Background

My research work focuses on improving the way design (interaction design, visual design, etc.) is taught and learned in a physical studio and at a university level.

Hypothetical Proposal A

Scenario: The National Science Foundation’s Human-Centered Computing program has put out a call for proposals focusing on the future of online learning.

Online learning has become a normalized part of education (Harasim, 2000). Prior to COVID, online learning was growing increasingly common in computing fields and in higher education; COVID led to many more educational programs adopting an online (either synchronous or asynchronous) or hybrid approach to learning (Xie, et al., 2020). This provides opportunities for students who may have been excluded from in-person learning, such as those in remote areas, or those who may be unable to attend class synchronously due to socioeconomic constraints.

Some fields, however, have struggled to bring their programming online or have even avoided it entirely. Architecture, design and art have traditionally been taught in a physical studio space (Williamson-Shaffer, 2007), as these subjects are highly social (Forlano & Smith, 2018), and require meaningful and physically close interaction with faculty (Hokanson, 2012). These fields rely heavily on individualized critique (Dannels, et al., 2008) and collaborative group work (Reimer & Douglas, 2003), and as they are artifact-based, educators in these fields have largely resisted the draw of online learning; some have gone so far as to question if online learning can be an effective part of the pedagogy of architecture, design and art at all (Fallman, 2007).

If these disciplines continue to be taught solely in person, they run the risk of enforcing elitist traditions: only students privileged enough to attend these schools can pursue lucrative careers in architecture and design or engage meaningfully in developing their artistic craft. Additionally, as universities and colleges continue to look for ways to optimize budgets, physical studios appear disproportionately costly on an FTE basis, and so they run the risk of being eliminated entirely, threatening the future of these professions.

There is an opportunity to leverage the breadth of innovations in online learning in order to bring these programs into an online environment effectively, and this proposal intends to better understand the unique qualities of architecture, design, and art pedagogy in order to effectively support their transition to an online platform. Specifically, this proposal intends to inform the research questions: what are qualities of architecture, design, and art education that are suitable for adoption in an online environment, and what technological innovations in online teaching and learning can be best leveraged in making this transition?

To address these research questions, the researchers propose conducting a two-phase study. In Phase One, researchers will conduct ethnographic research in schools that offer traditional studio-based education in architecture, art and design. The study will span the duration of an academic year, with a goal of identifying key points in the studio journey that are suitable for transitioning to an online environment. In Phase Two, researchers will first research and develop a comprehensive framework of mature online learning capabilities, and then map the opportunities for online learning in studio to that framework. This will identify areas suitable for transition to online learning, as well as gaps in online capabilities for supporting this type of creative teaching and learning. The contribution of this study will be an understanding of what elements of studio learning are suitable for bringing online, and the identification of key features in online learning platforms that can be designed and developed in order to offer a more comprehensive approach to studio pedagogy in an online environment.

Hypothetical Proposal B

Scenario: The National Science Foundation’s EDU Core Research (ECR:Core) program has put out a call for proposals focusing on STEM workforce development.

The future of work in the United States is increasingly unstable, as automation, artificial intelligence, and offshored labor practices continue to erode historically secure and well-compensated professions (Baldwin, 2019). In response, national policy and funding efforts have focused heavily on expanding participation in STEM education (McDonald, 2016). It is generally understood that these efforts have offered meaningful gains, but have not fully engaged populations whose skills and interests fall outside of traditional STEM focus areas; a limitation of existing workforce initiatives may be due to their focus on math-intensive and limited views of what it means to participate in technical fields. Research has shown that many view STEM fields as inaccessible; this view disproportionately affects women (Su & Rounds, 2015), minorities (Estrada, et al., 2016), and first-generation learners (Dika, 2015), reinforcing existing inequities in the technology labor force.

At the same time, design has become a foundational component of modern software and information technology development. Interaction design, visual design, and user experience design are now embedded in product teams alongside engineering and product management (Samsonov, 2025). Although not typically considered part of STEM, design practice requires systems thinking, technical ability, and disciplined problem solving, while remaining grounded in making, iteration, and craft skill (Cross, 1982). These characteristics naturally position design as a bridge between vocational expertise and technology-oriented work.

There is an opportunity to connect design education with workforce development initiatives, providing a new pathway for upskilling vocational labor into STEM-related disciplines. This research intends to inform the question: How can studio-based design pedagogy be adapted to support vocational workers in transitioning into design-adjacent roles that are competitive in the context of STEM careers?

To address this question, the researchers propose a qualitative, design-oriented research program leveraging ethnography in two contexts. First, the research will examine vocational training environments to document existing skill formation practices and identify how vocational skills can map and relate to professional design competencies. In parallel, interviews with workforce development agencies will surface policy constraints and opportunities that shape career transition pathways. The contribution of this work will take the form of a synthesized framework articulating how vocational skills map onto design roles, along with curricular and policy-oriented guidelines that translate studio based design education into scalable workforce development models.

Comparing Proposals A & B

Proposal A presented a landscape rich with online learning opportunities, except for those involved in design disciplines. Students in those other disciplines are able to attend class if they live in a remote area, or if they need to provide childcare or work during class hours; students in design are not provided with those same opportunities. Proposal B leveraged a similar style of framing—that some are excluded, and that exclusion is worthy of research attention—except the exclusion was related to a prioritization of math-intensive fields over those that emphasize hand or visual skills.

Both proposals presented the importance of the research in a provision of equity: in helping people who are typically excluded be included. Proposal A references the risk of reinforcing elitist traditions, particularly focusing on socioeconomic, geographic, and class-based exclusion. Proposal B similarly indicates that the research is important to ensure access to those in lower socioeconomic circumstances, as well as supporting first-generation learners and women.

Proposal A differs from Proposal B in arguing the physical infrastructure and cost of running design studio education as a motivator for change; this is because online learning has direct, positive consequences on the cost of facilities. Proposal B differs from Proposal A in arguing the importance of design as a skill worth pursuing, describing the important role it plays in the larger context of software engineering; this links design to STEM, showing that the discipline, while not part of the acronym, is part of the larger space of technology careers.

Proposal A presents a question framed to feel like an opportunity for requirement definition—that research is going to be conducted towards a presupposed solution involving online learning. This speaks to the hypothetical call that makes the same presupposition. It follows, then, that research should work to uncover the requirements for providing online learning in the context of art, design, and architecture. Because online learning is already well understood, generally, the proposal includes a form of competitive feature audit, showing which normalized capabilities in online learning can transfer successfully to this new area of focus, and which are lacking. Proposal B presents a research opportunity that may lead to broad appeal, one that may even lead to policy changes. In support of this, the research approach leverages equally broad ethnographic research focused on workforce development training and output related to strategic and institutionalized opportunities for impact.

Works Cited

1. Baldwin, R., 2019. The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Cossentino, J., 2002. Importing Artistry: further lessons from the design studio. Reflective Practice, 3(1), pp. 39-52.
3. Cross, N., 1982. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), pp. 221-227.
4. Dannels, D. P., Housley Gaffney, A. & Norris Martin, K., 2008. Beyond content, deeper than delivery: What critique feedback reveals about communication expectations in design education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Volume 2, p. Article 12.
5. Dika, S. L. D. M. M., 2015. Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors. JRST, pp. 368-383.
6. Estrada, M. et al., 2016. Improving Underrepresented Minority Student Persistence in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education.
7. Fallman, D., 2007. Supporting studio culture in design research. s.l., s.n.
8. Forlano, L. & Smith, S., 2018. Critique as collaboration in design anthropology. Journal of Business Anthropology, Volume 7, p. 279–300.
9. Harasim, L., 2000. Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), pp. 41-61.
10. Hokanson, B., 2012. The Design Critique as a Model for Distributed Learning. The Next Generation of Distance Education. Boston: Springer, pp. 71-82.
11. McDonald, C., 2016. STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), pp. 530-569.
12. Reimer, Y. J. & Douglas, S. A., 2003. Teaching HCI Design With the Studio Approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), pp. 191-205.
13. Samsonov, P., 2025. The Product Triad: Design’s Role. [Online] Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-product-triad-designs-role/ [Accessed 17 January 2026].
14. Su, R. & Rounds, J., 2015. All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(189).
15. Williamson-Shaffer, D., 2007. Learning in design. In: Foundations for the future in mathematics education. s.l.:Erlbaum, pp. 99-126.
16. Xie, X., Siau, K. & Nah, F. F.-N., 2020. COVID-19 pandemic – online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), pp. 175-187.