Introduction

The term “agency” has various connotations in design, two of which highlight themes within the articles featured in this issue of Design Issues. A “design agency,” for example, commonly refers to a specific organizational form of design—that is a company, consultancy, firm, or business. Depending on how it is legally registered (for example, whether as a public or private company, or a nonor for profit), an agency can entail particular duties and have specific rights. This is conspicuous in architectural agencies, which are associated with a registered or licensed architect and have consequent legal, insurance, and public accountabilities as well as fee scales and tax rules. Design remains relatively less codified than some other professions, and its forms and duties can be more diverse. Professional identities of design were multiple and contested in the United States, as told in the article by Leah Armstrong, prior to the establishment in 1944 of the Society of Industrial Design (SID). Less codified than other professions, design also takes many organizational forms beyond that of a design agency. Notably, several further articles in this issue argue for the expansion of design within organizations including corporations and governments. Agency also has a more general meaning, namely as action to produce a particular effect. As a form of action, design manifests in many ways. Design forms—within the articles here—include clothes and products, postage stamps and board games, stories and services, strategy and policies. Authors also attend to the effects of these designs. Postage stamps, for example, represent national cultural heritage, and board games can impart political messages. The expanse of design actions and effects becomes apparent when reading across the articles. While laws circumscribe architectural action in specific ways, anyone can deploy design—in many forms and in diverse organizations—for profit, for cultural, for political, or for other purposes. Alongside their study of various forms and qualities of design, the authors articulate the agency of design within organizations, within wider society, and within societal change. Particularly with the expansion of design within the higher echelons of corporations and governments, evident in several of the articles, we might be prompted to think further about the accountability—and responsibility—of design today. In her article, Armstrong traces the historical emergence of industrial design as a profession in tandem with a burgeoning consumer culture and “new nationalism” in the interand post-war