Is Instructional Design Thriving or Dying?

If I had a dollar for every time this question has been askedover the past 40 years, well, I’d have a lot of dollars. In 2004, I asked this question and, 13 years later, it persists. Time to ask again,because The eLearning Guild is taking a serious look at the changing nature andcontinuing relevance of instructional design (ID) in a new research reportpublished June 28, Is Instructional Design a Dying Art?

Mark Twain once famously said, “Reports of my death havebeen greatly exaggerated.” The same can be said for instructional design. Despiteconstant talk about its demise, instructional design has been quite resilient. Thosewho point to its longevity in a positive way emphasize how well it works, whilethose who think instructional design’s best days are behind it suggest that theframework is inefficient and stymies new ideas and new ways of thinking.

To coincide with the release of the research report, I’dlike to revisit the issue and propose some context for the current discussion. Instructionaldesign is neither the great and unifying core of what we do, nor the bane ofour existence; it’s just not that simple. Rather, it all depends on how youlook at it. And you can look at it from four different points of view.

1. Are instructional design processesthriving or dying?

Instructional design processes are usually caught up inmodels and step-by-step approaches. Whether you use generic models like ADDIE, agile,SAM, and their infinite variations, or models based on a particular view oflearning (behavioral, cognitive, constructivist), or models advocated byleading thinkers in the field over the years (including Gagné, Merrill, andBloom), chances are you have a pretty strong loyalty to a particular way ofdoing things, and you’ve made it work for you.

You may also be working with models, procedures, guidelines,rules, etc., set forth by your organization. Many companies have tried todocument all the steps and decisions in an instructional design process using flowcharts,decision trees, and standard operating procedures. Some of these have beentorturously long and convoluted in an effort to make the process consistent and“foolproof.” Others have found this to be folly, as designing instruction hastoo many variables and is too situation specific—their approaches are likely tobe more flexible.

However you’re doing instructional design, no doubt you havea process to follow, either written down or in your head, that provides somestructure and guidance in the work. For you, the question “Is instructionaldesign thriving or dying?” will tend to reference these processes more thanyour role or the overarching concept. Often, many people who suggest that ID isdeclining often look at poor process as their justification.

2. Is the instructional design profession thriving or dying?

This question has more to do with professional identity,i.e., as instructional designers. Over time, the instructional designer role hasbecome quite common and accepted in most organizations, and it is supported byprofessional societies, publications, a robust consulting and vendormarketplace, various certification and accreditation efforts, and universitydegree affiliations.

Another part of this question is: Who actually is an instructional designer? Is itsomeone with an advanced degree in the field? Someone who took a few workshopsat a conference? Someone who learned through experience? Someone who got theirhands on a “simplified” tool and thought, “Gee, I can do this”? Someone whostarted out as an SME? Or perhaps an instructional designer is any number ofunique combinations of the above. This goes to the issue of standards and certification,a 30-year-old nut we have yet to fully crack.

If you have a strong sense of being a part of a profession,the question “Is instructional design thriving or dying?” strikes at who youare, the career you have chosen, the skills and experiences you accumulated, andthe value you assign to it. To you, the question can be interpreted as, “Are instructionaldesigners (as a vocation) thriving ordying?” Now you have to look at career opportunities and professional growth,job security and mobility, and at whether or not there is enough interest andchallenge in the field to make you—or anyone—want to stay.

3. Are instructional design workactivities thriving or dying?

Perhaps you don’t look at this overall question from aprocess or a professional view, but rather from the perspective of the actualwork you do and the things you create. For you, the question goes to activitiessuch as needs analysis, eLearning development, testing and measurement,technology implementation, authoring, graphic design, and so on. It doesn’tmatter as much what the activities are; it’s the doing that matters more. To get there, perhaps process is somethingto put up with so you can be creative, try new things, build interestingsolutions, and, if we’re honest, play a little with the technology. For example,you may have keen interest in needs assessment, or testing and measurement,rather than the whole of ID. Or maybe video production, eLearning authoring,gaming, and simulation are what excite you. The question “Is instructionaldesign thriving or dying?” might mean a lot less to you than the stability andopportunities within your specialty area of interest and skill.

Professionally, you might see yourself less as aninstructional designer and more as a media developer, video producer, workanalyst, performance technologist, evaluation specialist, social mediadeveloper, and more. Indeed, your professional identity in these fields may bestronger than your ID identity. For example, you’re a multimedia producer who just happens, for now, to work intraining. If this is the case, the question “Is instructional design thrivingor dying?” is of a transient concern, as your career aspirations lie elsewhere.

4. Is the current instructional design context thriving or dying?

A final way to view the question revolves aroundinstructional design’s relative position in the broader ecosystem of learning and performance solutions, and perhaps in the even wider areaof talent development. Maybe you see yourself as a learning solutions architectwho employs approaches far beyond the boundaries of training. As such, you seetraining (and instructional design) as just one of many tools in your toolkit,no more or no less important than any other.

Instructional design may be dying to you only because youhave evolved past it. You recognize its value, but it doesn’t really define youor what you do. So as a field of endeavor, it no long works because, while itserves a tactical purpose, it is far too limited strategically for the work youdo, or want to do.

Evolution vs. extinction

Despite flaws that have been identified over the years,there’s a lot of science behind fundamental instructional design principles andpractices. And while there have been numerous pseudo-scientific approaches thathave gained popularity and then faded away only to be replaced by newframeworks and ideas, those that have proved their resilience, through evidenceand practical application, have worked their way into the practice andprofession. Maybe it is reinvention, not stagnation; evolution, not extinction.

See, it’s not so simple

Is instructional design thriving or dying (perhaps evendead)? No one can answer this question but you,as it depends so much on your situation, your career aspirations, your level oftraining and experience, and your organizational culture. Keep this in mind asyou review the new research report.

So,the next time someone raises the question, consider where you’re starting from,where you are going, and where your personal values are. Is it about how you doyour work, your professional identity, the actual products you produce, or thecontext of a bigger arena? In other words, not only what works in yourorganization, but what works for you.Then the answer to this question will become clearer, and real conversation canbegin.