Graphic design has long been hampered by its indeterminate educational disciplinary status, resulting in it being subsumed within wider visual arts studies. Arguing that this permeates into professional practice, this article explores the ambivalence of professional graphic designers towards the term ‘graphic design’ itself. Drawing on interviews with practitioners and discussions in online graphic design forums, the article argues this ambivalence derives from perceptions that the term reduces the design capital held by graphic designers. In turn, this negatively influences the graphic designers’ perceptions of professional relationships with creative stakeholders. Placing the study outcomes alongside existing academic literature, this article confirms anecdotal industry narratives about graphic designers’ perceptions of their capital. Moreover, it identifies a series of nuances to these narratives, challenging stereotypical educational and industry assumptions. In doing so, it argues that practitioner ambivalence towards the term ‘graphic design’ is symptomatic of an academic gap, resulting from inadequate pedagogic engagement with the specific discipline and practice of graphic design. This poses challenges for practitioners, as well as for the organisations they work within, at the same time presenting opportunities for researchers to make further headway into the specific discipline and methods of graphic design.

中文翻译：

---

术语和设计资本：通过从业者对其职位的看法来检验平面设计的教学地位

平面设计长期以来一直受到其不确定的教育学科地位的阻碍，导致它被纳入更广泛的视觉艺术研究。认为这渗透到专业实践中，本文探讨了专业平面设计师对“平面设计”一词本身的矛盾心理。文章借鉴了对从业者的采访和在线平面设计论坛的讨论，认为这种矛盾源于人们认为该术语减少了平面设计师持有的设计资本的看法。反过来，这会对平面设计师对与创意利益相关者的专业关系的看法产生负面影响。本文将研究结果与现有学术文献放在一起，证实了有关平面设计师对其资本看法的轶事行业叙述。而且，它确定了这些叙述的一系列细微差别，挑战了陈规定型的教育和行业假设。在这样做时，它认为从业者对“平面设计”一词的矛盾心理是学术差距的表现，这是由于对平面设计的特定学科和实践的教学参与不足造成的。这给从业者以及他们工作的组织带来了挑战，同时为研究人员提供了在平面设计的特定学科和方法方面取得进一步进展的机会。由于对平面设计的特定学科和实践的教学参与不足。这给从业者以及他们工作的组织带来了挑战，同时为研究人员提供了在平面设计的特定学科和方法方面取得进一步进展的机会。由于对平面设计的特定学科和实践的教学参与不足。这给从业者以及他们工作的组织带来了挑战，同时为研究人员提供了在平面设计的特定学科和方法方面取得进一步进展的机会。