Educators are always trying to identify and solve new problems in interior design education and practice. Some of these problems are pragmatic, such as accreditation and licensing; some are conceptual, such as building a body of knowledge and the development of design theory. The common thread that runs through all of these problems we address is that this work moves the interior design profession forward. I am suggesting one more problem that needs to be addressed: re-defining the residential interior design practice.

Why does residential design need to be re-defined? After all, if there is one area of interior design specialization that the public seems to understand, it must be residential design! Christine Piotrowski, author of Professional Practice for Interior Designers, suggests residential design is ". . . concerned with the planning and/or specifying of interior materials and products used in private residences."

Why can't we be content with this and concentrate our efforts on defining other design specializations for the public? Because we are not working up to our potential. We have a huge client base of diverse humans that we are not serving. We are allowing other design professions and related practices to do our job, and they are not doing it very well. We are letting dysfunctional residences be designed for the public-residences that often are so dysfunctional that they interfere with the health, safety and welfare of the users. We are standing by without adequate knowledge or motivation to make change. We are ignoring social problems that could be addressed through quality design of residential environments.

If this is not true, why are residential interior designers concerned that their specialization is not valued? Because too often they limit themselves to a portion of residential design. Residential design has long been considered less significant than non-residential design, even though the design of the home and home-like places creates an environment for important family activities. Jack Lowery's statement in ASID's Professional Practice Manual gets closer to the importance of residential design. He writes, "Residential design deals, in almost every instance, with that most sacrosanct of environments: the home." Home carries meaning for all of us; it can be our security, our sanctuary, our castle, our cocoon. This is where we rest, revive and carry on activities that help to maintain and improve our existence. It is a very important place, the design of which should be treated with the respect and attention a space that nutures our fundamental human needs deserves.

"Residential design has long been considered less significant than non-residential design, even though the design of the home and home-like places creates an environment for important family activities."

How can we make this change? Educators, practitioners, industry and clients need to work together to understand how the role of the home has changed, and therefore how the activities pursued in the home are changing. We need to focus on residential design for the aging population; the explosion of technology in the home for leisure activities and work environments; the development of affordable housing that has design quality as a goal; green design that offers healthy, safe homes; and design of environments for people with disabilities who are affected by their physical environments, such as those with autism and schizophrenia. We must still create a space that speaks to the soul of the humans who inhabit and use the space. We must still create a space with artifacts, colors, furnishings and finishes that reflects the needs of and creates meaning for the users. And all of this must occur under the umbrella of universal design, in less square footage, with environmentally safe materials, and with identity and meaning created for the human users. This type of residential design calls for greater knowledge and programming skills than those necessary for the current way we practice residential design.

We need to emphasize the programming phase of the design process as we design for residential clients so that their needs are met. The public cannot afford for us to design from an ego-centric viewpoint. We cannot afford to design for the client's "wants." We need to emphasize the contract documents necessary for a total design concept and installation. If we want to raise the value of residential interior design, we cannot continue to base our income on the sale of products to our clients but rather on the sale of design services. We need to be designers, not procurers of products.

Some residential interior designers do design homes in partnership with architects and builders. They work together from the programming through evaluation stages. They have a concept; they integrate the family's physical and socio-psychological needs with theory, knowledge and technology; they design. And some interior design programs broaden residential design projects beyond the current definition of residential practice. Students design houses-the whole house-including construction documents and details. When they do this, however, educators often hear from their students ". . . the designer I work with says we'll never do anything like this in the real world."

I am not suggesting that we go beyond our capacity. I am suggesting that we work up to our capabilities and not settle for designing within the current narrow definition of residential design. That definition is often supported by non-residential designers, architects, the public and educators. Yet, it undermines the potential residential interior designers have for adding value to a human's life through the design of his home.

Partnerships must be developed. In education, we need to partner with more than the obvious design programs such as architecture. We must partner with programs such as housing, building technology, family studies, business management, material culture, gerontology, child development, medicine and environmental psychology. How can we continue to design environments without really understanding the theory that underlies human behavior, the characteristics of children as they develop through their life cycles, or the physical symptoms of aging, illnesses and disabilities of the humans for whom we design?

Long ago educators joined forces with practitioners, industry members and the public to identify the minimum knowledge needed for entry-level interior design practice, and the FIDER accreditation standards were developed. Then we all worked together to support licensing efforts throughout the United States, and designers in many states now are identified by some form of legislation. The home is changing, the family is changing, the demographics of our client base are changing, and societal issues that can be addressed through design are changing. We have an opportunity to be part of this changing world. By re-defining residential design, the role of the residential interior designer and residential design education, we can be on the cutting-edge of improving the human condition. Isn't it time to join forces once again and contribute to solutions of society's problems by realizing the maximum potential of residential design?

Related Articles » Eco Design: Going, Going, Gone » The successful renovation of the McLamore Center for children » A crumbling Apartment Complex Becomes a vibrant community. » Natural light and beautiful views distinguish ne home for Brann Blau. » Industrial elegance distinguishes new home of Manhattan creative group » Portfolio Diversification » Home Is Where the Heart Is » Eco Design: Hitting Matters » Redefining Residential Design » Chicago Style