In my presentation at SIDeR I used a short video clip from Objectified as an example of assignable curiosity in practice, a topic which Jeff Schmidt writes about in his book Disciplined Minds:

The more one looks into it, the clearer it becomes that the scientist best suited for harmony in an industrial or governmental position is the one willing to accept direction uncritically… As a good professional, such a scientist accepts a research problem, tries to see it as an intriguing puzzle of captivating interest, and carries out the research with dedication.

The same is true of professional designers (try substituting ‘designer’ for ‘scientist’ in the quote above). The clip I used as an example of assignable curiosity among professional designers is embedded below.

Schmidt writes about this topic in chapter 4 of his book, a few passages are pasted below (you can read the first few pages on Google books).

Wanted: PhD scientist to work as self-directed seeker of truth. Successful candidate will determine own work topics. Excellent laboratory and computer facilities. Competitive salary and benefits package. EOE/AA, M/F/D/V.

Scientists will tell you in a second that this job ad is fictitious. Yet many of the same scientists will turn around and tell you that they are self-directed. What is the reality? Who determines the topics that individual scientists work on?

Answering this question about scientists is important for understanding the politics of professional work in general, because scientists constitute a kind of baseline. Salaried doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers and so on are certainly no freer than scientists in deciding what problems they will take on at work. So if the scientist’s curiosity is externally directed, then whose isn’t?

To ask who determines the topics that individual scientists work on is to ask who in society scientists serve in their work. This is not only a fascinating question in and of itself, but it is also crucial to understanding the politics of professional qualification in science. For only by understanding the actual role that the rank-and-file scientist plays in society can one make the sense of the criteria by which an individual is deemed qualified to work as a scientists.

Again, replacing ‘scientist’ with ‘designer’ we can see the problem applies to designers as well:

To ask who determines the topics that individual [designers] work on is to ask who in society [designers] serve in their work. This is not only a fascinating question in and of itself, but it is also crucial to understanding the politics of professional qualification in [design]. For only by understanding the actual role that the rank-and-file [designer] plays in society can one make the sense of the criteria by which an individual is deemed qualified to work as a [designer].