily
in the ways one might initially think of. I have argued that the per-
ceived increase in complexity in design does not (only) stem from
external factors, but from an inherent, continuous and critical
questioning of what design is and could be.” It would appear design
education can look as it does at the School, where the students can
see design as another method to deal with issues normally ad-
dressed through legislative deliberation and regulated planning
processes. Here one can perceive the manifestation of what might
be a missing element in a thematic education addressing the chal-
lenges outlined by Meyer and Norman and dealing with the critical
questioning suggested by Redström. If designers are dealing with
systems, why does their advanced education not equip them with
at least the outlines of political science theory just as they often
have the outlines of engineering and psychology. Buchanan (1999)
suggests design can deal with large order problems. Meyer and
Norman (2020) dissect the structure of these and Redström asks
about design´s nature. Putting this together, one can see that de-
sign as a human-to-human endeavour must be based on a knowl-
edge of the other competing methods of reconciling the conicts of
stakeholders. It turns out the 'internal' re-ordering of the design
programme makes apparent the way design is related to other in-
struments of social deliberation. The next step is not only to ensure
knowledge of those other instruments is part of design education
but also to communicate that to our colleagues in other spheres
(engineering, law and political science).
In line with Meyer and Norman (2020) we can see how design
education should and can move from one structure to a new one,
predicated on design as a means not and end. The structure of the
programme at the School shows how design can meet the chal-
lenges set out by Meyer and Norman. What Meyer and Norman
didn´t hint at was the way in which thematic approaches can re-or-
der the relations of the content of a design education. It also makes
visible the conventions of design education. At one point it made
sense to divide the subject by disciplines because that was where
the skills were applied, rather than it being a natural division of the
world. Ontology makes visible the way in which we conceive the
world and if the world is more complex or we admit of its greater
complexity then design education must mould itself accordingly.
5 Conclusions
Design as Common Good Educating for the Common Good
Re-Orienting Design Education
Implementing Design for the Common Good
in an MA Curriculum
956 − 957
References
Arnstein, S. R. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35,. No. 4,
July 1969, pp.216-224. I .
Buchanan, R (2001) Design research and the new learning. Design
Issues, Vol. 17,No. 4. (pp3-12)
Carraccio, C., Wolfsthal, S., Englander, R., Ferentz, K., Martin, C.
(2002). Shifting paradigms: From exner to competencies. Aca-
demic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical
Colleges. 77. 361-7.
Carson, R (1962) Silent Spring. Houghton Miin, New York.
Christiansen, F.V., Horst, S., Rump, C., 2015. Course design, in: Rie-
necker, L., Jørgensen, P.S., Dolin, J., Ingerslev, G.H. (Eds.), Univer-
sity Teaching and Learning. Samfundslitteratur, pp.135–148.
Cross, N (1982) Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies. Vol 3,
No. 4 October 1982 pp.221-227
Edeholt, H (2015) Design as a New Futural Epistemology: Design Ed-
ucation Made Relevant for Climate Change and Development.
Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference for Design Ed-
ucation Researchers, 2015, Illinois.
Findeli, Alain. 2001. “Rethinking Design Education in the 21st Centu-
ry.” Design. Issues 17 (1) (Winter): 5–17
Friedman, K. (2019) "Design Education Today — Challenges, Oppor-
tunities, Failures." Research and Education in Design conference,
Lisbon.
Green, L., Bonollo, E.,. (2003). Studio-based Teaching: history and
advantages in the teaching of design. World Transactions on En-
gineering and Technology Education. 2. 269.
Hadzic M., Wongthongtham P., Dillon T., Chang E. (2009) Introduction
to Ontology. In: Ontology-Based Multi-Agent Systems. Studies in
Computational Intelligence, vol 219. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01904-3_3
Gruber, T (1993) A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Speci-
cations. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993.
Hastrup, K (2003) Representing the common good. In Mitchell, J.P.,
Wilson, R.A (eds.) Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropo-
logical Studies of Rights. Routledge, London.
Herriott, R (2019) Project scale and the wicked problem of fourth
order design. EAD, 2019, Dundee.
Katis E., Kondylakis H., Agathangelos G., Vassilakis K. (2018) Devel-
oping an Ontology for Curriculum and Syllabus. In: Gangemi A.
et al. (eds) The Semantic Web: ESWC 2018 Satellite Events. ESWC
2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11155. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98192-5_11
Meyer, M.M., Norman, D (2020) Changing Design Education for the
21st Century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Inno-
vation, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 13-49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sheji.2019.12.002.
Orr, S., Shreve, A. (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Edu-
cation: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity. Routledge, London. ¨
Papanek,V.J. (1971) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and
Social Change, rev. ed. (1971; New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., 1984), 285.
Pye, D (1995) The nature and aesthetics of design. Herbert Press,
London.
Redström, J (2020) Certain Uncertainties and the Design of Design
Education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and In-
novation, Volume 6, Issue 1,2020, Pages 83-100, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.02.001.
Stappers, P., Hekkert, P, Keyson, D. (2007) Design for Interaction:
Consolidating the User-Centred Focus in Industrial Design Engi-
neering. In: E. Bohemia, K. Hilton, C. McMahon, A. Clarke (Eds.),
DS 43: Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, the 9th International Confer-
ence on Engineering and Product Design Education, University of
Northumbria, Newcastle (2007), pp.69-74.
