Skip to main content
×
×
Home

A logical critique of the expert position in design research: beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation

  • Pieter Vermaas (a1)
Abstract

This paper gives a general and logical analysis of the expert position in design research by which methods for innovative design can be derived from expert design practices. It first gives a framework for characterising accounts of design by the way in which they define and relate general, descriptive and prescribed types of design practices. Second, it analyses with this framework the expert position’s conservatism of prescribing existing expert design practices to non-expert designers. Third, it argues that the expert status of expert designers does not provide sufficient justification for prescribing expert design practices to non-expert designers; it is shown that this justification needs support by empirical testing. Fourth, it discusses validation of design methods for presenting an approach to this testing. One consequence of the need to empirically test the expert position is that its prescription has to be formulated in more detail. Another consequence is that it undermines the expert position since expert design practices are not anymore certain sources for deriving design methods with. Yet it also opens the expert position to other sources for developing design methods for innovation, such as the practices of contemporary designers and the insights of design researchers.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A logical critique of the expert position in design research: beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A logical critique of the expert position in design research: beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A logical critique of the expert position in design research: beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Corresponding author
Email address for correspondence: p.e.vermaas@tudelft.nl
References
Hide All
Birkhofer, H. 2011 Introduction. In The Future of Design Methodology (ed. Birkhofer, H.), pp. 118. Springer.
Blessing, L. T. M. & Chakrabarti, A. 2009 DRM: A Design Research Methodology. Springer.
Brown, T. 2009 Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Business.
Cross, N. 2006 Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer.
Curry, T. 2014 A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies 35, 632646.
Dorst, K. 2015 Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press.
D.School2011 D.School bootcamp bootleg. http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf (accessed May 25, 2013).
Frey, D. D. & Dym, C. L. 2006 Validation of design methods: lessons from medicine. Research in Engineering Design 17, 4557.
Frey, D. D. & Li, X. 2006 Model-based validation of design methods. In Decision Making in Engineering Design (ed. Lewis, K. E., Chen, W. & Schmidt, L. C.), pp. 315323. ASME.
Gero, J. S. 1990 Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11 (4), 2636.
Hubka, V. & Eder, W. E. 1988 Theory of Technical Systems. Springer.
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J. & Wensveen, S. 2011 Design Research through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann.
Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. 2009 Design Expertise. Architectural Press.
Lulham, R. A. & Kaldor, L. J. 2013 Creating alternative frames for a retail security problem: An application of Dorst’s Frame Creation model. In Consilience and Innovation in Design, Proceedings and Program vol. 2, International Association of Societies of Design Research, Tokyo, pp. 46364647.
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. 2002 Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. & Grote, K.-H. 2007 Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd edition Springer.
Pedersen, K., Emblemsvåg, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J. K. & Mistree, F.2000 Validating design methods & research: the validation square. In Proceedings of DETC’00, 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 10–14, 2000, Baltimore, Maryland, DETC2000/DTM-14579.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C. & Leifer, L.(Eds) 2011 Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply. Springer.
Reich, Y. 2010 My method is better! Research in Engineering Design 21, 137142.
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 Making in Engineering Design (ed. Lewis, K. E., Chen, W. & Schmidt, L. C.), pp. 303314. ASME.
Simonsen, J. & Robertson, T. 2012 Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge.
Suh, N. P. 2001 Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press.
Verganti, R. 2009 Design Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating what Things Mean. Harvard Business Press.
Vermaas, P. E. 2010 Beyond expert design thinking: on general, descriptive and prescriptive models. In Proceedings of DTRS8, Sydney, 19–20 October, 2010 (ed. Dorst, K., Stewart, S., Staudinger, I., Paton, B. & Dong, A.), pp. 405413.
Vermaas, P. E. 2011 On prescribing expert designing: a logical analysis. In Diversity and Unity: 4th World Conference on Design Research (IASDR2011), October 31–November 4, 2011, Delft, The Netherlands (ed. Roozenburg, N., Chen, L.-L. & Stappers, P. J.), paper no 132.
Vermaas, P. E. 2013 On managing innovative design projects methodologically: the case of framing. In Proceedings of the 2nd Cambridge Academic Design Management Conference, September 4–5, 2013, Cambridge, UK, pp. 549560, http://www.cadmc.org/CADMC2013Proceedings.pdf.
Vermaas, P. E. 2014 Design theories, models and their testing: on the scientific status of design research. In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations (ed. Chakrabarti, A. & Blessing, L. T. M.), pp. 4766. Springer.
Visser, W. 2006 The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wallace, K. 2011 Transferring design methods into practice. In The Future of Design Methodology (ed. Birkhofer, H.), pp. 239248. Springer.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Design Science
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2053-4701
  • URL: /core/journals/design-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed