I have been watching the debate about differences/similarities between
engineers and designers with some frustration, as I was not able to
send to phd-design for some reason. Anyway, having got that sorted,
here goes.
Many of the replies to this thread have focused exclusively on
artefacts, process, or technology, without consideration of the person
doing the designing. The person has knowledge of designing, but is
also an individual with desires, preferences, and certain attitudes
towards creativity. In other words, they have a personality.
There is of course a rich literature from psychology and some other
areas, on studies of creativity, of personality, of individual
differences, and of comparisons between (usually) scientists and
artists in the preferences they have for thinking, problem solving, and
operating in the world. Many systematic studies of creativity show
links with personality. There appear to be few studies that directly
compare 'engineers' with 'designers' (my marks are in recognition of
Lubomir's rightful admonition that we must be careful in defining our
terms, which I shall nevertheless not attempt here...). There are some
pointers though. For example, Mary McCaully and others conducted a
large scale study of personality of engineering students at several USA
universities. Using similar psychometric instruments, there are
comparative studies of artists (some ordinary, some of genius),
scientists of various kinds (again, some ordinary some exceptional),
and architects (Donald MacKinnon's classic study showed the importance
of intuitive thinking in high ability architects). I conducted a small
scale study myself of UK 'design' students (complying with Lubomir's
request: these were first year undergraduates in interior design,
product design, and graphic design, in two UK universities).
While it is difficult to piece together firm conclusions from the many
studies conducted over the past 45 years or so, and from many different
scales, it is possible to draw some conclusions.
Personality studies related to creativity have generally focused on
personality variables, together with the sociocultural environment
within which creativity may be fostered. Researchers have noted that
certain personality traits often characterise creative persons and that
some aspects of personality covary with creative ability. Comparisons
between arts and sciences have been made, with many studies of both
artists (widely interpreted to include writers, performers and others)
and scientists. Some of these studies throw some light on the likely
disposition of designers.
It has long been thought that a certain kind of personality attends
creativity. From studies reported in the 1960s it was observed that:
"it would almost seem as if the differences between science, art and
literature are differences of particular skills and interests only, and
that the fundamental characteristic of the creative, original person is
a type of personality".
A recent extensive review of the literature states:
"Empirical research over the past 45 years makes a rather convincing
case that creative people behave consistently over time and situation
in ways that distinguish them from others. The creative personality
does exist and personality dispositions regularly and predictably
relate to creative achievement in art and science."
In terms of commonalities, it has been found that creative people -- in
both arts and science -- tend to be "open to new experiences, less
conventional and less conscientious, more self-confident,
self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive."
However, it is recognised that creative people in arts and science do
not share the same personality profile. For example, relative to
scientists, painters, poets, writers, and film directors were found to
be more aesthetically oriented, imaginative, and intuitive when
compared with their less creative peers. It has also been shown that
artistic subjects are high on motivation and driven more by achievement
than non creative peers. Art students were found to be more impulsive
and have less need for order, and artists are also reported to have a
propensity toward questioning and rebelling against established norms.
Generally, it can be seen from these studies that the artistically
creative person appears to have a disposition toward intense affective
experience, and art is seen as more of an introspective journey.
In passing, it should be noted that there are new integrative theories
of personality (f.ex. Five Factor Model), and theories of personality
and creativity (f.ex. Eysenck), which may be of distinct interest to
design.
It has been stated that many of these findings go a long way:
"in demonstrating that personality as a construct and its study as a
discipline offer a unique and important perspective on creativity and
the creative process."
In all the studies of creativity, very few have been conducted with
representative designers. However, we can conjecture some conclusions
from our experiences as educators, and from what little empirical
evidence is published.
In the studio, informal observation of design students indicates that
they exhibit common characteristics in the ways they think about their
world. For example, in designing it can be seen that being different
is a strong motivator - this is often difference for its own sake.
Sometimes style will outweigh practicality, or there may be a drive for
some particular aesthetic or tactile quality that must receive
expression. These kinds of designers also seem to like solving new
problems, and to seek radical solutions rather than producing more
routine incremental change. They are given to proposing unusual
associations, and they sometimes deliberately break the rules set by
the tutors, for example by pushing a brief to the limit. Occasionally,
they may be rebellious and difficult. They rarely work from first
principles and seem happy to work with uncertain or incomplete
knowledge.
A number of significant differences in personality and related
cognitive styles have been postulated between designers and cognate
professionals such as engineers and architects, and it has been shown
that these differences have implications for educators in facilitating
learning. Among these differences are the extent of, or preference
for, the cognitive style of convergent thinking which is marked in
engineers whereas designers appear to major on divergent thinking.
If some of the above looks like something that I prepared earlier, it
is. It is taken from a recent paper which I will present to the EAD
conference in Barcelona at Easter. This paper attempts an overview of
research in personality and creativity relevant to 'design' in an 'art
and design' context, and is of course fully referenced.
I feel that there is a whole area of understanding about ways of
thinking and acting creatively that is not being studied
systematically from the perspective of design. One motivation in
presenting this work is to discuss with other like minded persons how
we can move this forward.
If anyone would like a .pdf copy of my draft paper please email me
([log in to unmask]) with 'Personality' in the subject line.
David
Postscript: In Bruce Tharp's joke:-
> In the corners of a large triangular room stand an
> engineer, mathematician, and an attractive male or
> female of a sexual orientation complimentary to that
> of the engineer and mathematician (politically correct
> sanitization mine). The engineer and mathematician are
> told that they can move half way toward the attractive
> being. After stopping they are told that they can
> again move half way. After stopping again they are
> told that they may continue with successive half-way
> moves. The mathematician stops, saying that this was
> a ridiculous venture as he would never actually reach
> the attractive being as there are an infinite number
> half-ways; he self-righteously leaves. The engineer
> however agrees to continue knowing that while not
> perfect he can get close enough to make it work.
>
> I wonder if it were a square room with designer added
> to the mix how she/he would proceed?
I would think that (putting to one side any gender specific or cultural
context or bias) the designer would have little respect for the 'rules'
of this game, and of being arbitrarily told what to do, and would
simply grab the attractive other.
One might also conjecture that no designer would ever think up a game
of this kind...
:-))
ARi_____________________________________________
Dr David Durling
Director, Advanced Research Institute
School of Art & Design, Staffordshire University
College Road, Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK
tel: +44 (0)1782 294556 (direct)
tel: +44 (0)1782 294602 (ARi office)
fax: +44 (0)1782 294530
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.ari.staffs.ac.uk
________________________________________________
|
