An Incomplete List of P-Words for Project-Based Pursuits, 2026–Present

contents

I. An Introduction to An Incomplete List of P-Words for Project-Based Pursuits

P-word sections

  1. Purpose
  2. Process
  3. Prototyping
  4. Play
  5. Perceptuality
  6. Prompts
  7. Parameters
  8. Personality
  9. Pattern
  10. Philosophy
  11. People

See Also: An Illustrative Introduction to a Curious Compendium of Incomplete Lists for Productive Practice

—

An Introduction to An Incomplete List of P-Words for Project-Based Pursuits

The word project has fascinating meanings and origins. As a noun, a project may refer to anything ranging from a simple task to a multi-year, 1,000-person effort. This alone makes project a big-tent term. A brief etymological exploration of the the word project reveals that the term was once commonly used to denote the physical act of throwing. This lineage remains evident in present day terms such as projector, projecting, and projectile. “Project” was derived from the Latin verb proicere (or projicere), which the product of two linguistic parts: 1) pro: meaning “forward” or “forth,” and 2) jacere: meaning “to throw.”1 Thus, we might contend that the term project’s ancient ancestor meant “to throw forward.” ¶ Alas, starting in the late 1800s, alongside the rise of the second industrial revolution,2 notions of a project, or that which is “project-based,” began to take on a curious trajectory at the intersections of education, industry, craft, creativity, and more. One of the earliest, most arduous, and most fascinating figures in relation to that which is project-based was John Dewey3 (1859–1952). Dewey was a highly influential American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer and is widely considered one of the most prominent public intellectuals of the first half of the 20th century. ¶ Before we briefly explore Dewey’s contribution to our understanding of projects, let’s further frame the vast scope of what a project may encompass today. Later, we will further define the term and its bounds as explored here. As readers are aware, a “project” may encompass everything from painting a wall in your home to group community-based improvement efforts to “hands-on” learning opportunities. But the scale of a project can go much further—from an aeronautics engineering team launch plan to a stadium that accommodates 100,000 fans. As we will see, one-off tasks and multiple-step projects exist on a spectrum, but the two are hierarchically interconnected. ¶ As was noted earlier, Dewey was an early proponent of project-based learning, or, as is often described another way, “learning by doing.” In the context of project-based learning, one of the most common references to Dewey is his 1897 essay titled “My Pedagogic Creed.”4 Dewey’s creed followed a five-part structure that explored the nature of education, the role of the school, subject matter, teaching methods, and the school’s potential connection to matters of social reform. Dewey argued against rote learning, advocating instead for an experience-based curriculum that prepares students with the skills, tools, and sensibilities for their lives, communities, and careers. Over the years, Dewey’s project-based views have expanded into a multitude of varieties, forms, and flavors. These include problem-based learning, active learning, challenge-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and more. ¶ While project-based learning may seem like a no-brainer to some, there are additional perspectives to consider. The most pressing of these, in this list-maker’s view, centers on notions of reflection and contemplation. Said more plainly, if we are focused on project-based doing, what time or space is being made to reflect on those activities, their merit, or intent? Alas, philosophers, scholars, and theorists have long explored these tensions. One of the more recent and prominent of these explorations was led by Donald Schön5 (1930–1997). Schön is best known for developing the concept of “reflective practice.”6 ¶ As we build upon some of the doing-oriented themes explored in An Incomplete List of D-Words for Designerly Domains, the use of “project-based pursuits” in the title of this section intentionally casts a wide net around all things project-based. Here, this list maker will clumsily define and constrain a project as it is explored here. To do so, I will encapsulate it within three basic parameters by suggesting that a project is: 1) an effort, idea, activity, or goal that 2) requires two or more steps, participants, or both, that 3) may be constrained by a “temporal division of work.”7 With this description in mind, let’s now revisit the aforementioned task-project spectrum. This two-part definition may be fruitful in discerning the subtle differences between these terms. A task may be a one-off isolated chore, whereas a project is plural and systematic in nature. ¶ As we will see, projects and tasks are very much connected to, but also distinct from, designing and “design.” In our design section, we referred to Jones’ change-oriented definition as a reference point. Before we progress further, let’s briefly explore some subtle differences between projects and design. Designing is certainly an activity and usually requires more than one step, but if we adhere to Jones’ framing, design is generally change-oriented. This suggests that design is more limited in scope than projects. Said another way, a project may or may not have a change-oriented goal. For instance, a maintenance, repair, or feasibility project may or may not result in substantial change. ¶ While it may be obvious, it is worth noting that some are better at and more inclined to lead and direct, manage, or produce projects. Not surprisingly, in business, those whose role it is to manage a project often hold the title “project manager.” According to the Project Management Institute, project managers are “organized, goal-oriented professionals who use innovation, creativity, and collaboration to lead projects that make an impact.”8 While some might loathe a project manager for their nagging, when it comes to complex projects, what they offer is invaluable. As with project managers in business, other disciplines use different terms to convey similar project and people-organizing goals and objectives. In the world of film, entertainment, and media, these highly organized individuals who help plan and coordinate projects are typically titled producer(s).9 ¶ Projects exist on a vast range of scales—from the personal to the professional and beyond. As many small business owners will attest, out of necessity, the aforementioned “nagging project manager” may, in that case, be yourself. As such, like design, projects, and our understanding of them are vital. As we posit projects outside of business, we might conclude that writing an essay is a project, running for office is a project, and cleaning your room (likely the least exciting of projects) is a project. In An Illustrative Introduction to a Curious Compendium of Incomplete Lists for Productive Practice, this list-maker cites designer Bruce Mau’s use of the term “context projects.” This wonderful hybrid frame suggests that projects can, and often are, informed by and framed within notions of context. Without getting academic, we might just posit context as the things that surround or inform the thing, the thing in this case being the project or the outcome of the project. We will touch on projects and things later in this introduction. For now, let’s just note that understanding context in the context of projects is essential because projects (or problems) rarely exist in a vacuum. Alas, claims of things that inform things may sound like a bunch of “fluff.” Thus, let’s briefly break apart the value and intent of such discourse.

The Oddity of Objects, subjects and Things

Without delving too deeply into philosophy, when using a term as big and vast as project, we might assume that any description of a possible outcome of a project would likewise be varied or vast: things, if you will. “Things” in this case might serve as a catch-all for both physical and abstract entities. As we parse things, to thicken the soup, let’s now ponder the term “object” into the mix. It might be said that all objects are things, but not all things are objects. This bit of linguistic trickiness stems from a longstanding philosophical relationship or “polarity” between objects and subjects.10 Traditionally, in philosophy, the subject was understood to represent “the observer” and the object as “the observed.” While this seems straightforward enough, as we will see, things get strangely complex. ¶ As noted above, in philosophy, the subject is the observer and the object is the thing observed—but let’s now imagine a student walking into a psychology lab to take a memory test; in this case, they are considered the subject, not the object. This somewhat strange occurrence or “historical flip” is the product of what scholars call a linguistic inversion11—where a single word evolves to mean its own exact opposite: in his case, the meaning of the term subject, depends on whether you are standing in a philosophy hall or a psychology lab. In each space, the word means the complete opposite. Of course, this creates a paradox around the term “object,” which in philosophy meant a physical object, and then in science came to mean the conscious observing human mind. ¶ As we explore varios notions and projects, this brief diversion into epistemology and linguistics is worth noting in that the intended outcome of a project, especially for design-oriented projects, may be a physical object. This list maker is most certainly not the first to stumble upon this strange jumble of meanings that seem to shift across disciplines and contexts. A recent example might be an anthology titled Encountering Things: Design and Theories of Things. In the Introduction to Encountering Things, the editors, Leslie Atzmon and Prasad Boradkar, indirectly touch on the aforementioned issues. As the editors note: “Since the Enlightenment, in the West we have tended to divide the world ideologically along material and non-material lines. Western culture has positioned objects: things and bodies—or material entities—as both inferior to and in service to subjects: words, ideas, and the mind—or non-material entities in a object-subject polarity.”12 The editors note that with “the material turn”13 theorists no longer viewed objects as secondary to subjects.14 ¶ Complicating this discourse further is the fact that many designers are now designing “things” that are not objects in the traditional physical sense. Some examples include interaction design, experience design, and more. Designing an experience, for instance, may or may not require a real physical component. ¶ With all this in mind, let’s build upon our working definition of a project by adding a third clarifier: 1) an effort, idea, activity, or goal that 2) requires two or more steps, participants, or both, 3) with the goal of developing or exploring an entity, subject, object, or thing.

Be a Purveyor of Projects

As we engage in projects of various types and scales, this exploratory literature review aims to bring special attention to the concept of projects at their nebulously interconnected intersections. Across the p-words that follow, we will parse these project-based intersections, how they are enacted, communicated, and shared. Another goal will be to address some project-oriented pitfalls, paradoxes, and myths. ¶ As we posit projects, at this juncture, this list-maker should briefly bring to light a series of “gaps” that commonly surface across and within projects and practice. Firstly, and somewhat connected to the aforementioned notions of reflective practice, in academia and industry alike, there exists what some theorists call the praxis gap, which might be described as the disconnect between theory and practice. While this may seem unnecessarily academic at first, an understanding of this issue at this juncture is prudent. To better understand it, we need to take stock of the drivers that inform this gap. First, let’s briefly consider the traditional reward systems that surround practitioners and professionals. ¶ In the professional world, projects are often measured and judged by their outputs and outcomes. Depending on the market, those outputs might be measured by financial value, brand value, or other indicators of success, satisfaction, or improvement. Traditionally, the academy was the opposite: outputs were measured and valued in more scholarly and intellectual terms: citations, publications, lectures and other forms of recognition. The arts add even more complexity to this discourse as artistic “projects” may be neither market-oriented nor scholarly in the textual sense. ¶ In light of this fragmentation, in academia, several activity-oriented terms have emerged at these intersections of thinking and doing. For instance, those whose work tends to be project-based, issue-based, or community-based is sometimes described as “engaged.”15 Along these lines, in the social sciences, research that is project-based and also engaged is sometimes referred to as “action research.”16 In the sciences, those pursuing scholarship, projects, or research that is generally viewed as more directly “practical” or “beneficial” are sometimes described as pursuing translational17 research. While these terms may seem academic or esoteric, as we parse notions of projects, such terms firstly provide us with some artiture, and secondly are worth pondering—from the professor, to the plumber, to the pulmonologist—understanding the vast nature of projects, and thus exploring the timeless tensions and relationships between knowing and doing, is worthy of our time, study, and consideration. ¶ Similar to the praxis gap, as readers will likely recall from An Incomplete List of D-Words for Designerly Domains, is the somewhat related notion described as the “Knowing Doing Gap.” Unlike the praxis gap, this second gap often describes the disconnect between possessing knowledge and actually executing it. These project-oriented “gaps” serve to remind us of the potential pitfalls that surface across projects of varying scales and disciplines.¶ One productive way to parse some of these introductory themes is to briefly consider the work of the American educator Ernest L. Boyer18 (1928–1995). Boyer’s contributions are worth noting in the context of projects, as his teaching, leadership, and advocacy might help students assert, navigate, and understand these action-theory-oriented relationships in a more nuanced fashion. In 1990, Boyer published his landmark book, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. In the book, Boyer’s introduced four flavors, or “dimensions” of scholarship: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application (or engagement), and the scholarship of teaching and learning.19 As we traversed our c-words and d-words, we previously encountered several of Boyer’s dimensions. Discovery, for instance, was one of our d-words. ¶ Within and outside of academia, Boyer’s dimensions of scholarship are noted here, such that students might thoughtfully posit the big-tent variety and various flavors of projects: from art projects to research projects, classroom projects to community-engaged projects, corporate projects to craft projects, and more. With hope that such discourse might potentially elevate your particular practice, this list maker will once again contend that understanding project-based perspectives is worthy of study, time, and attention.

P-Words

  1. Purpose: For reasons unknown, some view projects, especially creative projects and pursuits, with a misaligned sense that these peculiar practitioners are simply following their internal “passion.” In this list-maker’s observation, this is rarely the case. As I’ve gotten to know and work with artists, scientists, scholars, engineers, business leaders, and others interested in project-based practices, they more often cite “purpose” as a broader driver than passion. Purpose may inform an intrinsic or extrinsic desire to do something because it matters. It’s extrinsic because it involves other people and intrinsic because the drive is informed by your internal passion. What drives this purpose may vary widely from the pragmatic to the personal. Those who are purpose-driven may not be passionate about what they do, and those who are passionate may or may not have a purpose. ¶ Along these lines, projects may be commenced for a variety of reasons. They can be for oneself, for others, or both. In a section of the 1969 book Meaning in Architecture titled “Semiology and Architecture,” Charles Jencks20 (1939–2019) notes that “man has certain inborn dispositions to expect recurrent patterns, or to be more exact, he is always asking the environment questions. It is this curious purposeful [emphasis added] side, which completely permeates his nature…..”21 While much can be subjectively gleaned or interpreted from this quote, the reason for its inclusion here rests with Jencks’ pairing of the curious to the purposeful—which seems apt as we posit big-tent notions projects. As Jencks suggests, humans always seem to be asking questions, and one can only assume that Jencks (a cultural theorist, landscape designer, and architectural historian) understood that projects are one way that humans answer questions. ¶ On the more pragmatic and systematic side of a project and purpose, we encounter a vast range of roles, methods, products, and approaches that attempt to “manage” projects, or said another way, to ideally maintain a focus on the goals, budgets, timing, and purpose of projects. In the world of media, film, design, and entertainment, those who manage projects often take on the title producer, while in the worlds of business, architecture, and other fields, those who help steer and manage projects (no surprises here) often have the title project manager. ¶ In the world of business, Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez seems to have zeroed in on the importance of projects. Nieto-Rodriguez has written numerous books22 and articles that explore projects and project management in depth. In the context of purpose, in 2021, Nieto-Rodriguez published an article in Harvard Business Review titled “Does Your Project Have a Purpose?”23 In the article, Nieto-Rodriguez recounts a well-known story from the world of architecture, which is likewise summarized here. ¶ In 1957, the Danish architect Jørn Utzon submitted a proposal for a large-scale performance space in Australia. Out of 230 submissions from over 30 countries, Utzon’s proposal was selected for having the “most original and creative solution.”24 As Nieto-Rodriguez notes in his article, “In the end, the project was delayed a decade—it took 14 years to complete—and it exceeded its budget by 1,300%. The state lottery paid for much of the $95 million cost overrun, diverting money from other public expenditures.”25 Provocatively, Nieto-Rodriguez then asks readers if such a project might be considered a “complete disaster.” If you have not already guessed, the project described is the now internationally known and culturally iconic Sydney Opera House. By recounting the story, Nieto-Rodriguez attempts to put his readers in a position to question purpose, value, success, risk, failure, and more—all in the context of a single architectural project. Nieto-Rodriguez then cites data suggesting that purpose-driven companies outperform others in categories such as innovation and transformation.26 This list maker will only add that one can have a vision with no real purpose, but a purpose can most certainly fuel a vision. ¶ In summary, as we posit projects, paying particular attention to purpose can be paramount. From the scientific to the humanistic and everything in between, a purpose can vary widely. Beyond this, those who can understand and articulate this purpose, its meaning, value, and substance are typically well-equipped to lead. Those who can manage projects likewise possess valuable team-oriented, humanistic skills. And while a completed project always seems like the most fruitful outcome, as many will attest, the process is sometimes just as valuable as the final product.

  2. Process: Not to unnecessarily digress into art school nostalgia, this list maker recalls a pervasive, nearly unspoken rule from his time in art school. It seemed that every studio professor I encountered insisted on it and wanted to see concrete evidence of it alongside nearly any project. This rule was to document your process. ¶ For this list maker, this insistence on documenting process at first seemed quite odd. At the time, I remember thinking, “Gosh. I did all this work to make this thing—and all my professor wants to see and talk about is this file folder full of photos, sketches, and photocopies.” ¶ Looking back on it, this emphasis, if not insistence, on process very much made sense—especially in the world of projects and ideas. ¶ In what may have been a dream, I recall a classmate raising their hand and asking an instructor, “What is the process for developing a process?” In response, the art school instructor responds, “You need to find your process.” Then, the student, half-embarrassedly asks, “But where does one start?” ¶ As we seek answers to this timeless process-oriented question, we will first turn to the American novelist and nonfiction writer Anne Lamott.27 Lamott’s father, Kenneth Lamott28 was also a writer, and it was in fact her account of her father’s wisdom on the subject at hand that she is perhaps best known. This bit of process-oriented wisdom can be found in Lamott’s 1994 book Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. In Lamott’s best-selling book, she recalls her then ten-year-old brother attempting to write a report on birds. Overwhelmed and behind schedule, her father saddled up next to him and offered this advice: “Bird by bird, buddy. Just take it bird by bird.”29 ¶ As a seasoned writer, Lamott’s father states what may seem obvious: once you get something written, it can be edited, added to, expanded upon, refined, altered, and more. In other words, just get started. In the world of writing, we often call this a draft, but in nearly every discipline and domain, there’s an analog, be it a sketch, model, experiment, rehearsal, and so on. No matter the project, problem, or goal at hand, Lamott’s bird-by-bird advice seems to have resonated with a generation of writers and makers of all kinds. ¶ As we ponder big tent notions of process in project-based work, a paradox of sorts emerges. While process adds structure to our work, that structure can occasionally provide the creative with freedom to explore. This may seem odd, as in popular culture, creativity is often associated with wild, chaotic, or bohemian notions of the artist. Along these lines, design educator Lefteris Heretakis once noted that, “A structured process may initially seem counterintuitive to the free-spirited nature of creativity. Many people associate creativity with freedom, exploration, and breaking the rules. However, in design, there is profound freedom in structure. A process provides a reliable pathway for creativity to flow, offering the scaffolding on which ideas can be built, tested, and refined.”30 ¶ With Heretakis’ notes structure and process in mind, let’s recall the aforementioned process-oriented culture of the art school. When the instructor wanted to see sketches, she actually wanted to see “where students have been” and “what they were looking at.” It should be noted that the terms “method” and “process” are closely related yet differ significantly, especially across contexts.31 The scientific method32 for instance, is generally based on empirical steps and collections of evidence in pursuit of a conclusion. The creative process is generally viewed as a “journey” in which the destination may or may not be known. Some “projects”—especially design-oriented ones may utilize both of these approaches. ¶ Since this p-word list set out to introduce broad concepts around project-based practices, notions of process naturally lead us to a timeless term that helps creatives of a wide variety advance ideas in an advanced “bird by bird” manner, such that feedback, iteration, testing, comparison, and other factors can be considered and potentially incorporated or removed. That term is prototyping.

  3. Prototyping: If we break the term “prototype” down into its two etymological parts, we get prōtos, meaning “first” or “earliest,” and typos, meaning “impression,” “mold,” or “model.” Interestingly, it appears that the term “prototype” was not widely in verb form until the early to mid-19th century. As is noted below, there is plenty that has been written about prototyping, especially in the context of architecture, innovation, engineering, and design. But alas, by returning to the term’s roots, we can ponder its essence: unlike a mockup, presentation, or sketch, a prototype is often one step closer to reality—one that actively seeks feedback through testing, validation, or demonstration. Prototypes can range in material, functionality, and scale, with these factors also informing the “fidelity”33 of the prototype. For instance, a low-fidelity prototype of a vehicle may be rendered by hand in clay at 1/8 scale, while a high-fidelity prototype may be full scale and perhaps even drivable. High-fidelity prototypes may also possess near-final aesthetic choices in color or materials. ¶ As noted above, prototyping has long been viewed as a central facet of project-based approaches. Entries and perspectives on prototyping can be found in Bella Martin and Bruce Harrington’s Universal Methods of Design,34 Lidwell et al.’s Universal Principles of Design,35 and Gjoko Muratovski’s Research for Designers,36 and more. For educators, practitioners, and students alike, the “Prototyping” section 3637 in Jones et al.’s open-access volume, Studio Properties, is both informative, well-researched, and concise. Within the Prototyping section of Studio Properties, the authors note that “Prototyping is a way of gaining knowledge through making.”38 Even a glance at the authors’ subheads alone helps one formulate a sense of the interest and value that prototyping offers. For instance, the second headline reads, “Prototyping focuses on aspects of a design, not the whole.”39 All one needs to do is walk into nearly any respectable architecture or design studio to see prototypes on display. In many cases, teams of designers may develop dozens or even hundreds of prototypes, each parsing one particular aspect of a larger project or problem from varied perspectives. ¶ Lastly, the authors of Studio Properties note that “Prototyping creates knowledge that is both contingent and explicit.”40 With this statement in mind, we might think back to our d-word section on “Discursivity”—in particular, how artifacts as things can also serve as springboards for discussion, analysis, speculation, and more. Also, regarding this latter point, prototyping often demands a sensibility we were all familiar with as children, but one that is all too often lost. Somewhere between prototyping and discovery, we find the very human notion of play.

  4. Play: Akin to prototyping, much has been written about play in the context of project-based and studio practices. It’s not at all surprising then to find that Jones et al. precede their section on prototyping with a scholarly exploration of play.41 Rather than recount that section here, this list maker will emphasize the intersection of learning, projects, and play. Scholarly explorations of play have a rich and fascinating history. From Friedrich Fröbel42 (1782–1852) to Caroline Pratt43 (1867–1954) to Jean Piaget44 (1896–1980), Lev Vygotsky45 (1896–1934), and many more—theorists, psychologists, and educators have researched and written extensively about the critical role of play in making, learning, and more. Several of these figures have argued that play is a primary vehicle through which children construct knowledge, develop social-emotional skills, and build a lifelong love of learning. ¶ One recent figure who seems to have embraced this play-oriented lifelong love of learning is MIT’s Mitchel Resnick.46 In 1992, Resnick formed a research lab aptly called the Lifelong Kindergarten group.47 Resnick’s group examines how technology can help people of all ages learn through creative expression ¶ In 2017, Resnick’s book Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play was released. In the book, Resnick draws upon his many years of teaching and research to explore modes of learning at the intersection of several p-words. In fact, four out of the six chapters are p-word themed. In order, the p-words are: projects, passion, peers, and (you guessed it) play. To help frame his argument, in Chapter 1, titled “Creative Learning,” Resnick states what remains ever true nearly ten years later—that we seem to be in a period of rapid change thanks to “a constant flow of new technologies, new sources of information, and new communication channels.”48 In response, Resnick suggests that “For people to flourish in this rapidly changing landscape, the ability to think and act creatively is more important than ever.”49 ¶ Resnick explores these ideas through the aforementioned p-words, but especially through the lens of play. Resnick’s exploration of play connect across several themes we’ve explored, from prototyping to discovery to experimentation and more. To be clear, Resnick’s lab is not a narrow investigation of toys and games. Instead, Resnick seems to leverage play-oriented behaviors and processes towards learning—be that through toys, games, pedagogy, and more. One well-known project that grew out of Resnick’s group is a highly interactive visual programming language called Scratch.50 Scratch makes learning to code more akin to a puzzle than a problem. Through projects like Scratch, Resnick shows how play-based notions of tinkering, calculated risk, boundary testing, and more can be incorporated into products, projects, classrooms, curricula, and more. ¶ Many years before Resnick, in the 1840s, Friedrich Fröbel, who is briefly mentioned at the outset of this section, designed a series of educational toys now commonly called Froebel gifts.51 Like Resnick, Froebel was an educator and inventor. Froebel’s toys consist of a structured sequence of geometric materials designed to help children internalize interconnected notions of logic, math, perception, and the physical world through self-directed play. These gifts are said to have been used in childhood by several prominent architects, including Frank Lloyd Wright. ¶ Like film directors of the physical world, architects are masters of human perception. By this, one might say that architects and other designers are concerned not only with how a space performs but also with how those who occupy it might perceive it, or how they might feel in a particular space or place. This fuzzy skill might be described as perceptuality.

  5. Perceptuality: As part of this literature review, this list maker naively sought out the term perceptuality. This search largely yielded what we might expect, perceptuality defined as “the quality of being perceptual”—but, at the time of this writing, not much more. Thankfully, there is well-established research and language around the notion of perceptual learning.52 Even so, in “bird-by-bird” fashion, this list maker kept asking: why insist on this particular variation of word perception within this particular list concerning projects? ¶ For many years, this list maker (who happens to be a graphic designer) would, in fact, encounter the word “perceptual” on a nearly daily basis. As many a graphic designer will attest, the term “perceptual” often appears as an option in graphic design software, especially when dealing with color in printing, exporting, or saving images. According to Adobe, a perceptual option, “Delivers colors that are natural for human eyes.”53 Perceptions, as we are all aware, come in a variety of flavors that are shaped by the human senses. ¶ By delving into notions of perception, this entry could more easily devolve into long-standing debates and discourses between rationalism and empiricism.54 Likewise, by adding “ity” to perceptual, scholars could infer a connection to scholarly notions of textuality55 or visuality. In fact, what is being explored here is much more project-focused and pedestrian. ¶ In his use of the term “pedestrian,” this list-maker is attempting to be clever. By this, we might infer that, in our use of “perceptuality,” it denotes the metaphorical concept of taking perception “for a walk.” As it turns out, one of the most productive ways to take notions of perception for a walk is through a project. Before I provide a more concrete example, let’s briefly note another designer’s more specific use of taking an idea for a walk. ¶ Paul Klee (1879–1940) was a Swiss-born German artist who taught at the legendary Bauhaus. In 1953, an English translation of his book Pedagogical Sketchbook was first published. The Pedagogical Sketchbook was originally published in 1925 as part of a series published by the Bauhaus school. Klee’s book outlines several theories of art and design, with a particular focus on the fundamental elements of line, form, and color, drawing on scientific, mathematical, and intuitive concepts. In the first of dozens of black and white figures that appear in the book, Klee attempts to show, “An active line on a walk, moving freely, without goal.”56 The English-translated edition of Pedagogical Sketchbook includes a concluding note, written by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy57 (who translated the book). Moholy-Nagy’s note includes the following text: “There are endless phenomena all around us on which to aim Klee’s ideas like a searchlight. The ‘line on a walk’ can produce new rhythmic curves. Any surface offers itself for definition through line-connected points.”58 Alas, like a line between two points, perceptuality identifies possible points (these being perceptions and perspectives)—and then lines of connection. Perceptuality then suggests a sensitivity towards connection. ¶ While there are countless project-based examples of perceptuality—a classic example of perceptual thinking might be Josef Albers’59 (1888–1976) series of paintings titled Homage to the Square.60 As it turns out, Alberts was a close collaborator of Klee. While Klee returned to Switzerland, Alberts went on to become one of the most influential 20th-century art teachers in the United States. The Homage to the Square series explored the perceptual relationships of color, and Albers’s work exemplifies this idea to an extreme. To accomplish this, Albers meticulously painted nested squares in various colors, knowing that the perceptual “interaction”61 between the colors would be relative (not absolute). ¶ With perceptuality in mind, what materials, ideas, or perspectives will you imagine, plot, or connect? While this list maker is resistant to jumping into the fray of discourse around AI, in the context of perceptuality, it may be worth noting a list of ten predictions by Neil Leach in the second edition (2025) of his book Architecture in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. While this list maker will not list all ten predictions, he will, with some caution, include just the last two. Leach suggests that, by the end of the decade, it will be “technically possible—although not perhaps implemented universally” to (#10) “design a building completely autonomously.”62 Prededing this on the list appears to be a cautionary note from Leach, which states, (#9) “The architecture profession will be disrupted.”63 ¶ By recounting Leach’s predictions here, one might further ponder or elevate humanistic qualities of perceptuality—in architecture, perhaps, but in many fields that require such understandings. ¶ Before moving on, and thinking back to Klee, in the business world, the metaphorical “connective points” of projects alluded to in this section are sometimes presented to us as particular problems, with such problems often articulated in a prospectus, a deck (presentation deck), or a brief. In the creative world, such ideas may similarly be framed within a proposal, script, or even the dreaded work order. But in an educational setting, where the risk of project failure is lowered, these creative kickstarters are often catalyzed as prompts.

  6. Prompts: “Begin anywhere and follow the flow.”64 That’s in part what Stephen Nachmanovitch suggests at the outset of the “Twists and Turns” section in his 2019 book The Art of Is: Improvising as a Way of Life. Nachmanovitch expands upon this advice by providing readers with guidance and assurance around the creative principle of free association.65 Much like in everyday conversation, where one thing so easily leads to the next, Nachmanovitch explains how notions of artistic improvisation apply to everyday living. While Nachmanovitch66 (an improvisational violinist and teacher) makes this improvisational attitude sound somewhat intuitive, as many creative educators can attest, telling students to “begin anywhere” often falls embarrassingly flat. Moreover, it may result in blank stares or glares. Thus, for what seems like ages, creative educators and leaders alike have devised strategies to get things moving in the right direction. The devices have traditionally been called prompts (or “project prompts”) ¶ There are endless examples and varieties of creative prompts, but for our p-word purposes, let’s return to Anne Lamott. At some point, Lamott began giving writing workshops, and in her book, she recounts how students’ day-one enthusiasm quickly fades as the challenge of writing something actually worth reading mounts. As Lamott recounts, eventually one or more students crack and state what many a creative educator has heard countless times: “I don’t even know where to start.”67 ¶ Here is where the art of the prompt comes into play. Lamott provides her writing students with some prompt-like threads: for new writers, she suggests starting with childhood and then guides students through a series of more detailed, specific questions to spark memories, connections, and more. ¶ Those who work on project-based anything know just how important prompts are in shaping, framing, guiding, and informing a wide variety of work. It is somewhat odd, then, that with AI and other technologies on the rise, the notion of prompting has taken on a whole new dimension. ¶ Along these lines, in some strange way, the creative educator of the future may need to let students “behind the curtain” in the sense that they, too, will need to understand the art of the prompt. Just as this list is being penned, a whole host of papers and courses on “prompt engineering” seem to be on the rise—various practices of and for designing inputs for technology-based tools. What’s even more bizarre, at least for designers, is that we have long used the term “table” as a metaphor for those (stakeholders) who contribute to a design. Without digressing too far into speculation, it would seem that the notion of those table-based conversations about the design may, over time, become the actual design process. ¶ As we ponder the prompt, this list maker might bring to light an emerging trend in the culinary arts. It hsoudl be noted that, in a time when chefs have access to a vast array of ingredients from all around the world, and with many of those raw ingredients vailable at faster speeds and at lower cost—some chefs seem to be heading into “zag” mode: decidedly sourcing ingredients that are locally produced, avialble only in season, or even growing herbs, fruits, and vegetables themselves. If you look closer, you will discover 21st-century chefs and restaurateurs building strategic local and global relationships with select farmers, fisheries, and other suppliers and partners. ¶ Now let’s circle back to projects and prompts. The chef’s zag-like self-imposed constraints can be viewed as prompts. What can be made with only x, y, and z? ¶ Here I must note the brilliance of some of the prompts I encountered in graduate school. One was simply “you are here.” The constraint, then, is framed by these three very open-ended words in the context of dynamic media (in my case). A second, which was brilliant in its symbolism, was a piece of thread. Each student was given a few inches of thread and was told to generate media concepts around it. ¶ More than ever, we are globally interconnected—goods, materials, and information seem to move across time and place at ever-accelerating rates, at lower cost and with greater efficiency. One way to parse this ever-present deluge of information, material, and complexity is to break it down into smaller, more manageable chunks.68 Those chunks can represent content, materials, tasks, and more. Yet as we ponder projects, one chunking-like p-word in particular is worth pondering: parameters.

  7. Parameters: Projects, big and small, usually have some sort of parameters. While definitions vary, parameters are factors that inform, shape, or limit a project, process, or function. Parameters inform projects in similar ways to contexts, but are generally more quantifiable. Parameters have long served as a foundational pillar in architecture, design, music, art, computational engineering, systems design, and more. In music composition, a time signature or tempo are but two easily understood parameters. ¶ Setting or understanding parameters establishes a functional limitation on a project. Access to this information at the outset of any given project is invaluable. In part, this is because a shared understanding of parameters helps creatives and teams of creatives maintain a consistent view of limitations, constraints, and opportunities. ¶ As is indicated above, the term parameters spans disciplines and domains. That said, some practitioners, especially architects and engineers, have leaned into the term in ways that have directly shaped projects and discourses alike. In architecture, one prominent voice around these discourses is Patrik Schumacher.69 In fact, Schumacher, a German architect, is said to have coined the term parametricism, a term used to describe parametric architecture70 and parametric design.71 While definitions vary, these varied uses of “parametric” may account for varied inputs and outputs affecting a design. Schumacher seemed to be on the avant-garde of all things parametric—using various technologies and approaches to manipulate those inputs and outputs to shape or inform form and content. ¶ As readers may recall, in the d-word section on data, we recounted the 41 Shades of Blue saga, which helped frame various discourses around data-driven design. Such discourses also emerge at the intersection of parametric approaches, technologies, and design. For instance, in a recent article published by Dezeen, Catherine Slessor gives all things parametric a particularly pointed critique. As Slessor states, “Ceding control to the algorithm, parametricism is even more disconnected, a reductivist, technophile triumph of fetishised process over outcome. Perhaps it will quietly atrophy, as decon did, and be superseded by the next big thing.”72 ¶ While this brief diversion into design discourse risks readers towards a discursive ditch, students might ponder the dialogic factors such as efficiency versus homogeneity, computation versus craft, evidence versus intuition. The fact that parameters and the parametric can spark so much debate in architecture tells us one thing for sure: more of us should meaningfully engage in such discourse. ¶ Like so many subjects that have succumbed to specialization, texts and discourses relating to parameters are generally discipline-specific, but there are also some broad principles that apply to many fields. One example is the Pareto principle73 (more commonly referred to as the 80:20 rule). This principle describes a phenomenon many have tacitly observed: that a generally small percentage of factors or variables (~20) result in, or are responsible for, most of the behaviors or outcomes (~80). For example, this list-maker is using a word processor to type these notes. Generally, in the process of composing and editing this text, this list maker uses only a fraction (~20%) of the tools most of the time (~80%). While this is anecdotal, such principles commonly inform software and interaction design. But, as we know, assumptions are sometimes but not always correct—this is why, when appropriate, designers rely on principles of human-centered design74 and usability testing.75 Testing helps designers understand trade-offs between flexibility,76 performance, and more. Sometimes, as we know “the solution” may actually be “many solutions” as one size does not always fit all. ¶ While notions of parameters certainly inform buildings and products, even planting a raised-bed garden requires identifying some basic parameters: the size of the bed, the average weather conditions, access to water, soil, and more. And beyond these parameters, we might ask: who is going to plant the plants? Who is going to water the plants? Who is in charge—or are we all in charge? In project work, questions around who does what and why are as old as time. Using our raised bed garden examples, the garden team role you wish to assume may, in fact, depend on your personality.

  8. Personalities: Contributing to a group project can be extremely rewarding. All too often, however, members of a group project experience frustration, miscommunication, and other issues. Thinking back to our 80:20 rule, in this case, it is not uncommon to hear complaints when one person does 80% of the work. One way to prepare for group projects is to develop a working vocabulary around personalities. In this case, personality is used as a big-tent term to encapsulate our working styles, communication styles, preferences, attitudes, and more. The most basic definition of personality is simply the “quality or state of being a person.”77 And surely there is truth to the saying, “no two humans are alike.” It is well known and extremely well researched78 that our personalities inform and affect our working styles. ¶ One common way that researchers describe personality is the Big Five model,79 sometimes called the “Big Five personality traits” or the OCEAN model. OCEAN, in this case, stands for openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.80 ¶ At this juncture, readers might ask, how does this all relate to projects, and why does it matter? While positing this question, this list maker is reminded of a “future of design” workshop he attended at an architecture firm. The workshop was led by the editor of a well-known design publication, and as part of the discussion, this editor suggested that traditionally, those who worked in architecture were placed in one of three distinct camps: 1) sellers, 2) thinkers, and 3) doers. In one of the more memorable exchanges that followed, the editor surmised that in the 21st century, these three silos would likely “become blurred.” After hearing this from the editor, the list maker noted that, generally, it was the more extraverted staffers who would, unsurprisingly, volunteer to serve as the “sellers.” One office I worked for, in fact, called these communicative extroverts “best sellers.” While some designers excelled at presenting their own work, others preferred to have their concepts presented by another member of the film, project, or team—a “seller,” as the journal’s editor described. ¶ The notion of “thinkers” also aligns with aspects of the aforementioned Big Five model. These team members seem to excel at exploration, openness, and conscientiousness. ¶ The point in recounting this “future of design” workshop from 20 years ago is that it helps exemplify some of the useful research at the intersection of people and projects. ¶ The design publication editor’s three-point example can be identified in a number of project-oriented settings and pursuits. For instance, it is even exemplified in the founding of Apple. While most people are only aware of Steve Jobs as “the founder” of Apple, there were actually two more founders involved. Besides Jobs, there were Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne. Of the three, Jobs was likely the most charismatic (the seller), while Wozniak seemed like a classic tinkerer (the doer). Ronald Wayne brought past expertise from his time at Atari81 and likely served as a more pragmatic counterpoint to Jobs’ ambition. ¶ In art school, it is quite common, if not cliché, to hear instructors suggest that one should “put themselves into their work.” This advice shows up similarly when instructors encourage students to “develop a voice” or a “unique point of view.” While the intent is clear, this list-maker has long questioned a paradox that often surfaces in critique. During critiques, instructors in creative courses often remind students that critical feedback is directed at the work, not them. This, of course, is meant to depersonalize the feedback. For this list maker, this “put yourself in the work, but the work is not you” dynamic always seemed quite paradoxical. For now, let’s label this dialogic mismatch the project personality paradox, which yields the following question: is the maker of a thing ever not a factor in the making of a thing? ¶ With this question and the aforementioned paradox in mind, let’s imagine a scientist joining the class. With an almost dismissive tone, the objective scientist locks eyes with the art instructor and states, “For the projects I undertake, my voice and hand are invisible.” The art student remains quiet while the two prepare to square off. Then the art instructor pipes up with a rebuttal, “Is the human hand ever completely invisible?” With this, the debate abruptly ends. Then, perhaps to lighten the mood, the instructor suggests the three take a break and get espressos in the nearby piazza. Upon hearing this, the scientist suggests that tea in the courtyard would be much preferred, as it is one minute closer.

  9. Pattern: Years ago, while working in the Marketing department of an architecture firm, this list maker was asked to collaborate with the IT department on an initiative to make templates and other marketing materials more accessible to all firm staff. A day or two before we were scheduled to meet to kick off the project, the IT Director emailed this list maker in advance of the meeting. Attached was a PDF file and a short note advising me to review it before we met. ¶ Of course, this list maker expected that attachment to be some sort of primer on asset or access management or corporate intranets. Instead, the email attachment contained a copy of “Solving for Pattern,”—a seminal 1980 essay by the American farmer, philosopher, and writer Wendell Berry82 (1934–2026). “Solving for Pattern,” was first published in Berry’s literary collection The Gift of Good Land. After glancing at the attachment, I scratched my head and wondered why the Director of IT would send a reflective treatise on agriculture in preparation for a brand management project. ¶ “Solving for Pattern” reflects upon the complex and entangled nature of agricultural and ecological systems. Since the attachment seemed unrelated to corporate templates, I sensed I should read “Solving for Pattern” as a metaphor or proverb for the type of project or problem we were about to explore. Reading Berry’s essay shifted how I think about problems, especially how “solving” a specific problem might inadvertently create new or unforeseen ones. ¶ After reading the essay, my initial takeaway was threefold: 1) a design solution, like any sort of solution, is always entangled within a whole host of interconnected concerns: resources, energy, contexts, systems, and more. 2) Any attempt at a holistic solution thus requires some degree of equally entangled holistic thinking; and 3) designers have much to learn from nature, ecosystems, and yes, even farming, food, and agriculture. ¶ The first sentence in Berry’s essay sharply frames the reflective but tacitly informed thesis that follows. Berry states, “Our dilemma in agriculture now is that the industrial methods that have so spectacularly solved some of the problems of food production have been accompanied by ‘side effects’ so damaging as to threaten the survival of farming.”83 Then, in support of my metaphorical reading of the essay, the author himself briefly nods to such potential with the following line: “To the problems of farming, then, as to other problems of our time….”84 ¶ Years later, in his project-based courses, this list maker began assigning visual pattern-making projects in his introductory design courses. While these studio foundations projects center on aesthetics, they also offer an opportunity to explore big-tent notions of pattern. Beyond aesthetics, pattern recognition is becoming a valuable 21st-century competency across many fields. Indeed, cognitive scientists and educational theorists emphasize that pattern recognition underlies academic success across diverse subjects.85 ¶ One interesting aspect of having students explore patterns is there’s no exacting standard for what makes a pattern “good.” Patterns can be simple or complex, systematic or organic, logical, and at times illogical. Along these evaluative lines, Berry concludes “Solving for Pattern” with a 14-point list of provisional standards that attempt to articulate and discern “good solutions.” For example, the first of these points reads, “A good solution accepts given limits, using so far as possible what is at hand.”86 ¶ It soon became obvious why my IT Director sent along Berry’s essay days before kicking off a systems-oriented project. With nearly any problem or project-based effort, one should never lose sight of “the obvious”—the obvious in this case represents the interconnected and entangled nature of the problem—and crucially the forces, contexts, and factors that surround it. As Berry stated in his third point, “A good solution improves the balances, symmetries, or harmonies within a pattern.”87 ¶ For creatives, designers, and project-minded people, understanding various notions of pattern is an essential competency that supports and affords the ability to make connections across and between language, aesthetics, information, and ideas. While this ability isn’t rare, being skilled and practiced at it is. With this in mind, it may strike some readers of this list as odd that Berry, a farmer, was also a deeply reflective, nearly philosophical writer and thinker. This somewhat odd combination of concerns arriving at the intersection of head, heart and hand will be explored in the next two sections.

  10. Philosophy: For project-based practitioners, encountering thinker-doers such as the farmer-philosopher Wendell Berry [explored in the previous section on pattern] may at first seem like an odd combination of interests. But alas, this intersection of doing and thinking is consistently a hallmark of many project-oriented people. It is no surprise, then, to discover a rich body of literature at the intersection of philosophy and project-based practices, especially design. Below I will cite a few examples that, with any luck, will briefly serve to illuminate the vitality, possibility, and variety of these discourses. ¶ A good place to start might be Glenn Parsons’ 2016 book The Philosophy of Design. To my knowledge, Parsons is not a professional designer or design educator. Rather than a designer providing a view towards philosophy, Parsons and his book offer an observer’s view of design from a philosopher’s perspective.88 In the introduction, Parsons briefly parses the differences between theory and philosophy and, in doing so, claims that philosophy’s neglect of design is “rather glaring.”89 While this p-word section need not unnecessarily diverge into critiques, a portion of Parsons’ first chapter titled “What is Design?” seems (for this list-maker) a bit like a sense-making of design journey alongside the author. This is in fact less a critique than an observation. Ultimately, this journey leads to sections that contains much more salient positions. Just over 30 pages in, within a section titled “The Epistemological Problem,” Parsons states, “In thinking about the difficulty of Design problems, and the attempts to formulate a Design methodology that it has inspired, it will help us to get clearer about what the fundamental difficulty really is.”90 Of course, readers will then want to know: what difficulty Parsons is attempting to describe? Parsons then states, “This difficulty is not a problem of scale….” He then adds, “Nor is it a difficulty concerning the somewhat unstable nature of the Design problem itself.” Finally, the author gives in and reveals one of the sharpest points in his entire volume by stating, “the fundamental problem for the Design process is an epistemological problem, a problem concerning the sort of knowledge that good Designers apparently require.”91 ¶ Here, this list maker will note Parsons’ use of the term “good”—and likewise Berry’s repetitive use of the same exact term (as is noted in the previous section). With this use of the term good in relation to design, readers of this word list will likely see arising a small swell forming around these epistemological, ethical, and philosophical issues. We might well ask: What makes a good designer good? What makes a good design good? How do we know if a designer or design is good or bad. What evidence counts, who decides, and how? ¶ While the aforementioned questions will not be settled here—by luck or intent Brian Dixon’s 2026 book Philosophy Through Design: Rethinking Design Practice for a Changing World seems in some ways to pick up where Parsons left off. Unlike Parsons, Dixon is a practicing designer and design researcher with a substantial appetite for exploring the intersection of philosophy and the artificial with previous books that include Philosophy and Making Things Happen (2023). In Philosophy Through Design, Dixon’s “key argument is that design practice can itself become a mode of philosophical inquiry, supporting designers’ efforts to experiment, reflect and act responsibly and make and remake the ever-evolving future as potential ‘designer philosophers.’”92 Unsurprisingly, about 15 pages into his book Dixon nods to Parsons’ book noting that it offers, “arguments that draw together understandings of the design process, its histories, its key concepts adn how these link to aesthetics and ethics.”93 For this reader, Dixon’s book takes a facinating turn when the author states, “though design research involving practice is positioned exclusively as a form of knowledge production—i.e. a research approach that may be applied in the process of generating novel disciplinary and interdisciplinary insights—it can, at times, function as more than that.”94 Naturally, readers then want to know what “more” is in reference to. Without fully revealing the answer here, Dixon later states that in the context of design, “it is perhaps unsurprising that wider concerns such as the ethical aspects of given objects or processes creep into the frame as core motivational concerns.”95 ¶ Later, in references to the work of Anne Louise Bang and colleagues, Dixon shares what these scholars describe as “a number of complex motivational interweavings.”96 This list maker will add that architects, planners, designers, and other project-minded people should have a deft understanding of form and aesthetics, but also a sense of how to navigate these complex motivational interweavings—in particular the variety of stakeholders that oftentimes surround and inform complex projects. ¶ So what are some key takeaways from this brief p-word section on philosophy? If we return to common definitions of philosophy, one might suggest that the design process oftentimes tugs at several of philosophy’s core branches (aesthetics, logic, ethics, epistemology, and more). Thus, as part of a design education, students and educators alike might warm up to philosophy as part of the core curricula. Speculatively, we might assume that going so may provide future designers and design leaders a wider set of tools for navigating the ”complex interweaving” that so often arises in project-based work. ¶ With this notion of “complex interweaving” in mind, how might we more concretely identify and describe this complex process of weaving ideas, materials, people, concerns, and more? One old-school p-word worth noting here is phronesis97 and another is a renewed focus on people.

  11. People: In 1990, about ten years after publishing “Solving for Pattern,”98 Wendell Berry published a collection of reflective essays in a volume titled What Are People For? Over his lifetime, Berry wrote more than fifty books of poetry, fiction, essays, and more. In What Are People For?, readers encounter 22 essays that reflect Berry’s literary breadth, including industry, narrative, consumerism, ethics, the natural world, and more. ¶ Somewhat akin to the previous section on philosophy, the draft for this section on “People” arrives at a time when many are looking inward and asking deep questions about life, work, knowledge, education, wellness, and more. Such introspection has likely been fueled by the rapid introduction of powerful new technologies such as artificial intelligence and an increasingly polarized political landscape. ¶ In contrast to a technology-immersed lifestyle, Berry’s book seems to champion an almost agrarian ethos. Moreover, Berry argues that humans should steward resources and one another. To support this view, Berry elevates local economies, our connections to place, an affection for neighbors, and a renewed focus on natural surroundings and ecosystems. ¶ Interestingly, Berry never directly answers the question put forth in the title. Instead, readers indirectly receive an assemblage of complex, and at times somewhat poetic, reflections. For instance, one section, titled “The Responsibility of the Poet,” project-oriented readers may find such indirect insights. For this list maker, the following quote seems analogous to the oftentimes complex, evaluative, and dynamic process and life of projects. Berry states, “It has seemed to me increasingly that a poem—a good poem—exists at the center of a complex reminding, to which it relates as both cause and effect.”99 Later, Berry notes that “The process of this reminding is too complex ever to be fully mapped or explained, and therefore the order of the following remarks about it is somewhat arbitrary.”100 ¶ The aforementioned quote reminds this list maker of the complexity that frequently arises within project-based work, which likewise often requires a deep consideration of cause and effect and similarly attempts to integrate a whole host of complex and sometimes competing factors. One obvious factor in this complexity is people. People are both complicated and complex—and by that, this list maker merely acknowledges that humans vary widely in ability, preference, perspective, shape, taste, and more. In product development, we often use the term “human factors” as a catch-all nod to these varied, complex, social, and subjective qualities. ¶ Interestingly, in 2026, just as this list maker was penning this essay, he learned of a multimedia project that bears the same exact title as Berry’s book. This effort, similarly titled What Are People For: Design Philosophy by Patrick Whitney, is a multimedia legacy project101 composed of a documentary film by award-winning filmmaker Gary Hustwit accompanied by a book designed by Rick Valicenti. As a design scholar and leader, Patrick Whitney served as the Dean of the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Institute of Design from 1987 to 2016, where, to the best of this list-maker’s knowledge, he established the first Design PhD program in the United States. Whitney is viewed as a pioneering figure in human-centered and strategic design and, as such, he exemplifies how one might explore the rich intersection of people and projects at the highest levels. This is likely why Hustwit chose him as a worthy subject for a documentary film. ¶ Figures such as Whitney seem to have prepared, oriented, or “opened up” the design field in ways that more rigorously identify and address complex humanistic challenges. But despite Whitney’s role in ushering in notions of human-centered design, some his more recent scholarship seems to acknowledge its limits. In Whitney’s 2020 paper, “Cutting Cubes Out of Fog: The Whole View of Design” (co-authored with André Nogueira), the authors seem to channel a perspective that even Wendell Berry might find compelling. As the authors state, “human-centered design ignores the looming environmental challenges the world faces. Nature does not appear in its models or language, unless it is a rare green project.”102 The authors then share that they are “exploring these challenges with a new initiative named Design for Well-Being.”103 Not surprisingly, the authors provide an information diagram with various components centered around, you guessed it: well-being.104 Alas, as we posit, people—and, by extension, the projects powered by people—like Berry and Whitney, we simultaneously reflect upon the quality of our lives and our environment, as encapsulated by a term such as wellness. Such issues are likely well served by those interested in traversing the timeless and timely intersections of wellness, community, and design.105

With utmost gratitude to the many voices cited and referenced. First published 29 June 2026. Last updated 17 Sep 2026. Please send edits, corrections, and suggestions to this address.

Footnotes

  1. See: “Project.” Dictionary.com, 2026, www.dictionary.com/browse/project. Accessed 18 June 2026. ↩︎
  2. Also referred to as the “Technical Revolution.” See: “Second Industrial Revolution.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution. ↩︎
  3. See: “John Dewey.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey. ↩︎
  4. Dewey, John. “My Pedagogic Creed.” The School Journal, vol. 54, no. 3, 16 Jan. 1897, pp. 77-80. ↩︎
  5. “Donald Schön” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Mar 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Schön. ↩︎
  6. “Reflective practice” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice. ↩︎
  7. Gentes, Annie. The In-Discipline of Design: Bridging the Gap Between Humanities and Engineering. Springer, 2017, p. 6. ↩︎
  8. “What is a Project Manager?” Project Management Institute, https://www.pmi.org/about/what-is-a-project-manager. ↩︎
  9. Definitions, roles, and responsibilities of “producer” vary slightly across music, film, radio, gaming, and more. ↩︎
  10. See: “Subject and object (philosophy).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_and_object_(philosophy). ↩︎
  11. See: “Inversion (linguistics).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(linguistics). ↩︎
  12. p. 3. ↩︎
  13. “Material turn.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiality_turn. ↩︎
  14. Ibid., p. 3. ↩︎
  15. See: “Engaged scholarship.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 January 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engaged_scholarship. ↩︎
  16. See: “Action research.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 March 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research. ↩︎
  17. “Translational research.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 April 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translational_research. ↩︎
  18. “Ernest L. Boyer.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_L._Boyer. ↩︎
  19. “Boyer’s model of scholarship.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer%27s_model_of_scholarship. ↩︎
  20. “Charles Jencks.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Jencks. ↩︎
  21. Jencks, Charles, and George Baird. Meaning in Architecture. George Braziller, 1970, p. 18. ↩︎
  22. Titles include The Project Revolution (2019), Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook (2021), Lead Successful Projects (2019), and Powered by Projects (2026). ↩︎
  23. See: Nieto-Rodriguez, Antonio. “Does Your Project Have a Purpose?” HBR.org, October 11, 2021, https://hbr.org/2021/10/does-your-project-have-a-purpose. ↩︎
  24. Ibid. ↩︎
  25. Ibid. ↩︎
  26. Ibid. ↩︎
  27. “Anne Lamott.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lamott. ↩︎
  28. “Kenneth Lamott.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Dec 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lamott. ↩︎
  29. Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird. Vintage Books Edition, September 2019 [1994], p. 18. ↩︎
  30. Heretakis, Lefteris. “Igniting Creativity: The Freedom in Structure, How Process Fuels Creativity in Design.” Medium, 12 Sept. 2024, heretakis.medium.com/igniting-creativity-the-freedom-in-structure-how-process-fuels-creativity-in-design-645677dd6638. ↩︎
  31. Workflows, practices, protocols, and other terms are similarly bound up in this discourse, but for brevity, these matters are left to rest. ↩︎
  32. “Scientific method.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. ↩︎
  33. See: Hartson, Rex, and Pardha Pyla. “Chapter 20 – Prototyping” in The UX Book (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufman, 2018, pp. 405–432. ↩︎
  34. See: Martin, Bella, and Bruce Harrington. Universal Methods of Design. Revised and expanded edition, Rockport, 2019, pp. 176–177. ↩︎
  35. See: Lidwell, William et. al. Universal Principles of Design (3rd ed.), Rockport, 2023, pp. 151–152. ↩︎
  36. Prototyping is mentioned throughout the book, but Muratovski does provide a concise overview (pp. 176–177). See: Muratovski, Gjoko. Research for Designers (2nd ed.), Sage, 2022. ↩︎
  37. See: Jones et. al. Studio Properties. Bloomsbury, 2025, pp. 158–161, available at: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/studio-properties-9781350407503/. ↩︎
  38. Ibid., 158. ↩︎
  39. Ibid., 159. ↩︎
  40. Ibid., 160. ↩︎
  41. Ibid., pp. 155–157. ↩︎
  42. “Friedrich Fröbel.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Fröbel. ↩︎
  43. “Caroline Pratt (educator).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Pratt_(educator). ↩︎
  44. “Jean Piaget.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget. ↩︎
  45. “Lev Vygotsky.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky. ↩︎
  46. “Mitchel Resnick.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 April 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchel_Resnick. ↩︎
  47. See: “Lifelong Kindergarten.” MIT Media Lab, https://www.media.mit.edu/groups/lifelong-kindergarten/overview/. ↩︎
  48. Resnick, Mitchel. Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play. MIT Press, 2017, p. 3. ↩︎
  49. Ibid., p. 4. ↩︎
  50. “Scratch (programming language).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_(programming_language). ↩︎
  51. “Froebel gifts.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Dec 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froebel_gifts. ↩︎
  52. See: Gold, Joshua I, and Takeo Watanabe. “Perceptual learning.” Current biology : CB vol. 20,2 (2010): R46-8. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.066. ↩︎
  53. See: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/desktop/kb/color-management-settings-best-print.html. ↩︎
  54. See for instance: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ ↩︎
  55. “Textuality.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Feb 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textuality. ↩︎
  56. Klee, Paul. Pedagogical Sketchbook. Frederick A. Praeger, 1953 [1925], p. 16. ↩︎
  57. “Sibyl Moholy-Nagy.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyl_Moholy-Nagy. ↩︎
  58. Ibid., 64. ↩︎
  59. “Josef Albers.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 29 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Albers. ↩︎
  60. “Homage to the Square.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 May 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_the_Square. ↩︎
  61. Albers published a book around these ideas titled Interaction of Color. ↩︎
  62. Leach, Neil. Architecture in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Bloomsbury, 2025, p. 243. ↩︎
  63. Ibid. ↩︎
  64. Nachmanovitch, Stephen. The Art of Is: Improvising as a Way of Life. New World Library, 2019, p. 127. ↩︎
  65. “Free association (psychology)” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(psychology). ↩︎
  66. “Stephen Nachmanovitch.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Nachmanovitch. ↩︎
  67. Loc. cit., p. 4. ↩︎
  68. Yes, in the design professions, we use the word “chunking” to describe the relationship between larger units of information and smaller ones. See: Moran, Kate. “How Chunking Helps Content Processing.” Nielsen Norman Group, 20 March 2016, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/chunking/. ↩︎
  69. “Patrik Schumacher.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Schumacher. ↩︎
  70. See: “Parametric architecture.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 March 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_architecture. ↩︎
  71. See: “Parametric design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_design. ↩︎
  72. Slessor, Catherine. “Parametricism Is a Technophile Triumph of Fetishised Process over Outcome.” Dezeen, 19 May 2026, www.dezeen.com/2026/05/19/parametricism-opinion-catherine-slessor/.  ↩︎
  73. “Pareto principle.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle. ↩︎
  74. See: “Human-centered design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-centered_design. ↩︎
  75. “Usability testing.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 April 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability_testing. ↩︎
  76. See for instance: “Flexibility–usability tradeoff.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexibility–usability_tradeoff. ↩︎
  77. “Personality, N.” Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality. Accessed 26 June 2026. ↩︎
  78. One landmark paper, authored by Murray Barrick and Michael Mount in 1991, is worth noting here. Before this paper, scholars viewed the link between personality and work behavior as inconsistent. See: Barrick, Murray R., and Michael K. Mount. “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta‐Analysis.” Personnel Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1-26. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x. ↩︎
  79. “Big Five personality traits.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits. ↩︎
  80. Ibid. ↩︎
  81. ᗧ···ᗣ···ᗣ·· ᗧ••… See: “Atari.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 29 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari. ↩︎
  82. “Wendell Berry.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Sep 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Berry. ↩︎
  83. Berry, Wendell. The Gift of the Good Land: Further Essays Cultural and Agricultural, North Point Press, 1981, p. 134. ↩︎
  84. Ibid. ↩︎
  85. See for instance: Beyazhancer, Rumeysa, and Baris Demir. “Pattern skills and computational thinking in early childhood education.” Journal of Child Development, Exceptionality and Education, vol. 5, no. 1, 2024, pp. 59–67, https://jcdee.com/index.php/jcdee/article/view/44. ↩︎
  86. Loc. cit., p. 140. ↩︎
  87. Loc. cit., p. 141. ↩︎
  88. At the time of this writing, Parsons teaches at Toronto Metropolitan University. See: https://www.torontomu.ca/philosophy/faculty-staff/glenn-parsons/ ↩︎
  89. Parsons, Glenn. The Philosophy of Design. Polity, 2016, p. 2. ↩︎
  90. Ibid., p. 35. ↩︎
  91. Ibid. ↩︎
  92. Description on the back cover. Philosophy through Design, by Brian Dixon, Bloomsbury, 2026. ↩︎
  93. Dixon, Brian, Philosophy through Design: Rethinking Design Practice for a Changing World, Bloomsbury, 2026, p. 15. ↩︎
  94. Ibid., p. 28. ↩︎
  95. Ibid. ↩︎
  96. Ibid. ↩︎
  97. “Phronesis.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Mar 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis. ↩︎
  98. Mentioned in this list-maker’s p-word section on “Pattern.” ↩︎
  99. Berry, Wendell. What Are People For? Counterpoint, 2010 [1990], p. 88 ↩︎
  100. Ibid. ↩︎
  101. “What Are People For: Design Philosophy by Patrick Whitney.” What Are People For, www.whatarepeoplefor.com/
    . Accessed 25 Sep 2026. ↩︎
  102. Whitney, Patrick, and André Nogueira. “Cutting Cubes Out of Fog: The Whole View of Design.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, vol. 6, no. 2, 2020, p. 149. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.04.001. ↩︎
  103. Ibid. ↩︎
  104. Ibid., p. 151. ↩︎
  105. These concerns, of course, call for an honest assessment of how we educate and train designers to engage with them meaningfully. See, for instance: Østergaard, Thomas. “The designer as agent of community.” ServDes 2018: Service Design Proof of Concept, edited by Anna Meroni, Ana María Ospina Medina, and Beatrice Villari, Design Research Society, 2018. Design Research Society Digital Library, https://doi.org/10.21606/servdes2018.66. ↩︎

FILED IN: Perspectives


IMAGES
An Incomplete List of P-Words for Project-Based Pursuits