"Luke, Thanks for looking out for us."

"Tonya,  Sorry for the delayed response. (Perhaps if you were looking for work at the time you wrote, you may have an answer to your question already :)  Job access and security are absolutely challenges with discursive design. While there are more approaches than just social engagement (activist mode), this is where most of this work is being done. This happens independently or pro bono. Much of it happens in educational contexts as well at universities of art and of design. That said, there are models of designers who are working in this arena, either employed within a large company or as an independent studio or consultancy.  Large companies, like Intel, Microsoft, and Philps have discursive design on their radars and have done work in this area. Undoubtedly there are not an abundance of in-house jobs though. What is happening is that the strategic foresight community, which has a longer history and has some credibility with industry already, has discovered speculative design (what we consider a subset of discursive design, which is an umbrella category). In a way, speculative design is gaining access to corporate work through the doors opened by strategic foresight.  There are independent studios like Superflux, The Extrapolation Factory, Tellart, Strange Telemetry, Situation Lab, and the Near Future Laboratory. They work for clients, and also mix in independent work. While I believe that there are increasing opportunities (especially in research capacities)--much more than 10 years ago--they are still not plentiful. If you are passionate about this arena, you will need to be more entrepreneurially minded. I often remind students that the responsible design positions were almost non-existent in the 1990's, but the field matured and gained visibility, so that now there are far more opportunities. (The design thinking movement also contributed to responsible design's advancements.) But if you have school loans to pay off, this is a more challenging (but potentially rewarding) path."

"Rosy, that is great. Congratulations. It is a great feeling to finally get to the deal, especially after so long. Things are generally out of your hands now, and development, marketing, and sales can go any number of ways. If you like the company, make sure to nurture the relationship. Generally it is easier with the second product with a company. You can let them know that you are interested in doing more with them. At several of the companies we have licensed to, they have come back to us to ask for ideas in product categories that they new they wanted new ideas for. The relationship-building in a lot of cases is half of the challenge. Good luck with sales!"

"Albert,  It is possible that doing your own market research would be helpful to a potential licensee. Presumably they would need to be convinced that it is not significantly biased in any way, e.g. it's your friends and family are the respondents and the questions are not leading. Fundamentally it needs to be good information that moves toward standards of validity, reliability, and generalizability.  Other marketing data can be helpful as well, like a market analysis of the competitors, though often if a licensee is in the industry they have a better sense of this than you might. Honestly, I am not so sure that a bunch of positive comments from unknown people--just names--would have a great deal of influence. It is certainly better than if they were bad comments, but do these people actually represent those who might purchase? Have you determined a target market that would be meaningful/relevant to the licensee?  Just because someone likes the idea does not mean that they are moved to purchase. Perhaps there are other ways to get user feedback, or more specific or more useful feedback. I have seen very convincing videos of people using products where it is obvious that they are amazed, or convinced, or otherwise pleased. Perhaps you want to convey that it is easy to use and you show candid videos--no need for high production. Of course you want to do the research that helps answer the most important questions that a licensee would have and that would help mitigate risk.Your research is valuable to them when it might save them money in having to do it themselves, just like with product development efforts or marketing efforts of the designer/inventor.  If i was a potential licensee I might be more concerned with how your solution compares to other competitive products--like air in a can, for example. Do people prefer yours? At what price? What are their biggest concerns or barriers to purchase?Generally research provided by the inventor at the pitch stage would likely only nudge a licensee unless it was powerful research that was believable. Third parties are helpful, but of course add cost.But perhaps just as much as convincing a licensee, research helps you the inventor know more and be more confident or better understand the shortcomings (which all products do) and how to address them.Best of luck!Bruce"

"...continued/truncated from earlier commentIt might be worth reading that article, even if only as a basis for some common language or a starting point from which to deviate.Fundamentally we have a more pluralistic view of design as an expanding field. Others of course are also just as free to have a more traditional and narrower view. Such questions of disciplinary bound are not unique to design and they will likely forever be asked of any field that people care about and seemingly matters. We encourage dialogue and discourse about this as a way of making better sense for yourself and your interlocutors, especially as there is no right answer. As the linguist Michael Silverstein once told me (and the 25 other budding anthropologists in the room), "Of course I'm wrong. We're all wrong. But are you wrong and interesting? Are you wrong and useful?""

"Aaron, I think the short answer is that there are different definitions and boundaries of design. The longer answer follows...It seems like you are raising a questions from the perspective that design is limited to the same type of practices from the early 20th century. Many feel that the field has expanded to include other intentions beyond profit-making on functional, mass-produced work. (One could easily say that much of the Campana Brothers' work is just that though--so perhaps you are making some other distinctions.)We feel that product design should be afforded the same ability to participate intellectually as other design disciplines. A graphic designer can design a better voting ballot, and no one challenges her when she then also design a political poster--one is utilitarian and the other is discursive. Are political posters beyond the realm of what graphic design is?It would be interesting to hear you describe the traits of something that you feel falls into your design camps, and of others that do not. I think that you might find that it is a difficult exercise to make clean distinctions. (I know because I spent months trying, and which is why we wrote The Four Fields of Design article for core77 a while back."

"Anne, these are both interesting programs, and I imagine with interesting 'interminglings.'  One of the challenges that design has is language and common understanding. This is the reason we felt it was important to deliberately locate discursive design within the broader range of design practice. The outcome was a four field approach--commercial, responsible, experimental, and discursive design--were it is not the what, or the how, but the why we design that became the basis of distinction. Since we introduced the framework formally in 2009, it has been generally well received and has weathered the test of time. With this framework in mind, your Lab track seems to be quite consistent with the approach of discursive design--where the focus is on voice and discourse above utility. The Field track with project such as food deserts in Chicago and social justice interventions is more in line with responsible design practice with an emphasis on serving the underserved, largely through providing some utility or greater inclusivity or access. Of course these four fields are not exclusive and there is overlap--commercial projects that have a discursive element, or experimental projects with a responsible element. This is what is interesting about having both the Field and Lab 'under one roof'--the potential for the discursive or experimental to influence the responsible, and vice versa, given the fundamental differences in their primary aims. I imagine that there can be some tension between the positions, that if cultivated well (and with some luck) can lead to exciting results that would not have been possible otherwise."

"I agree that a broader understanding or acceptance of the roles and possibilities for discursive design as well as economics is important, especially in a public university. That said, as broad as art and design may potentially be, I can see the value in educational emphases and the freedom to intentionally exclude. Hopefully this is an informed choice, and one that is probably more appropriate at the graduate level. I hope that UCSD is at least open to a broader debate on the pros as well as the cons of economic relationships. The staunch notion of the "market as the enemy of good" is indeed simple-minded."

"Ahmed, I think we are on the same page in general. Perhaps there are only small differences. I think that some designers are critical of Design, but I don't think that because the field in general is "myopic and shallow" that this should preclude them from trying to use design as a medium to attend to more intellectual issues--doing discursive design. I don't think that the entire field has to change before some are able to move in a different direction. I think they do have a home in an expanded understanding of design practice.I think that material culture studies, STS, etc. make incredible contributions (my anthropology doctorate is in material culture and consumption), but I also think that designers using the designed object as a medium to address the same issues can also contribute in valuable, though be they different, ways. Poets, songwriters, fiction writers, graphic designers, etc. also comment on the same topics as material culture, STS, etc. do. They do it differently, and certainly not as rigorously as an academic might, but I believe that their approach can appeal to others and can have value and impact as well. I don't think design should be excluded from trying, but I do think we need to be more rigorous, careful, and learned when we choose to.I very much appreciate your engagement with this topic."

"Agreed. And still male and female are terms/concepts used quite exclusively and quite usefully for the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. Our point is that classifications are imperfect simplifications, and even morally contestable (especially academic circles), but still help move discourse and certain understanding along."

"Sadly, Ahmed, I think you are correct (as also indicated by your other comments below) that design schools do a poor job of teaching and integrating the lessons of design history into their curricula. This is partly because they are under pressure to include so much else (design research, digital fabrication, CAD, sustainability, systems, interaction, UX, etc.), and most tend to listen more to what industry is asking for since job placement is their chosen key measure of success. (I have yet to have an employer tell me that they want graduates who have a better grasp of design history.) It is also partly due to the relatively new field of design history and PhD's. Of the four institutions that I have been affiliated with, only one had a design historian on faculty (he was educated as an art historian, but spent his career focusing on design). Art historians often take on this duty with less expertise and gusto."

"Francisco, thanks for your comment. We agree that political posters are generally "closed, one-way emissions." But that type of voice still contributes to the discourse surrounding a topic. Discursive design is about using the artifact (poster, product, etc.) primarily to voice substantive issues rather than attending to problems of utility (the improved ballot in our example). While a discursive designer *may* take on the role of trying to facilitate discussion or debate (which is how I think that you are understanding it) this is not necessarily the case. Discursive work/voice can become part of the debate.In many ways using discursive design to raise a topic for others to debate--trying to remain neutral--is  playing it safe. Some discursive designers take this stance, for what sometimes seems as a way of avoiding criticism from others (e.g., being called elitist, self-righteous, or wrong-minded). While we do need designers who are interested in facilitating debate, I think we also need designers who take a stand, even quite provocatively, like graphic designers can do with their "closed, one-way" political posters. Perhaps, or even ideally, their work is able to make others self-reflect and see things differently. Sometimes the discursive designer is provocateur, and sometimes they are facilitators--both are important and valid roles in our minds."