Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:36:40.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A course for teaching design research methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2010

Amaresh Chakrabarti
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Affiliation:
Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Design research informs and supports practice by developing knowledge to improve the chances of producing successful products. Training in design research has been poorly supported. Design research uses human and natural/technical sciences, embracing all facets of design; its methods and tools are adapted from both these traditions. However, design researchers are rarely trained in methods from both the traditions. Research in traditional sciences focuses primarily on understanding phenomena related to human, natural, or technical systems. Design research focuses on supporting improvement of such systems, using understanding as a necessary but not sufficient step, and it must embrace methods for both understanding reality and developing support for its improvement. A one-semester, postgraduate-level, credited course that has been offered since 2002, entitled Methodology for Design Research, is described that teaches a methodology for carrying out research into design. Its steps are to clarify research success; to understand relevant phenomena of design and how these influence success; to use this to envision design improvement and develop proposals for supporting improvement; to evaluate support for its influence on success; and, if unacceptable, to modify, support, or improve the understanding of success and its links to the phenomena of design. This paper highlights some major issues about the status of design research and describes how design research methodology addresses these. The teaching material, model of delivery, and evaluation of the course on methodology for design research are discussed.

Keywords

Design Research MethodologyEngineering DesignIndustrial DesignResearch Methods and ToolsSystematic Design Research MethodologyTraining and Education

Information

Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Design Pedagogy: Representations and Processes , August 2010 , pp. 317 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. (2001). Understanding the use and reuse of experience in engineering design. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering.Google Scholar
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, C.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing—A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., & Andreasen, M.M. (2005). Teaching engineering design research. In Engineering Design—Theory and Practice: A Symposium in Honour of Ken Wallace (Clarkson, P.J., & Huhtala, M., Eds.), pp. 32–41. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Engineering Design Centre.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). DRM: a design research methodology. Proc. Int. Conf. Science of Design—The Scientific Challenge for the 21st Century, INSA, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a Design Research Methodology. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A., & Wallace, K.M. (1992). Some issues in engineering design research. In OU/SERC Design Methods Workshop (Cross, N., Ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A., & Wallace, K.M. (1995). A design research methodology. 10th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, pp. 50–55, Prague.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A., & Wallace, K.M. (1998). An overview of design studies in relation to a design research methodology. In Designers: the Key to Successful Product Development (Frankenberger, E., Badke-Schaub, P., & Birkhofer, E., Eds.). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, pp. 201–207. New York: Susan Fauer.Google Scholar
Cantamessa, M. (2001). Design research in perspective—a meta-research on ICED’97 and ICED’99. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Culley, S., Duffy, A., McMahon, C., & Wallace, K.M., Eds.), pp. 29–36. Glasgow: IMechE.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2007). The future of product development in India. In The Future of Product Development (Krause, F.-L., Ed.). Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2008). An overview of design research at Ideaslab. Proc. Indo–US Workshop Design Engineering 2006 (Chakrabarti, A., & Subrahmanian, S., Eds.). Bangalore: Allied Publishing.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1996). An approach to functional synthesis of design concepts: theory, application, and emerging research issues. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10 (4), 313–331.Google Scholar
Duffy, A.H.B., & Andreasen, M.M. (1995). Enhancing the evolution of design science. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Hubka, V., Ed.), pp. 29–35. Zürich: Heurista.Google Scholar
Finger, S., & Dixon, J.R. (1989 a). A review of research in mechanical engineering design: Part I. Descriptive, prescriptive and computer based models of design processes. Research in Engineering Design 1, 51–67.Google Scholar
Finger, S., & Dixon, J.R. (1989 b). A review of research in mechanical engineering design: Part II. Representations, analysis and design for the life cycle. Research in Engineering Design 1, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, D.D. (2004). Epistemology and the science of design. Accessed at http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~sullivan/sdsis/Program/Dan%20Frey.pdfGoogle Scholar
Frey, D.D., & Dym, C.L. (2006). Validation of design methods and theories: lessons from medicine. Research in Engineering Design 17, 45–57.Google Scholar
Horváth, I. (2001). A contemporary survey of scientific research into engineering design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Culley, S., Duffy, A., McMahon, C., & Wallace, K.M., Eds.), pp. 13–20. Glasgow: IMechE.Google Scholar
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting With Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, A., McMahon, C.A., Shah, T., & Culley, S.J. (2001). The application of an automatic document classification system to aid the organisers of ICED2001. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Culley, S., Duffy, A., McMahon, C., & Wallace, K.M., Eds.), pp. 437–444. Glasgow: IMechE.Google Scholar
Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In Instructional–Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status (Reigeluth, C.M., Ed.), pp. 279–333, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nidamarthi, S. (1999). Understanding and supporting requirement satisfaction in the design process. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Olewnik, A.T., & Lewis, K. (2005). On validating engineering design decision support tools. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 13 (2), 111–122.Google Scholar
Pedersen, K., Emblemsvåg, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J.K., & Mistree, F. (2000). The validation square: validating design methods. Proc. ASME DTM Conf. Baltimore, MD: ASME Press.Google Scholar
Reich, Y. (1994). Layered models of research methodologies. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 8, 263–274.Google Scholar
Samuel, A., & Lewis, W. (2001). Curiosity-oriented research in engineering design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Culley, S., Duffy, A., McMahon, C., & Wallace, K.M., Eds.), pp. 37–44. Glasgow: IMechE.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. (2007). Development of a support for effective concept exploration to enhance creativity of engineering designers. PhD Thesis. Indian Institute of Science.Google Scholar
Seepersad, C.C., Pedersen, K., Emblemsvåg, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J.K., & Mistree, F. (2006). The validation square: how does one verify and validate a design method? In Decision-Based Design: Making Effective Decisions in Product and Systems Design (Chen, W., Lewis, K., & Schmidt, L., Eds.), pp. 305–326. New York: ASME Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Upton, N., & Yates, I. (2001). Putting design research to work. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Culley, S., Duffy, A., McMahon, C., & Wallace, K.M., Eds.). Glasgow: IMechE.Google Scholar
Vijaykumar, A.V.G. (2009). Understanding knowledge needs and processes in design. PhD Thesis. Indian Institute of Science.Google Scholar
Vijaykumar, A.V.G., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). Understanding the knowledge needs of the designers during design process in industry. ASME Journal for Information in Science and Engineering 8 (1), 11004–11012.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, K.L., & Greer, J.L. (2001). Function-based synthesis methods in engineering design. In Formal Engineering Design Synthesis (Antonsson, E., & Cagan, J., Eds.), pp. 170–227. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar