Resisting Colonization: Design History Has Its Own Identity

Design History and Design Studies Since its emergence as a distinct field of academic study in the 1970s, design history has been subject to considerable criticism from many quarters; whether at the hands of scholars working within the general framework of the discipline but seeking to redefine radically its goals and broaden its ambit1 or academics concerned with different academic fields, such as anthropology, who criticized trenchantly the limitations of the design historical work which they had encountered;2 as well as others who should have been well-placed to review the position of design history as a legitimate area of pedagogy, research and publication.3 Victor Margolin4 falls into this latter category, particularly with regard to his 1992 article "Design Hstory or Design Studies: Subject Matter and Methods."5 The reason why I wish to draw particular attention to this text is that it misrepresents the academic health and identity of design history (at least in Britain), understates the increasing opportunities for specialist design historical study at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and largely overlooks the growing body of valuable research, exhibition and publication work in the field.6 Secondly, since it seeks to colonize design history under the imperial umbrella of design stud-