Claim up to $500 in flight credits!
Get up to $500 in flight credits or grants toward study or internship programs abroad when you apply by November 01, 2026. See our Official Rules for full details.
Design Thinking under Uncertainty
Full Curriculum Program
Rome, Italy
Dates: 1/12/27 - 5/8/27
Design Thinking under Uncertainty
OVERVIEW
CEA CAPA Partner Institution: CEA CAPA Rome Center
Location: Rome, Italy
Primary Subject Area: Design
Instruction in: English
Course Code: DES300FCO
Transcript Source: University of New Haven
Course Details: Level 300
Recommended Semester Credits: 3
Contact Hours: 45
Prerequisites: One 200-level course or two 100-level courses in a related academic field
DESCRIPTION
This course treats design as the practice of acting despite uncertainty: committing to a concrete course of action from information, experience, and material conditions that never fully align. Design is framed not as a professional specialization, but as a structured and transferable way of thinking aimed at intentional change. In that sense, everyone may encounter design moments, in any professional practice, not only in design-related ones: moments where a situation cannot be deferred any further, where a decision has to be taken despite the uncertainty, and thinking has to be resolved into action. The course develops students' capacity to work with this condition deliberately, to frame what a situation is asking, decide what to act upon, reflect on what such decisions set aside, and take responsibility for what those choices leave outside their scope.
Students pursue a continued, simulated project over the course of the semester, individually or in groups, moving through four linked phases: research and discovery, where the full complexity of a situation surfaces; problem framing, where that complexity is narrowed into a specific, workable question; closure, where a concrete design response is developed and represented; and evaluation, where students account for what their response leaves out and who is affected by that. Project development unfolds through guided inquiry, iterative refinement, and regular feedback under faculty supervision. Class meetings function as structured check-ins, critiques, peer exchange, and mentoring sessions, supporting both independent and collaborative intellectual and practical work.
The project brief is a didactic construct rather than a live commission, focused on a specific context or ambiguity within a complex system, urban, organizational, civic, or social, and uses the host city as a living laboratory. From this shared starting point, individuals or teams develop distinct responses by designing systematic changes, protocols, or decision-making frameworks, while identifying what their proposal leaves out or displaces, and examining who remains answerable for it as the situation develops, or who ends up carrying the burden of their decisions.
Students pursue a continued, simulated project over the course of the semester, individually or in groups, moving through four linked phases: research and discovery, where the full complexity of a situation surfaces; problem framing, where that complexity is narrowed into a specific, workable question; closure, where a concrete design response is developed and represented; and evaluation, where students account for what their response leaves out and who is affected by that. Project development unfolds through guided inquiry, iterative refinement, and regular feedback under faculty supervision. Class meetings function as structured check-ins, critiques, peer exchange, and mentoring sessions, supporting both independent and collaborative intellectual and practical work.
The project brief is a didactic construct rather than a live commission, focused on a specific context or ambiguity within a complex system, urban, organizational, civic, or social, and uses the host city as a living laboratory. From this shared starting point, individuals or teams develop distinct responses by designing systematic changes, protocols, or decision-making frameworks, while identifying what their proposal leaves out or displaces, and examining who remains answerable for it as the situation develops, or who ends up carrying the burden of their decisions.