Making the case for introducing generative artificial intelligence (AI) into design curricula

References

1. AIContentfy Team (2023), ‘AI-generated content for virtual reality and augmented reality’, AIContentfy, 10 May, https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/ai-generated-content-for-virtual-reality-and-augmented-reality. Accessed 27 November 2023.
2. Appel, G., Neelbauer, J. and Schweidel, D. A. (2023), ‘Generative AI has an intellectual property problem’, Harvard Business Review, 7 April, https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem. Accessed 29 February 2024.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Auernhammer, J. (2020), ‘Human-centered AI: The role of human-centered design research in the development of AI’, in S. Boess, M. Cheung and R. Cain (eds), Synergy: DRS International Conference 2020, online, 11–14 August, London: Design Research Society, pp. 1315–33, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.21606/drs.2020.282.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bamford, A. (2023), ‘How are university design courses adapting to incorporate AI?’, Design Week, 7 July, https://tinyurl.com/yb8mncc2. Accessed 27 November 2023.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Cain, J. and Pino, Z. (2023), ‘Navigating design, data, and decision in an age of uncertainty’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 9:2, pp. 197–212.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Carter, S. R., Wheeler, N. E., Chwalek, S., Isaac, C. R. and Jaime, Y. (2023), ‘The convergence of artificial intelligence and the life sciences’, Nuclear Threat Initiative, 30 October, https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/the-convergence-of-artificial-intelligence-and-the-life-sciences/. Accessed 27 November 2023.
7. Coursea (2023), ‘Prompt engineering for ChatGPT’, https://www.coursera.org/learn/prompt-engineering. Accessed 27 November 2023.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Davis, M. and Dubberly, H. (2023), ‘Rethinking design education’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 9:2, pp. 97–116.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Debrusk, C. (2018), ‘The risk of machine-learning bias (and how to prevent it)’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 26 March, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-risk-of-machine-learning-bias-and-how-to-prevent-it/. Accessed 29 February 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
11. DesignGuru (2023), ‘How is AI transforming the design industry’, Medium: Visual Design, 26 February, https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/how-is-ai-transforming-the-design-industry-1466d0ea8049. Accessed 27 November 2023.
12. Drucker, J. and McVarish, E. (2012), Graphic Design History, 2nd ed., London: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Edberg, E. and Beck, L. (2020), ‘Adoption of AI in digital design: A qualitative study about the effects on the profession’, undergraduate thesis, Jönköping: Jönköping University.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fatima, I. (2023), ‘Designing with AI: A user study to explore the future role of AI as a collaborative tool in graphics design’, master’s thesis, Stockholm: Södertörns University.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fielding, N. G. (2012), ‘Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6:2, pp. 124–36.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Figoli, F. A., Rampino, L. and Mattioli, F. (2022), ‘AI in design idea development: A workshop on creativity and human-AI collaboration’, in D. Lockton, S. Lenzi, P. Hekkert, A. Oak, J. Sádaba and P. Lloyd (eds), DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July, London: Design Research Society, pp. 2–18.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Fleischmann, K. (2010), ‘The POOL model: Foregrounding an alternative learning and teaching approach for digital media design in higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 9:1, pp. 57–73.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Fleischmann, K. (2013), ‘Big Bang technology: What’s next in design education, radical innovation or incremental change?’, Journal of Learning Design, Special Issue Design Education, 6:3, pp. 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Fleischmann, K. (2014), ‘Design futures: Future designers – Give me a “T”?’, Studies in Material Thinking, 11, pp. 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Fleischmann, K. (2015), ‘Democratisation of design and design learning: How do we educate the next-generation designer’, International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8:6, pp. 101–08.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Fleischmann, K. (2022), ‘Design education in transition: A multidisciplinary design classroom with non-allied disciplines’, The Design Journal, 25:1, pp. 25–43.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Fleischmann, K. (2023), ‘German design educators’ post-Covid challenges: Online, artificial intelligence (AI) and government data restrictions’, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 28:1, pp. 135–53.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Friedman, K. (2012), ‘Models of design: Envisioning a future design education’, Visible Language, 46:1–2, pp. 133–53.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gilbert, T. (2023), ‘“AI revolution” means design studios could look very different in three years’, Design Week, 24 February, https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/20-february-24-february-2023/ai-design-studios-future-look/. Accessed 27 November 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Grierson, J. (2023), ‘Photographer admits prize-winning image was AI-generated’, The Guardian, 18 April, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/17/photographer-admits-prize-winning-image-was-ai-generated. Accessed 29 February 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Harbers, M. and Overdiek, A. (2022), ‘Towards a living lab for responsible applied AI’, in D. Lockton, S. Lenzi, P. Hekkert, A. Oak, J. Sádaba and P. Lloyd (eds), DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July, London: Design Research Society, pp. 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hardesty, L. (2018), ‘Study finds gender and skin-type bias in commercial artificial-intelligence systems’, MIT News, 11 February, https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems-0212. Accessed 29 February 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
28. HOMMÉS Studio (2023), ‘Interior design artificial intelligence and its amazing uses’, Interiors Special Projects, Journal, 16 June, https://tinyurl.com/4tf574uu. Accessed 30 November 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Huang, Y.-C. J., Wensveen, S. and Funk, M. (2023), ‘Experiential speculation in vision-based AI design education: Designing conventional and progressive AI futures’, International Journal of Design, 17:2, pp. 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kaiko, N. (2023), ‘The rise of artificial intelligence in interior design’, Kaiko Design Interiors, https://www.kaikodesign.com.au/articles/the-rise-of-artificial-intelligence-in-interior-design. Accessed 27 November 2023.
31. Kauppinen, T. and Sivula, A. L. (2023), ‘Conclusion’, in M. J. Lehtonen, T. Kauppinen and L. Sivula (eds), Design Education Across Disciplines: Transformative Learning Experiences for the 21st Century, Cham: Springer Nature and Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 261–71.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. A. (2019), ‘Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research’, Social Sciences, 8:255, pp. 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Lawton, G. (2023), ‘How generative AI is changing creative work’, Tech Target, 7 November, https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/feature/How-generative-AI-is-changing-creative-work. Accessed 27 February 2024.
34. Lim, J.-S. and Jung, E.-C (2018), ‘A study on the roles of designers co-evolving with tools’, in C. Storni, K. Leahy, M. McMahon, P. Lloyd and E. Bohemia (eds), Design as a Catalyst for Change: DRS International Conference 2018, Limerick, 25–28 June, London: Design Research Society, pp. 1208–18.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lindebaum, D. and Fleming, P. (2023), ‘ChatGPT undermines human reflexivity, scientific responsibility and responsible management research’, British Journal of Management, 35:2, pp. 566–75.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Marr, B. (2023), ‘The difference between generative AI and traditional AI: An easy explanation for anyone’, Forbes, 24 July, https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/07/24/the-difference-between-generative-ai-and-traditional-ai-an-easy-explanation-for-anyone/?sh=1213914b508a. Accessed 27 February 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Matthews, B., Shannon, B. and Roxburgh, M. (2023), ‘Destroy all humans: The dematerialisation of the designer in an age of automation and its impact on graphic design: A literature review’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 42:3, pp. 367–83.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Meron, Y. (2022), ‘Graphic design and artificial intelligence: Interdisciplinary challenges for designers in the search for research collaboration’, in D. Lockton, S. Lenzi, P. Hekkert, A. Oak, J. Sádaba and P. Lloyd (eds), DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July, London: Design Research Society, pp. 2–17.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Milmo, D. and Stacey, K. (2023), ‘“It’s not clear we can control it”: What they said at the Bletchley Park AI summit’, The Guardian, 2 November, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/01/elon-musk-calls-ai-one-of-the-biggest-threats-to-humanity-at-summit. Accessed 27 November 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Morrone, M. (2024), ‘Copyright law is AI’s 2024 battlefield’, AXIOS, 2 January, https://www.axios.com/2024/01/02/copyright-law-violation-artificial-intelligence-courts. Accessed 19 January 2024.
41. Naveed, H., Khan, A. U., Qiu, S., Saqib, M., Anwar, S., Usman, M., Akhtar, N., Barnes, N. and Mian, A. (2024), ‘A comprehensive overview of large language models’, arXiv, 9 April, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.06435.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2024.
42. Noguera, J. C. (2022), ‘Industrial design takes on AI’, noguera.design, 3 October, https://www.noguera.design/industrial-design-takes-on-ai. Accessed 27 November 2023.
43. Olsson, T. and Väänänen, K. (2021), ‘How does AI challenge design practice?’, Interactions, 28:4, July–August, pp. 62–64.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Lorenz, P., Perset, K. and Berryhill, J. (2023), ‘Initial policy considerations for generative artificial intelligence’, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, 1, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2102/10.1787/fae2d1e6-en.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Pennefather, P. P. (2023), Creative Prototyping with Generative AI: Augmenting Creative Workflows with Generative AI, New York: Apress.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Philips, M. (2023), ‘The present and future of AI in design’, Toptal, https://www.toptal.com/designers/product-design/infographic-ai-in-design. Accessed 27 November 2023.
47. Punch, K. (2009), Introduction to Research Methods in Education, London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Rossman, G. B. and Wilson, B. L. (1985), ‘Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study’, Evaluation Review, 9:5, pp. 627–43.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Simeone, L., Mantelli, R. and Adamo, A. (2022), ‘Pushing divergence and promoting convergence in a speculative design process: Considerations on the role of AI as a co-creation partner’, in D. Lockton, S. Lenzi, P. Hekkert, A. Oak, J. Sádaba and P. Lloyd (eds), DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July, London: Design Research Society, pp. 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Sless, D. (2012), ‘Design or “Design”: Envisioning a future design education’, Visible Language, 46:1–2, pp. 54–66.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Solly, M. (2019), ‘Art project shows racial biases in artificial intelligence system’, Smithsonian Magazine, 24 September, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-project-exposed-racial-biases-artificial-intelligence-system-180973207/. Accessed 27 November 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2009), ‘Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research’, in L. Bickman and D. J. Rog (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 283–317.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Taylor, J. (2023), ‘Adobe to integrate AI into Photoshop amid fears of job losses and mass faking of images’, The Guardian, 23 May, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/23/adobe-to-integrate-ai-into-photoshop-amid-fears-of-job-losses-and-mass-faking-of-images#:%7E:text=Ado%E2%80%A6. Accessed 27 November 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
54. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2023), Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research (eds F. Miao and W. Holmes), Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L. and Iansiti, M. (2020), ‘Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37:3, pp. 212–27.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Vynck, G. D., Elker, J. and Remmel, T. (2024), ‘The future of AI video is here, super weird flaws and all’, Washington Post, 28 February, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2024/ai-video-sora-openai-flaws/. Accessed 29 May 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Weingarten, E., Meyer, M. W., Ashkenazi, A. and Amir, O. (2020), ‘Human experts outperform technology in creative markets’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6:3, pp. 301–30.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Wernersson, J. and Persson, R. (2023), ‘Exploring the potential impact of AI on the role of graphic content creators: Benefits, challenges, and collaborative opportunities’, master’s thesis, Jönköping: Jönköping University.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Wright, K. B. (2005), ‘Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10:3, pp. 1–31.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Zhou, J., Li, R., Tang, J., Tang, T., Li, H., Cui, W. and Wu, Y. (2024), ‘Understanding nonlinear collaboration between human and AI agents: A co-design framework for creative design’, arXiv, 20 March, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07312. Accessed 25 February 2024.