The education of the social designer

Human Dynamics and Design for the Development of Contemporary Societies, Vol. 81, 2023, 57–67 https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003533 The Education of the Social Designer Nicos Souleles Art+Design: Elearning Lab – Design for Social Change, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, 3036, Cyprus ABSTRACT The proliferation of Higher Education (HE) programmes of study in the broad area of social design highlights the instructional challenges of how to educate the social designer. The evolution of HE programmes of study in this academic area has developed without agreed-upon criteria. It is characteristic, however, of social designers’ working practices that they deal with complexity that often requires multiple stakeholder participation and cross-disciplinary knowledge. It is a challenging task to strike the right educational balance to provide the appropriate skills. The unpacking of instructional trends in social design programmes of study can provide a stepping-stone to further elaborate on the education of the social designer, and this is the aim of this paper. Through a textual analysis of forty-two (42) programmes of study in social design in thirteen (13) different countries, this paper explores emerging instructional themes with a particular focus on competencies, entry criteria, programme content, teaching and learning and assessment, and it identifies curriculum design innovations. Keywords: Social design, Education, Higher education, Teaching and learning INTRODUCTION In the last two decades, Higher Education (HE) programmes of study in the broad area of social design and innovation have proliferated. This is attributed to changes in the role of the designer following the shrinking of the welfare state in Europe and the monetary crisis of 2008. It is argued that the extension of design education into social issues has allowed designers to evolve their practices and engage with social challenges where services, as opposed to artefacts alone, create value – in this case, social value (Chen, Cheng, Hummels and Koskinen, 2015; Lasky, 2013; Hsu and Chen, 2022). Indicatively, designers are employed in a variety of working environments that include non-government organisations, foundations, non-profit groups, social design consultancies, and positions serving the government, education, and the corporate world (Emans and Hempel, 2014). The gradual transformation of design practice through periods with distinct characteristics of objectives and outcomes reveals a linear and gradual transition from: a) symbolic communications and standardised methods; to b) the design of the form and functions of everyday objects informed by customisation in different contexts; followed by c) the design of organised activities comprising design cognition and multiple stakeholder participation activities; and lastly to d) the design of complex systems and service design © 2023. Published by AHFE Open Access. All rights reserved. 57 58 Souleles (Souleles, 2017). The parallel evolution of HE programmes of study in social design education tends to lag behind each distinct period of design objectives and outcomes (Souleles, 2013). The early social designers were pioneers practising in an area that did not draw on their formal HE qualifications (Chick, 2012). In contrast to Art and Design HE in the United Kingdom where a subject benchmark statement provides information on threshold standards within the framework of formal qualifications (Wright et al., 2019), social design programmes lack commonly agreed-on standards. This can be attributed to the newness of the discipline (Souleles et al., 2020). To address this gap and delineate a minimum common academic ground, several general disciplinary parameters for social design have been proposed (Lasky, 2013). These advocate that social design education entails ‘wide geographic and disciplinary territories’ spanning graphic and digital media, products, devices and equipment, as well as tackling social challenges, such as lack of equal access to natural resources and community improvements (Lasky, 2013). A different report recommended that the educational boundaries of social design include a) research and teaching innovation that transcends disciplinary boundaries, b) context-based and research-based expe-riential learning; c) interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research; d) the balance of sustainability, business development, and social value creation; and e) trans-formational leadership and entrepreneurship (Han and Lee, 2020). These early attempts to delimit the disciplinary boundaries of social design education are indicative – to borrow a phrase from Friedman (2012) – of an evolving discipline that is transforming from an ambiguous and undefined state into one of reasoned inquiry and articulated philosophy and methods. Despite the debate on whether social design is an attitude that practitioners can adopt under the wider notion of social responsibility that informs professional practice, or if it can be acquired as a discrete learning experience within a structured programme of study (Souleles et al., 2020), the proliferation of programmes in social design indicates that HE has risen to the instructional design challenge, something that is overdue (Souleles et al., 2017). This paper aims to contribute to this discussion by identifying characteristics and trends in content, pedagogy, the competencies fostered by social design programmes, as well as the emerging trends and innovative approaches in curriculum development based on a textual analysis of forty-two (42) programmes of study in social design in thirteen (13) different countries. METHODOLOGY An extensive online search was undertaken using various combinations of the keywords ‘social design’, ‘social innovation’, ‘social impact’, ‘social entre-preneurship’, ‘sustainability’, ‘innovation’ and ‘design’ combined with ‘higher education’, ‘university’, ‘programme’ and ‘study’. This search produced a total of forty-two (42) programmes of study at undergraduate and postgraduate levels in disciplines related to social design and from thirteen (13) different countries (Appendix). To various extents these programmes The Education of the Social Designer 59 of study provide a public view of curricula descriptions that include desired graduate competencies, the pro-gramme content, as well as descriptions of teaching and learning strategies. This collection of programme descriptions – as they appear online – comprises the pool of raw data for this paper. Each programme description was saved in individual Microsoft Word files. Subsequently, they were imported into Atlas.ti (computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software). This allowed for qualitative coding (Skjott Linneberg and Korsgaard, 2019) based on the predetermined codes of a) ‘acquired knowledge/ competencies’ (the skills the programme seeks to foster), b) ‘entry criteria’, c) ‘programme content’, d) ‘teaching and learning’ and e) ‘assessment’. After the coding of the first fifteen (15) programmes was completed, it was observed that common themes were emerging, indicating a level of saturation. At this stage of data mapping, the additional code of ‘innovation’ was adopted to capture the unusual and innovative aspects that can be described as best practices and/or novel approaches to curriculum development in social design. This methodology has obvious limitations. First, the pool of raw data represents a snapshot from the period 2020-21, and the information provided online by the different universities about their programmes of study can date, change or be revised. New programmes of study not covered in this study may have been developed. Second, most of the programmes in the pool of raw data are at the postgraduate level – only six (6) are at the undergraduate level – and this prevents inferences for the latter vis-a-vis social design education. These limitations can be countered with the argument that with inductive coding, which entails predetermined codes to map the data, validity comes from making explicit connections between the data and the conclusions (Skjott Linneberg and Korsgaard, 2019). ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE/COMPETENCIES This code refers to the competencies that the programme of studies seeks to foster for its graduates. It is not surprising that research skills feature prominently in this category, as there is often a compulsory research methods course/subject in postgraduate programmes. Other competencies include innovation, creativity, management of processes, ability to strategize and generate creative ideas, dealing with complexity, operating in multi-disciplinary environments, creating economic, social and environmental value, business skills and leadership. It is worth noting that all these competencies require integrative skills practised in cross-disciplinary contexts (Souleles et al., 2020). This group of skills is consistent with what the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education considers that holders of master’s degrees should be able to demonstrate. “Typically, holders of the qualification [master’s degrees] will be able to: deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements... demonstrate selfdirect-ion and originality in tackling and solving problems... decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations...” (QAA, 2010, pp. 16-17). 60 Souleles What emerged from the data is that several programmes contextualise graduate competencies and course aims within a wider framework of sustainability and/or environmental awareness and concerns. For example, “[Graduates will] Gain advanced design and research skills, as they relate to emerging materials, new technologies and sustainability… [Graduates will] Contribute to or address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” (Appendix, Victoria University of Wellington). Although it is educationally sensible to make the connection between transversal skills and the concept of sustainability, some programmes of study do not make explicit associations with a social or environmental contextual framework but refer to an undefined contribution to wider social causes and values. This difference in approach can be attributed to deliberate emphasis and specialisation – environmental concerns dominate this area – instead of producing generalist graduates. It may also be indicative of the urgency within HE to embed environmental concerns in programmes of study. ENTRY CRITERIA This code refers to the qualifications and/or other requirements that an applicant needs to enter a postgraduate programme in social design. Among most of the programmes included in this study (Appendix), there is a preference to seek applicants with undergraduate qualifications in art and design disciplines, such as product design, industrial design, design engineering, photography, textiles, fashion, costume, stage/theatre design, architecture, interior architecture, interior design, jewellery design, furniture design, model-making, fine art, including architecture and visual communication. This preference for art and design entry qualifications is expected because design disciplines share common epistemologies (Kim and Tan, 2022) that are used to address complex social issues (Souleles, 2017). Some programmes of study accept entry qualifications in communication and social sciences. There is often a requirement that undergraduate entry qualifications have a minimum pass grade. Often, a written state-ment and/or a portfolio of work are also requested from applicants. Consistent with the argument that social design entails multidisciplinary teams (Souleles et al., 2020), several programmes of study have widened entry criteria to include practitioners from different professional backgrounds. For example, “[Applicants can be] professionals dedicated to the world of business and strategic planning, entrepreneurs and industrialists from different sectors… Other professionals with proven experience in the field of design, innovation or marketing” (Appendix, Istituto Europeo di Design). PROGRAMME CONTENT This code refers to the contents of the programmes of study and in particular the discrete areas of knowledge to be acquired by learners. Here it is useful to provide a group of terms that represents the diverse content of the programmes in this study, as opposed to a list of course titles that comprise them. These terms include sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals The Education of the Social Designer 61 (SDGs), ecological and environmental issues, innovation, business, finance, consumerism, alternative economies, entrepreneurship, funding, marketing, intellectual property, copyright, management, communication, technologies, digital tools, product design, urban planning, information management, visualisation, metrics, data analysis, impact, evaluation, prototyping, sociology, culture, politics, contextual issues, history, policy, ethics, methodologies, systems thinking, inclusive and universal design, leadership, decision-making, participatory methods, dealing with communities, ethnography, semiotics, postmodernism and biomimicry, which is imitation of the models, systems and elements of nature to solve complex problems (Qureshi, 2020). It is a challenging instructional design task to incorporate the above areas of knowledge in a single coherent programme of studies in social design. In practice, programmes of study are structured based on deliberate choices of areas of specialisation. Thus, they tend to emphasise a particular academic direction while they exclude or provide less content that is considered secondary or a lower priority. In addition, in various combinations and degrees, some of the above terms (content) appear within individual courses/subjects. For example, “This course will introduce students to a range of topics relevant to design practice today, including cross-cultural, ethical, political, and economic issues that impact our interactions with the environment and each other” (Appendix, New Zealand Victoria University of Wellington). To enhance the content of programmes of study and ensure their relevance to present political, economic and social developments, it is advisable to incorporate the perspectives of relevant external stakeholders and practitioners (Social Innovation Academy, n.d.). In this respect, several programmes state their connec-tions with the workplace – a dialogue that keeps content relevant. For example, “…you can complete an industry-based research project through a Design Re-search Internship” (Appendix, The University of Sydney). TEACHING AND LEARNING This code refers to the range of teaching and learning practices that are stated in the programmes listed in the Appendix. A wide variety of instructional strategies are employed, including project-based learning, practical experience, learner collaboration with external partners and communities, guest speakers, interactions with social and political entrepreneurs, activists and organizations, study visits, case studies, tutorials, workshops, seminars, studio practice, collaborative and team-based learning, professional internships, field assignments, independent/ individual study, one-on-one mentorship, selected readings, presentations, discussions, group exercises, peer-to-peer exchanges, coursework, asynchronous learning, online discussions, experiments and testing strategies, simulations, critiques and enquiry, debating, problem identification, multidisciplinary instruction, multiple perspectives and diverse strategies for research and design, research-led design, research-oriented teaching and divergent methods of story-telling. How the above teaching and learning strategies are applied and combined is likely to differ among programmes of study. However, the high number of 62 Souleles learner-centred pedagogies as opposed to teacher-centred ones suggests that overall appropriate pedagogies are used (Souleles, 2017). Depending on the context, as well as accommodating different learning styles and needs, different competencies and knowledge areas require diverse instructional methods to select the most appropriate (Vettori, 2020). The option for a variety of instructional approaches seems to apply to the programmes in this paper. The provision of diverse learning spaces (fieldwork, internships, communities) beyond the physical space offered by formal education is a positive element; social design requires a learning ecosystem that comprises policymaking, the economy, and civil society to commonly solve social challenges (Giesecke et al., 2020). ASSESSMENT This code refers to the range of assessment strategies as they appear in the programme descriptions listed in the Appendix. The range of ‘what’ is assessed includes research proposals, projects, literature/artefact reviews, seminar papers, essays, critical, evaluative and self-reflective reports, examinations, portfolios, exhibitions, case studies, documentary and reflective process blogs, presentations (group and individual), outputs, proof of concepts, interventions and prototypes. Two observations are made about this category. First, in comparison to the other categories, this one is mentioned the least; not enough is stated on assessment strategies. Second, although ‘what’ is assessed is addressed, there is an evident gap in ‘how’ learners are assessed, for example, whether through peer reviews and/or external evaluations by examiners/assessors. The significance of appropriate assessment strategies (‘how’ as opposed to ‘what’ is assessed) in social design disciplines becomes evident when considering the post-positivist approach to assessment – the ability of learners to undertake tasks that resemble authentic situations. These tasks are complex socially and intellectually and cannot be quantified by objective criteria; educators and learners are engaged in a dialogue to interpret and evaluate outcomes (Souleles, et al., 2022). The challenges posed by design for social change are open-ended, in the sense that they are not well defined, have no right or wrong solutions and are often referred to as ‘wicked problems’. Therefore, they require the ability to integrate diverse types of knowledge, and the related integrative competencies need to be evaluated through an appropriate assessment strategy (Souleles, 2017). INNOVATIONS The final code refers to the content of the programmes that was identified as unique and innovative. For example, data visualization as a course/subject can provide skills in effective (visual) techniques to analyse and communicate accessible information about social design projects to different audiences and stakeholders. In one programme of studies, data visualization is combined with external partners to make it directly relevant to the workplace: “…various tools and techniques help us communicate with and influence others. The Education of the Social Designer 63 Guest lecturers include data scientists, financial modellers, and corporate social responsibility experts” (Appendix, School of Visual Arts). Disability as a social design concern was another innovation identified in programmes of study. As a topic, it is referenced in various parts of the SDGs (United Nations, n.d.) and specifically in areas that relate to education, growth, employment and inequality. In one programme, the reason to include aspects of disability in social design education is eloquently argued for as follows: “People with disabilities are systematically excluded from cultural systems, spaces, and practices… Critical disability studies productively reorient our basic assumptions about disability and ability, encouraging us to consider how disability functions as a civil rights issue, identity, culture, and social construction” (Appendix, Tulane University). Political literacy and design activism are other innovations identified. Design activism overlaps with social design; it is situated within everyday contexts and processes of social and economic life (Julier, 2015). It is argued that design activism has political intentions and often functions outside formal structures through grassroots settings and community groups (Armstrong et al., 2014). Thus, an understanding of the dynamics of social groups with political dimensions and varied motivations can be useful for social design education. Some authors consider it essential for design practice, as the latter is increasingly entwined in contexts where political literacy is required (Koria and Prendeville, 2021). “… the consequences of social fragmentation, climate change, and economic uncertainties of our urbanized world create and renew governance through new behaviors: agility, responsiveness, resilience, collaboration, and civic representation. Political mobilizations, collective interests, and social concerns question this need for a revisited way of deciding and choosing what needs to be done...” (Appendix, Paris College of Art). CONCLUSION Much has changed since it was argued that the education of the designer requires a stronger background in sociology, psychology and public policy. The paradigm shift in design from objects to systems, which is associated with the period 2000–2020 (Margolin and Margolin, 2019), has moved the discussion about the education of the designer to the next level – to that of the education of the social designer. It is not about the need for change in design curricula but about the nature of the appropriate knowledge and competencies. Manzini (2015) argues that intentional conventions are required to foster an effective social design culture that is ‘dialogic’. These conventions emerge from a ‘broad social learning process’ that entails conversation and dialogue among diverse stakeholders. Dialogical approaches can be expected to feature in the social designer’s formal education. This dimension – the conversation between different stakeholders and knowledge domains – is present in various degrees in the programmes in this paper. In some cases, this is complemented by the recognition that although design qualifications offer an advantage for entry into social design programmes, applicants from different Souleles 64 professional backgrounds are welcome. The dialogic approach extends to the contents of the programmes of study, not only the entry criteria, and comprises knowledge domains that require connections between them. Environmental themes, various approaches to solution-focused strategies, the management of processes, research methods, interpretation, communication, as well as the social sciences, are open to cross-fertilization and instructional experimentation. External stakeholders and practitioners often contribute to this process. It is possible overall to note the prevalence and significance of integrative skills in the programmes of study. These skills entail human-centred competencies practised in multi-disciplinary environments – the essential abilities that can facilitate extended exchanges between different points of view and knowledge domains. The list of outcomes evaluated is extensive but lacks detail on how they are appraised. It is useful to reflect on how integrative skills should be assessed and how to communicate this to learners. Information design and social/political literacy were identified as innovative components of some programmes of study, but this does not exclude the possibility that there are more educational innovations. It can be argued that the innovative and unique characteristics of social design programmes of study should become more explicit. Finally, there is a consensus that pedagogies that are learner-centred and discursive and take place in different learning spaces including diverse communities are appropriate. APPENDIX Table 1. Country University Title of programme 1 2 Australia Australia The University of Sydney University of South Australia 3 New Zealand Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand Victoria University of Wellington Australia University of South Australia New Zealand Victoria University of Wellington Australia Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology USA Tulane University Canada University of Alberta Master of Design (Design Innovation) Graduate Diploma in Design (Sustainable Design) Graduate Diploma in Design Innovation Bachelor of Design Innovation - Major in Design for Social Innovation Master of Design (Sustainable Design) Master of Design Innovation 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USA 11 USA 12 USA 13 USA Indiana Wesleyan University Savannah College of Art and Design Maryland Institute College of Art Harvard University Master of Design Innovation and Technology Bachelor Design-Social Innovation Bachelor of Design (BDes)-Social Sciences Route Design for Social Impact B.F.A. Master’s in Design for Sustainability Master’s in Social Design Master’s in Design Studies (Mdes) Continued 65 The Education of the Social Designer Table 1. Continued. Country University Title of programme 14 USA Master of Arts in Social Innovation 15 USA 16 USA 17 Canada 18 19 USA USA 20 USA University of San Diego University of the Arts Philadelphia Massachusetts College of Art and Design Ontario College of Art & Design School of Visual Arts Pacific Northwest College of Art Tulane University 21 Canada 22 USA 23 Austria 24 France 25 Germany 26 Italy 27 Italy 28 Netherlands 29 Poland 30 Spain 31 Spain 32 Spain 33 Spain 34 UK 35 UK 36 UK 37 UK Ontario College of Art & Design Parsons School of Design University of Applied Arts Paris College of Art Berlin University of Applied Sciences International Training Centre of the ILO Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti (NABA) Design Academy Eindhoven Academy of Fine Arts in Katowice Istituto Europeo di Design (IED) Istituto Europeo di Design Elisava Barcelona School of Design and Engineering Elisava Barcelona School of Design & Engineering The Open University Arts University Bournemouth Edinburgh College of Art University of the Arts London Master of Design for Social Impact Master of Design: Design Innovation (MDES) MDes - Strategic Foresight and Innovation Design for Social Innovation MFA MFA in Collaborative Design Minor in Social Innovation & Social Entrepreneurship Bachelor, Social Innovation Design Pathway Transdisciplinary Design MFA Master Social Design - Arts as Urban Innovation Master of Arts in Design for Social Impact Master Social Design and Sustainable Innovation Master’s in Social Innovation for Sustainable Development Master of Arts in Social Design Master’s in Social Design Master Inclusive Design: Health and Social Well-Being Continuing Study Postgraduate, Programme Design for Innovation Strategy Master of Design and Innovation Master’s Degree in Research for Design and Innovation Postgraduate in Innovation and Design Thinking BA (Honours) Design and Innovation Master’s in Design and Innovation Master’s in Design for Change Master’s in Design for Social Innovation and Sustainable Futures Continued Souleles 66 Table 1. Continued. Country University Title of programme 38 UK Master’s in Design Innovation 39 40 41 42 UK UK UK Hong Kong Manchester Metropolitan University Royal College of Art Loughborough University Kingston University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University School of Design Master in Global Innovation Design MA/MSc Design Innovation Master in Sustainable Design BA(Hons) in Social Design REFERENCES Armstrong, L., Bailey, J., Julier, G., and Kimbell, L. (2014). Social Design Futures: HEI Research and the AHRC. Arts and Humanities Research Council: Swindon. Chen, D. S., Cheng, L. L., Hummels, C., and Koskinen, I. (2015). Social Design: An Introduction, International Journal of Design Volume 10 No 1, pp.1–5. Chick, A. (2012). Design for Social Innovation: Emerging Principles and Approaches, Iridescent Volume 2 No 1, pp.78–90. Emans, D., and Hempel, A. (2014). Hybrid Learning for Social Design, Tasmeen Volume 2014 No 1. doi:10.5339/tasmeem.2014.3. Friedman, K. (2012). Models of Design: Envisioning a Future for Design Education, Visible Language Volume 46 No 1/2, pp.128–151. Giesecke, S., Lassnigg, L., Steiner, M., Schartinger, D., Leitner, K. H., Vogtenhuber, S., and Kalcik, R. (2020). Prospective Report on the Future of Social Innovation in Education. Executive Summary. European Commission. Han, L., and Lee, C. (2020). University Social Innovation: Social Impact Education in Top Global Universities. Asia Centre for Social Entrepreneurship & Philanthropy (ACSEP): Singapore. Hsu, H. P., and Chen, Z. R. (2022). “The Development of Social Design Education and Practice: A Retrospective Study”, in: Design Praxiology and Phenomenology, Tan, L., Kim, B. (Eds.). pp.171–186. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2806-2_10. Julier, G. (2013). From Design Culture to Design Activism, Design and Culture Volume 5 No 2, pp.215–236. Kim, B., and Tan, L. (2022). “Design Thinking the Future: Critical Perspectives on Design Studies, Design Knowledge, and Education”, in: Design Praxiology and Phenomenology, Tan, L., Kim, B. (Eds.). pp.3–15. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-28062_1. Koria, M., and Prendeville, S. (2021). “Case Study: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG9). Designing for Dilemmas: A Change Agenda for Infrastructure”, in: Design for Social Responsibility. Design for Global Challenges and Goals, pp.136–154. Routledge: London. Lasky, J. (2013). Design and Social Impact: A Cross Sectoral Agenda for Design Education, Research and Practice, in: Social Impact Design Summit. Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, The Lemelson Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts: New York. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press: Cambridge. Margolin, V., and Margolin, S. (2019). “A “Social Model” of Design: Issues of Practice and Research”, in: The Social Design Reader, Resnick, E. (Ed.). pp.201–207. The Education of the Social Designer 67 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2010). Master’s Degree Characteristics. QAA: Gloucester. Qureshi, S. (2020). How Students Engage in Biomimicry, Journal of Biological Education, Volume 56 No 4, pp.1–15. doi:10.1080/00219266.2020.1841668. Skjott Linneberg, M., and Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding Qualitative Data: A Synthesis Guiding the Novice, Qualitative Research Journal Volume 19 No 3, pp.259–270. doi:10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012. Social Innovation Academy. (n.d.). Social Innovation Trends 2020-2030, the Next Decade of Social Innovation. https://www.socialinnovationacademy.eu/ Souleles, N. (2013). The Evolution of Art and Design Pedagogies in England: Influences of the Past, Challenges for the Future, International Journal of Art & Design Education Volume 32 No 2, pp. 243-255. Souleles, N. (2017). Design for Social Change and Design Education: Social Challenges Versus Teacher-Centred Pedagogies, The Design Journal Volume 20 No 1, pp. S927-S936. Souleles, N., Ferreira, A. M., and Savva, S. (2020). “Threshold Concepts and Design for Social change”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. pp. 80-89. Souleles, N., Papageorgiou, E., and Samdanis, M. (2022). “A European CrossCountry and Interdisciplinary Needs Analysis for the Erasmus+ Project ‘DigitalHEIghts’ on Digital Competence in Online Assessment in Higher Education”, proceedings of EDULEARN22. pp.5188–5196. Souleles, N., Savva, S., and Ferreira, A. M. (2017). The Challenge of Embedding Design for Social Change and Innovation in Higher Education Curricula and the Role of DISCERN (Design for Social Change and Innovation through a EuRopean Network), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Senses and Sensibility Volume 2017. United Nations (n.d.). The 17 Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. United Nations. (2017). Population Facts. Population Ageing and Sustainable Develop-ment No. 2017/1. https://tinyurl.com/5n8xumau Vettori, O., Warm, J., Sjöblom, P., Kajander, J., Operti, L., Armstrong, E., Zadeh, S. S., van der Smagt, M., van Beek, A., Rutar, S., and Konrad, S. Č. (2020). Learning & Teaching Paper: 8, Curriculum Design: Thematic Peer Group Report. European University Association. Wright, A., Gloster, D., Marshall, O., Matthews, E., McClean, D., Vowles, H., Roberts, A., Vowles, H., Walker, P. A., and Garstecki, P. (2019). QAA Subject Benchmark Statement Architecture: Version for Consultation, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, London. https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/56724/. View publication stats