Responsible stakeholder engagement in design education: A gobal survey of design programs

Design education increasingly recognizes responsible stakeholder engagement yet lacks clarity on what to teach and how. Applying stakeholder theory, we define Responsible Stakeholder Engagement Competences (RSEC) and its dimensions (Balancing Perspectives, Negotiating Power Relations, and Managing Resources Responsibly), and map how programs teach them. A global survey of design programs (N = 167) measured teaching focus toward four stakeholder groups (users/clients, inter- and intraorganizational, social/cultural, planet) and modeled associations with RSEC using Structural Equation Modeling while controlling for institutional/program factors. We find programs emphasizing inter- and intraorganizational stakeholders report higher RSEC, with strongest gains in Managing Resources Responsibly and Negotiating Power Relations; attention to social/cultural stakeholders shows benefits for Balancing Perspectives. User/client and planetary focus were not significant predictors of RSEC. Program types display distinct stakeholder teaching profiles, and some institutional factors (e.g., degree level) matter. We argue for deliberate, program-level prioritization of organizational stakeholder engagement to build RSEC across design fields.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Designing
Published
2026-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/30497671261446383
Primary Topic
Sustainability in Higher Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Responsible stakeholder engagement in design education: A gobal survey of design programs

Peter Gall Krogh, Linda Nhu Laursen, Kasper Merling Arendt, Luke Feast et al.
Designing
Sustainability in Higher Education
article

Responsible stakeholder engagement in design education: A gobal survey of design programs

Peter Gall Krogh, Linda Nhu Laursen, Kasper Merling Arendt, Luke Feast, Colin Gray, Bo T. Christensen, Kasper Tang Vangkilde
article en

Abstract

Design education increasingly recognizes responsible stakeholder engagement yet lacks clarity on what to teach and how. Applying stakeholder theory, we define Responsible Stakeholder Engagement Competences (RSEC) and its dimensions (Balancing Perspectives, Negotiating Power Relations, and Managing Resources Responsibly), and map how programs teach them. A global survey of design programs (N = 167) measured teaching focus toward four stakeholder groups (users/clients, inter- and intraorganizational, social/cultural, planet) and modeled associations with RSEC using Structural Equation Modeling while controlling for institutional/program factors. We find programs emphasizing inter- and intraorganizational stakeholders report higher RSEC, with strongest gains in Managing Resources Responsibly and Negotiating Power Relations; attention to social/cultural stakeholders shows benefits for Balancing Perspectives. User/client and planetary focus were not significant predictors of RSEC. Program types display distinct stakeholder teaching profiles, and some institutional factors (e.g., degree level) matter. We argue for deliberate, program-level prioritization of organizational stakeholder engagement to build RSEC across design fields.

Designing
Copenhagen Business School (DK), Aarhus University (DK), VIVE - The Danish Center for Social Science Research (DK), Indiana University (US), Aalborg University (DK)
Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Sustainability in Higher Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.