Common reasons why one may argue defining design is of little value to designers are:

• there is no practical need, in other words, design educators and practitioners can and do work without an explicit definition of design;
• no definition could properly encompass all the various types of design;
• or, it is impossible for everyone to agree on a single definition.

The first reason is addressed on this page, by showing concrete examples of how explicit definitions of design are not just valuable, but essential tools.

The second and third reasons are better addressed through explaining the types and issues related to definition, which are discussed on this page. The short response to these claims, is that defining design does not necessarily mean one must develop a definition that will encompass all types of design, nor does it necessarily mean everyone must agree on the definition. If one takes a pragmatic and stipulative approach to defining design (as I propose on the page note earlier), it is up to the discussants to determine how all-encompassing one’s definition must be, and who ought to agree to the definition, if at all. A pragmatic approach assumes that discussants must first agree upon the reason for defining design. This reason helps clarify these two issues.

For example, if one is trying to define design to improve school curriculum, then you don’t need everyone to agree to a single definition, but it is preferable that all instructors share a similar vision. Additionally, schools may be have time and budget constraints which may factor into how broadly design ought to be defined.

When taking a pragmatic and stipulative approach to definition, one doesn’t have to choose a definition that satisfies all types of design. Instead, one can choose a definition that satisfies one’s practical end. If the practical end requires a definition that satisfies all types of design, then one simply ought to use a broad definition of design. But, if the practical end is something like curriculum development, such a broad definition may prove problematic, in which case the definition may need to revisited. A point which has been identified by Greg Bamford in his paper on the definition of design (1990, para. 25). Additionally, using the essentialist approach to definition (one in which a definition draw clears boundaries, which may disallow certain activities which may have been considered design) forces one to settle on specific conditions for the term to apply.

Even if one is not interested in operationalizing a definition, and is interested for simply the sake of gaining a better understanding of the concept, philosopher Noël Carroll (1999) argues that the essentialist approach has “immense heuristic value: “By ‘heuristic value,’ we mean that the method alerts us systematically to the richness and complexity of the phenomenon that confronts us” (p. 10). To demonstrate this he provides the following example using the concept of art:

When a philosopher of art, like Aristotle, proposes that representation is a necessary condition of art, we consider that conjecture by asking whether indeed everything we categorize as art is representational. If we think of color field painting, we will reject this conjecture as too exclusive. (p. 10)

He then goes on to propose another definition that is too inclusive, emphasizing how future attempts can work in a similar manner, continuously providing greater clarification and discovery. While this may run counter to how we experience everyday use of term design, this approach allows us to operationalize the definition for our practical end.

A last point regarding this critique, is that a contradiction often lies with those who claim design is too broad to define. The contradiction is demonstrated by authors who evangelize about the great value design can bring to today’s complex problems but, in the same breath, fail to provide a clear notion of what they mean by design. Surely, if one is so convinced that designers can help solve serious and complex problems like sustainability, one should also be able to identify which abilities designers bring to these problems that those in other disciplines do not.