Nebulous,Abstract,Elusive: Examining Design Concepts Within Interiors Practice and Pedagogy

Design concepts are essential to the discipline of interior design and have thus been ubiquitously integrated within the field’s pedagogies and practices. This is largely owing to the fact that concepts serve a wide range of functions within design processes. They may be utilized to imbue projects with a sense of depth and meaning (Higgins, 2015), support innovation and creativity (Lola, 2020), help maintain cohesion and focus (Haupt, 2014), guide decision-making (Goldschmidt & Sever, 2011), and foster communication (Lawson, 2004) and collaboration (Badenduck, 2023). While the value of utilizing concepts has been broadly accepted, there are few topics that give rise to as much confusion. This is an especially persistent issue within interior design education where instructors struggle to teach (Kwon, 2016; Travis, 2011), and students sometimes fail to grasp (Anderson & Travis, 2018; Eilouti, 2020; Rengel, 2014), what exactly design concepts are and how to best generate and utilize them.

Notoriously abstract and hard to pin down, limited research has been conducted to adequately examine or articulate the complexities of conceptual thinking within interior design (Travis, 2011). While existing literature may provide guidance on the utilization of design concepts (Anderson & Travis, 2018; Eilouti, 2020, 2021; Kwon, 2016; Lola, 2020; Taura & Nagai, 2013; Travis, 2011), available sources rarely address the underlying assumptions that inform individual approaches to conceptual development. In an effort to address this issue, a literature review was conducted and a mixed-methods, qualitative study was devised to capture insights from an international group of interior design students, educators, and practitioners in five cities—Toronto, Canada; New York, US; London, England; Glasgow, Scotland; and Berlin, Germany—and within seven institutions—Toronto Metropolitan University, The New School/Parsons School of Design, Fashion Institute of Technology, London Metropolitan University, Royal College of Art, Glasgow School of Art, and Berlin International University of Applied Sciences—between September 2019 and March 2020. Primary data were collected from semi-structured interviews with educators (n = 12) and practitioners (n = 13) and an online questionnaire of students (n = 101). ¹ All data were subject to a thematic analysis, which unearthed variably nuanced interpretations of the ways design concepts are defined, identified, and integrated within the creative practices of interior designers.

What is a Design Concept?

The multifarious nature of design concepts reveals itself in the range of definitions found within existing literature and in those expressed by research participants (Badenduck, 2023; Brooker, 2017; Eilouti, 2020; Goldschmidt & Sever, 2011; Higgins, 2015; Lawson, 2005; Lola, 2020; Rengel, 2014; Taura & Nagai, 2013; Teal & Loo, 2018; Travis, 2011; Tremblay et al., 2000; Whitney, 2001). These sources quickly dispel any notion of determining a single definition capable of adequately conveying the collection of diverse viewpoints. Rather than endeavoring to condense these varied conceptualizations into a single reductive term, categories of definitions offer a more expansive and inclusive way of engaging with the topic. Such categorization—and resultant multiplicity of definitions—embraces the idea that there are no single, “correct” ways of defining design concepts, acknowledges that individual understandings may shift between and reflect a blending of definitional categories, and ultimately celebrates a diverse range of perspectives.

What emerges from the research data is that design concepts appear to be defined in ways that can be organized into two predominant categories—declarative and operational—and further divided into more precise subcategories. Declarative definitions reflect understandings which are largely ideas-focused or description-based. An individual who regards design concepts in a declarative way may consider them to be “the meaning,” “the why,” “the motive,” or “the overarching idea” of a project (Badenduck, 2023). Such concepts may present themselves in the form of The Big Idea, which provides an external structure for a design process (Lawson, 2005; Rengel, 2014); The Nexus, which serves to connect aspects of the problem and solution (Cross, 1997); The Story which utilizes narrative to structure a design approach (Badenduck, 2023); and The Alchemy which attempts to harness the unknowable force of creativity (Cropley, 2006).

Conversely, operational definitions reflect an interpretation of design concepts that are more related to the active, process-oriented side of design. For individuals who understand design concepts in this way, concepts are evident in the doing (Badenduck, 2023). Operational concepts may appear in the form of The Stimulant, which provides impetus, motivation, and “drives” projects forward (Darke, 1979; Goldschmidt & Tatsa, 2005); The Strategy, in which tactics are developed and implemented throughout the process of designing (Schön, 1991); The Guide, which establishes design approaches that unfold and “guide” the creative process (Lawson, 2004; Teal & Loo, 2018); and, The Inquiry in which project work serves as a conduit for the investigation of ideas (Peña, 1977; Sarah Whiting, 2012). Taken together, these definitions reveal the inherent complexity of design concepts and may serve a valuable starting point to foster more precise and inclusive engagement with the subject matter. Another important aspect to consider is that the intricacies of design concepts are not only reflected in how they are defined, but also in how they are identified within interior design projects.

That is (Not) a Design Concept

Perceptions of whether or not a design concept exists, or can be identified as such, are a matter of personal opinion. For example, a project that relies on an aesthetic style as its design concept—in the instance of “My concept is industrial” would be regarded as a design concept by some individuals, but not others (Badenduck, 2023). Such determinations, which may be voiced in phrases like “that is (not) a concept,” can easily lead to the promotion or dismissal of ideas without clearly articulated feedback nor critical engagement. While some may not believe that mimicking an aesthetic style (“industrial,” in this case) is a concept, in reference to the functions and definitions described above, it can still be utilized to guide decision-making, drive a project forward, or maintain a sense of cohesion. This example clearly illustrates the necessity for investigations into the underlying presumptions that inform individual determinations of what is or is not a concept. Based on the review of literature and analysis of primary data, findings suggest that such views are shaped by expectations about the balance between abstract or theoretical ideas and the practical application of them (Badenduck, 2023; Tait, 2018; van Dooren, 2020).

The differentiation between “ideas” and “actions” is far from novel within literature on creative practices. As written by LeWitt (1968) in Sentences on Conceptual Art: “The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter is the component. Ideas implement the concept” (p. 1). Rengel (2014) noted something similar in his text Shaping Interior Space in describing the necessity for design concepts to address the “design idea” and the “design strategy” (p. 267), making a clear distinction between the two. Brooker (2017) also identified “strategies” as aspects of a design process that are typically “realized through the deployment of tactics or devices” in his book Adaptation: Strategies for Interior Architecture and Design (p. 9). Even though the separation of “ideas” and “actions” (and synonymous terminology) is technically impossible, given that “thinking and acting are seen as two interconnected dimensions of human existence. . .” (Juelsbo et al., 2017, p. 160), the duality provides the constituent parts for an investigative framework to more deeply examine design concepts.

Depending on the designer, project, client, or instructor, concepts may be used in many different ways and exhibit varying degrees of influence over project work. For instance, if a designer is tasked with renovating a kitchen, they will likely not require an underlying philosophical approach to do so. However, if a student is developing a graduate thesis project aiming to “reinvent rituals of consumption within a residential interior,” a theoretical foundation may well be more along the lines of what is expected. In recognition of this variation, a framework outlining five categories, or “levels of influence” (Badenduck, 2023) captures the respective proportions between the “conceptual thinking” and “execution” aspects found within interior design projects (see Figure 1). Each level within this framework—Directed, Adaptive, Exploratory, Critical, and Speculative—offers a snapshot along a spectrum and examines how design concepts may be identified based on their influence over the design program, the integration of precedents, the predictability of outcomes, and at what point the perspective of a designer or team emerges (see Figure 2) (Badenduck, 2023).

Figure 1.

The “levels of influence” represent the theoretical balance between conceptual thinking and the execution of ideas within interior design projects.

Figure 2.

An examination of the ways in which design concepts can manifest and impact project work, depending on their “level of influence.”

The framework is organized based on the fluctuating balance between “conceptual ideas” and the “execution” of them, as they manifest creative project work. Lower-level concepts—including Level 1: Directed Concepts and Level 2: Adaptive Concepts—are representative of projects with a greater focus on the execution of ideas (which may include the selection of furniture and finishes, space planning, the creation of drawing packages, etc.) rather than the development of profoundly complex conceptual foundations. These concepts typically lead to pragmatic solutions that rely heavily (if not exclusively) on the integration of precedents from interior design and architecture and have relatively predictable outcomes as a result. Conversely, higher-level concepts—including Level 4: Critical Concepts and Level 5: Speculative Concepts—are illustrative of projects that are significantly influenced by conceptual ideas and may even rely on them exclusively—as seen in Speculative Concepts, which can exist purely as ideas, theories, or manifestos. Such concepts often involve the modification or invention of programmatic requirements, are influenced by precedents beyond the built environment, as well as the perspectives of the designer or team, and result in outcomes that may be unpredictable from the outset of a project (Badenduck, 2023).

Classifying design concepts based on this framework offers a way of more precisely understanding and engaging with them, but comes with the recognition that this will not always be a straightforward task. Some projects will contain multiple concepts that interact in fascinating but complicated ways, others will have parts that may fall across the spectrum of conceptual levels, and others still will be shaped by embodied practices in which thinking and making are inseparably connected. Nevertheless, regardless of the unavoidable messiness of identifying and classifying design concepts, it remains essential to acknowledge the diverse range of manifestations. The primary objective of this framework is thus to provide an alternative lens through which to view design concepts in the hope that it will serve as a starting point for reflection and conversation. Another facet worth addressing at this juncture, and one in need of further contemplation, is how concepts are integrated within the design process.

Conceptual Integration Within the Design Process

In interior design, “the design process” is an encompassing term used to describe the various ways designers work, and the phases they are recommended to progress through during each project. The widespread application of design process frameworks within interiors reflects the prevalent conviction that they serve as a valuable scaffold for creative development. Although these models hold an important place within design education, research suggests that they may not only support, but also limit creativity by failing to address the varied, individual nature of creative pursuits themselves (Cross, 2001; Goldschmidt, 2014; Jen, 2017; Juelsbo et al., 2017; Pressman, 2019). In interviews conducted with design educators and practitioners, many voiced apprehensions about the linear, prescriptive (Goldschmidt, 2014) traits of such frameworks, especially in regard to the development of design concepts.

Existing design process models typically demarcate a stage for conceptual thinking in the early phases of project development (Lola, 2020; RIBA, 2020; Taura & Nagai, 2013; van Dooren, 2020), most often immediately following a period of “problem analysis” (Nelson & Botella, 2017). The logic presumes that concepts generated during the early stages of a design are then fixedly utilized to guide the project to completion (Teal & Loo, 2018). While many designers appear to have some idea of their design concept from the early stages of a project, this may not always be the case. In reality, there is a complex interplay between conceptual development and the steps and stages of each individual or team’s design processes (Juelsbo et al., 2017; Pressman, 2019). Embracing this fact involves acknowledging and accepting that design concepts can—and indeed must be allowed to—emerge and evolve in myriad ways. Altering expectations about how design concepts should be integrated within design processes not only challenges individual ways of thinking but leads to questioning the impactful legacy of modernism on the education and practice of interior design.

Although humans have been problem solving and designing throughout history, the antecedents of what would ultimately be regarded as “the design process” emerged in the 1920s out of a modernist agenda to rationalize creative practices (Sadler-Smith, 2015). The modern movement, which spanned the late nineteenth to mid-20th centuries, witnessed an era shaped by many forces—global destabilization brought on by devastating world conflict, industrialization and mass production, the rise of capitalism, as well as an increased interest in science and technology (Hvattum & Hermansen, 2004). It was also an era that exalted views of “universality” informed by Western, Eurocentric perspectives. This paradigm resulted in the negation of cultures, histories, and traditions falling beyond the presumed “universal” and ultimately led to the “hegemony of modern knowledge [that] works to make invisible other knowledges and ways of being. . .” (Escobar, 2018, p. 88). Thus, as early models of creativity emerged (Wallas, 2014), an expansive range of diverse, generative practices were largely ignored and eventually supplanted by systematized “rational” and “universal” tactics. This was especially clear in the Design Methods movement of the 1960s, which evidenced the persistence of modernist values and gave rise to design process models that remain influential to this day (Huppatz, 2015; RIBA, 2020).

Reflecting upon this history and the many ways in which modernist attitudes pervade contemporary design culture is of vital importance for imagining alternative futures. The modernist agenda to “fix the whole of life into a logical framework” (Cross, 2001, p. 50) is carried forward in the utilization of rigid design processes and in tightly held beliefs that there are “correct” ways of realizing ideas and concepts. For more than half a century, the elusive, spontaneous, and intuitive qualities of creativity have been packaged into linear process models of a handful of stages (Nelson & Botella, 2017) that claim to provide helpful and efficient frameworks for design output. What is missing in these models, however, is the acknowledgement that creativity is, in many ways, “more about mess than methodology” (Juelsbo et al., 2017, p. 160) and that the inner workings of the minds of designers as they analyze problems, generate, evaluate, and communicate ideas (Nelson & Botella, 2017) will likely never be fully understood. Maintaining the belief that designers are expected to follow the same creative trajectory (as documented in course curricula or [legally mandated] professional design contracts) is detrimental to the discipline and especially so within areas where there will never be a single correct answer or approach, such as the integration of conceptual thinking.

Within interior design, a broad range of approaches are utilized in the generation of ideas, spaces, and experiences (van Dooren, 2020). This is part of what makes the discipline so varied and complex. As designers work through the challenging process of bringing ideas to fruition, their unique perspectives are channeled into creative practices, which are frequently fueled by the integration of design concepts (Suh & Cho, 2018; Travis, 2011). Individual understandings of what design concepts are, the level of influence they should exhibit within project work, and how they may be interwoven within the design process all have a direct impact on their deployment (Badenduck, 2023). In order to better understand the role of conceptual thinking within the education and practice of interior design, an expanded awareness of diverse viewpoints is needed. Research presented in this article has sought to highlight a variety of nuanced interpretations to encourage reflection and dialog about a topic of critical importance within the education and practice of interior design. It is hoped that this may lead to more precise communication, the building of shared understandings, and increasingly inclusive engagement that is representative of the complex and multifaceted nature of design concepts.