Shaping Entrepreneurial Design Identity in Design Education

Critical Analysis

In this text, the authors argue that during an educational experience, design students form designerly identities; however, if they experience entrepreneurial identification, it is alongside of a designerly identity rather than integrated with it, which results in confusion. They propose a curricular model that combines what they consider to be entrepreneurial activities with traditional design subject matter.

There are several primary claims at the core of this argument.

First, the authors argue that identity is socially constructed through purposeful efforts by a student: that “people develop their identity by categorizing themselves and others into social groups” (64). They explain that the effort is purposeful, as “to maintain a positive self, individuals view members of the in-group—the group with which they identify—as more favorable and positive compared to out-groups” (64). In academia, students are surrounded by a group of designers; “becoming part of the design community reinforces students’ self-perception as designers and contributes to the development of a stereotypical design identity” (65).

Next, the authors argue a view of entrepreneurialism that is heavily focused on what might be considered market-specific activities. They present a model curriculum as including integrated material about “business plan, SME management, marketing, case studies, financing, and guest speakers” (68) and “turning their business plans into real ventures… coaching and mentoring with more in-depth teaching of entrepreneurial skills such as marketing, sales, and finance will improve the venture idea and its viability” (70). The end goal is that some design students should abandon a typical career path, and instead, “design students should therefore be familiarized and motivated for self-employment as a career option” (68).

If students come to see design and entrepreneurism as mutually exclusive, they may experience confusion, as “strong identification with a professional group bears the danger of identity conflict”—students are seeing themselves as designers and as entrepreneurs at once, but differently.

The authors present a case that students who see others being entrepreneurial by doing marketing-specific activities want to be identified in a similar way, and so they work to be a part of that group. They indicate that “design identity and entrepreneurial identity are the result of individual identity development, reflecting a comprehensive self-image as a designer or entrepreneur” (66)—but not, they imply, in an integrated sense. This leads to a fractured sense of self.

The authors explain that “Entrepreneurship education and design education share key characteristics, including creativity, the ability to think divergently, and openness to new ideas” (67), yet curiously, they make a distinction between these same qualities of design and entrepreneurship that are often considered synonymous.

For example, they explain that art and design educational curriculum “continue to focus on teaching design skills that shape students’ professional identity as creatives” but “entrepreneurship has been largely neglected in design education” (66). Creativity is an accepted, fundamental part of being entrepreneurial; they acknowledge that previously; similarly, conceiving of innovative ideas and bringing them to life in material ways is considered a fundamentally entrepreneurial behavior. It’s unclear why these are shown inconsistently.

The text supports the idea that design education is a place where students form a specific type of identity, and that designers have tendencies that have clear overlap with general definitions of entrepreneurs: the ability to think creatively, to explore ideas freely, and to give new ideas space before judging them. But the text differs from a view of design education as a place where an entrepreneurial subject is constructed in several key ways.

First, the authors argue that students select to be a part of a given group; a discourse perspective views identity as something that is mutually constructed through language, and as students are labeled, they transition into that group. Behavior becomes self-reinforcing; external labeling, however, is what causes an introduction into a particular identity structure.

Next, the separation between entrepreneurism and design is drawn with a line of business skills rather than behavioral tendencies. Identity is much more than the ability to do certain tasks. Design demeanors, such as taking risks and having creative conviction, are qualities of an entrepreneurial self; they are not separate.