All:
I'm sorry to resurrect this topic after lying dormant, but I took time to share Terry's interesting post on science in design with a colleague/friend, a research officer at NIH who understands design well, as input to recent conversations we have been having on 'design thinking' (if there is such a thing) in science. In his post Terry made this key observation:
(snip)
Some of these key figures in Greek thinking identified that various issues
needed to be addressed to ensure that outcomes were as expected and to
develop approaches by which the best outcomes could be predicted. This was
seen as an approach to develop 'knowledge that is of better quality and more
reliable'.
My colleague wrote in response to the whole post (I share the key observation as a reminder of the whole):
(snip)
I think I would agree with what he wrote although I am not sure how much one can build on this in terms of coming up with specific ways to promote more rigor into the design process. The concept of "reliability" seems to me to be closely related to the idea of reproducibility, which is the mainstay of any experimental science. So if one could identify steps in the design process that reproducibly lead to better or more efficient solutions, then one might have a way of structuring the process (or at least educating students in it).
Here's my question:
What is reproducible in design, in the sense that the result is reliable?
Terry's phrase was:
(snip)
'knowledge that is of better quality and more reliable'
What knowledge is reliable in design?
This concept seems related to the idea of 'principle' - a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.
What design principles do we have that produce reliable results?
How granular are whatever principles we use (very broad to quite specific)?
In the above I have not mindlessly shifted from 'knowledge of better quality and more reliable' to 'principle,' but have done so because design is a practical discipline, not merely speculative or theoretical. Hence, I think it's fair to shift from 'knowledge better quality...' to 'principle for practice/application' with some reliability of outcome, at least for the more practical aspects of the design discipline.
Since Terry (rightly I think) tied reliability to quality (better), I ask one final question:
Has design as a field/discipline/profession improved in the last 10, 50, 100 years in any measurable way as evidence of reliability? Note I say measurable. Evidence of quality improvement is the standard I seek.
To help stimulate response I'll offer this thesis:
I think design is almost entirely bereft of principles beyond gross and vague generalities, such as simplicity for example.
I appreciate thoughts from Terry and any others.
(Paul) Mike Zender
Director Design Graduate Studies
University of Cincinnati
College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
School of Design
|