The Future of
Interaction Design as an
Academic Program of Study
Kevin Conlon
Savannah College of Art and Design | kconlon@scad.edu
What is required today to understand the notion of interaction
design? Looking at most academic programs, it seems that a
loose variety of interdisciplinary
study opportunities, vaguely
related to each of the facets
within the overall discipline, can
be thought to provide some sort
of cohesive body of knowledge.
This is unfortunate, but worse
is the common perception that,
because of interaction design’s
breadth, we cannot widen our
view in order to synthesize a
more cohesive knowledge of the
discipline; instead, we rely on
this piecemeal approach that
serves the parts rather than the
whole.
When it comes to interaction
design, in general, most colleges
and universities think too small.
And even more problematic,
schools tend to avoid looking
at the shifting of the political,
economic, environmental, and
cultural landscapes. Without
necessarily being very intentional or well-informed in their
efforts, schools create academic
programs without really thinking about what purpose they will
ultimately serve. Unintentionally
or not, they perpetuate the status quo by not letting their students think very far beyond the
margins of current cultural and
technological markers.
Schools also tend to buy
in to a consumerist model in
thinking about how human
interactions via technology (like
social-networking websites and
multifunction devices) shape the
experiences and the relationship
opportunities between the user
and the tool, rather than examining how the user appropriates
technology as needed to shape
personalized relationships and
relationship opportunities with
other users. There’s a subtle
but important distinction in
these two points: One humanizes resources and relationships,
while the other depletes both.
Ultimately, even if courses
and programs designed by conventional standards serve the
notion of a future for interaction
design by happy accident, they
end up being reactive instead
of proactive by following trends
instead of anticipating them.
Schools need to think bigger
by reestablishing their dominance as crucibles for change
and encouraging students to
think creatively about not only
the problems of today, but also
tomorrow.
Rejecting the Silo Approach
Because of its newness and
breadth, or because of the vested
manifold interests from which
it draws intellectual resource,
or because it requires political
skill beyond their comfort level,
many academics throw up their
hands and give in to the temptation that there is no other way to
create a program that moves the
discipline of interaction design
to a level of prominence that
can see a difference in how we
think about users, technology,
and resources. They tend to fall
back on educational models that
are familiar because they promise some level of perpetuity and
security. While the comfort of
the familiar is very reassuring,
it is a false promise to a variety
of stakeholders, especially the
future.
Further, the problem of intellectual domain within typical
academic departments defined
by subject-matter expertise
complicates matters tremendously. In a silo and turf-driven
setting, it is not uncommon for
the interdisciplinary, piecemeal
model to dominate what we are
coming to know as interaction
design. So it’s no surprise that
within the typical academic
institution, the notion of interaction design is still confused with
and within a variety of related
academic departments and their
subject-matter assignments,
depending on which facet of the
discipline is being examined.
Some might suspect that this