Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation

Author(s): Nigel Cross

Source: Design Issues , Summer, 1999, Vol. 15, No. 2, Design Research (Summer, 1999),
pp. 5-10
Published by: The MIT Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1511837

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Design
Issues

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Design Research:
A Disciplined Conversation
Nigel Cross

Design research is alive and well, and living in an increasing

number of places. I find encouraging evidence for this in the growth
of research-based journals in the design world over the last ten to
fifteen years. For example, Design Studies was launched in 1979;
Design Issues first appeared in 1984; the Journal of Design History in
1988; Research in Engineering Design in 1989; and Languages of Design
in 1992. These are not the only ones; and there have been others, of
course, in other languages, such as Temes de Disseny (Catalan and
Spanish), 1986; Revue Sciences et Techniques de la Conception (French),
1992; FormDiskurs (German), 1996.
There has also been a lot of design-oriented research
reported in a wide range of journals concerned with artificial intel-
ligence, human-computer interaction, and so on. Compared with
the academic design scene in the 1970s, we now have a rich culture
in which to grow our design research seedlings.
Each of these design research journals draws upon scholar-
ship paradigms from the sciences or the arts. A history-based jour-
nal such as Journal of Design History clearly draws upon paradigms
of scholarship in the arts and humanities, and an engineering-based
journal such as Research in Engineering Design leans heavily on the
research paradigm of the natural sciences. But the important thing
is that collectively we have the possibility of adding to these other
paradigms and of developing our own design research culture.
At the Design: Science: Method conference of the Design
Research Society, in 1980, Bruce Archer gave a general definition of
research, which is that "Research is systematic inquiry, the goal of
which is knowledge."' Our concern in design research has to be the
development, articulation and communication of design knowledge.
Our axiom has to be that there are forms of knowledge peculiar to
the awareness and ability of a designer, just as the other intellectual
cultures in the sciences and the arts concentrate on the forms of
knowledge peculiar to the scientist or the artist.
Where do we look for this knowledge? I believe that it has
three sources: people, processes and products.
Design knowledge resides firstly in people: in designers espe-
cially, but also in everyone to some extent. Designing is a natural
I B. Archer, "A View of the Nature of
human ability Other animals do not do it, and machines (so far) do
Design Research" in R. Jacques and J.
Powell, eds., Design. Science. Method,
not do it. We often overlook the fact that people are naturally very
(Guildford, UK: Westbury House/IPC good at design. We should not underplay our abilities as designers,
Science and Technology Press, 1981). many of the most valued achievements of humankind are works of

O Copyright 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

Design Issues: Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 1999

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 design, including anonymous, vernacular design as well as the
"high design" of professionals.

One immediate subject of design research, therefore, is the

investigation of this human ability-of how people design. This
suggests, for example, empirical studies of designer behavior, but it
also includes theoretical deliberation and reflection on the nature of
design ability. It also relates strongly to considerations of how
people learn to design, to studies of the development of design abil-
ity in individuals and how that development might best be
nurtured in design education.
Design knowledge resides secondly in its processes: in the
tactics and strategies of designing. A major area of design research
is methodology: the study of the processes of design, and the devel-
opment and application of techniques which aid the designer. Much
of this research revolves around the study of modeling for design
purposes. Traditional models are the sketches and drawings of
proposed design solutions, which in contemporary terms now
extend to "virtual reality" models. The use of computers has stimu-
lated a wealth of research into design processes; so has the develop-
ment of new practices in industry such as concurrent engineering.
Thirdly, we cannot forget that design knowledge resides in
products themselves: in the forms and materials and finishes which
embody design attributes. Much everyday design work entails the
use of precedents or previous exemplars-not because of laziness
by the designer but because the exemplars actually contain knowl-
edge of what the product should be. This is certainly true in craft-
based design: traditional crafts are based on the knowledge implicit
within the object itself of how best to shape, make, and use it. This
is why craft-made products are usually copied very literally from
one example to the next, from one generation to the next.
As with the design knowledge that resides in people, we
would be foolish to disregard or overlook this informal product
knowledge simply because it has not been made explicit yet; that is
a task for design research. So too, is the development of more formal
knowledge of shape and configuration, the theoretical studies of
design morphology. These may be concerned as much with the
semantics as with the syntax of form, or may be concerned with
prosaic matters of efficiency and economy, or with relationships
between form and context-whether ergonomics or environment.
My own taxonomy of the field of design research would
therefore fall into three main categories, based on people, process
and products:
* design epistemology
-study of designerly ways of knowing
* design praxiology
-study of the practices and processes of design
* design phenomenology
-study of the form and configuration of artifacts.

6 Design Issues: Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 1999

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What clearly has been happening in the field of design
research in the last decade or so is that there has been a growing
awareness of the intrinsic strengths and appropriateness of design
thinking within its own context. There has been a growing accep-
tance of design on its own terms, a growing acknowledgment and
articulation of design as a discipline in its own right. We have come
to realize that we do not have to turn design into an imitation of
science, nor do we have to treat design as a mysterious, ineffable art.
We recognize that design has its own distinct intellectual culture; its
own designerly "things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways
of finding out about them." 2
This view of design as a distinct culture is also embodied in
attempts to break away from C. P. Snow's "two cultures" view of
Western intellectual tradition, the two cultures of the Arts and
Sciences. It has to be recognized that there is at least one other
culture, which we might regard as the culture of Design, which can
be articulated in comparison with the other two.
For instance, the "things to know," the respective fields of
knowledge, are the natural world for science, human experience for
art, and the artificial world for design; the "ways of knowing," the
values of science are rationality and objectivity, those of art are
reflection and subjectivity, and those of design are imagination and
practicality. Similarly, the "ways of finding out," the intellectual
skills, can be differentiated: those of science are experiment and
analysis, those of art are criticism and evaluation, and those of
design are modeling and synthesis.
The above categorizations may be rather simple, but many
researchers in the design world have been realizing that design does
indeed have its own strong and appropriate intellectual culture, and
that we must avoid totally swamping our research with different
cultures imported either from science or art. This does not mean
that we completely ignore these other cultures. On the contrary,
they have much stronger histories of inquiry, scholarship, and
research than we have in design. We need to draw upon those histo-
ries and traditions where appropriate, while building our own intel-
lectual culture, acceptable and defensible in the world on its own
terms. We have to be able to demonstrate that standards of rigor in
our intellectual culture at least match those of the others.
In The Sciences of the Artificial, Herbert Simon went so far as
to say that "The proper study of mankind is the science of design."3
(Of course, the quotation is a corruption from Pope's original
version, that "the proper study of mankind is man.") What Simon
was suggesting was that the study of design could be a fundamen-
2 B. Archer, K. Baynes, and R. Langon,
tal, interdisciplinary study accessible to all those involved in the
Design in General Education, (London,
creative activity of making the artificial world (which includes all
UK: Royal College of Art, 1979).

3 H A. Simon, The Sciences of the mankind). For example, Simon wrote that "Few engineers and
Artificial, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, composers . . . can carry on a mutually rewarding conversation
1969). about the content of each other's professional work. What I am

Design Issues: Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 1999 7

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 suggesting is that they can carry on such a conversation about
design, can begin to perceive the common creative activity in which
they are both engaged, can begin to share their experiences of the
creative, professional design process."
This, it seems to me, is the challenge for design research, to
help construct a way of conversing about design that is at the same
time both interdisciplinary and disciplined. We do not want conver-
sations that fail to connect across disciplines, that fail to reach
common understanding, and that fail to create new knowledge and
perceptions of design. It is the paradoxical task of creating an inter-
disciplinary discipline.
For some leading examples of this developing conversation,
we might turn to the series of papers which, in recent years, have
won the annual Design Studies Award for the best paper published
in that journal. These examples have originated in design research
conducted in different domains and with different methodologies,
but each individual contribution has had something to say to
members of the wider design research community.
The Award was first instituted in 1987, and a selection of the
winners includes:
Donald Sch6n4 (Urban Planning, MIT, USA)Designing: Rules,
Types and Worlds Analysis of design protocols to identify patterns of
reasoning based on rules derived from type-concepts.
Jacob Burr and Myrup Andreason5 (Engineering, Lyngby
University, Denmark) Design Models in Mechatronic Product
Development Analysis of the properties of design models, leading to
proposals for models appropriate to mechatronic product design.
Frances Downing6 (Architecture, Texas A&M University,
USA) Conversations in Imagery Study of the role of memory (mental
imagery of memorable places) in the architectural design process.

4 D. Sch6n, "Designing: Rules, Types and Robin Roy7 (Design & Innovation, The Open University, UK)
Worlds" Design Studies, 9: 3 (1988): Case Studies of Creativity in Innovative Product Development Studies of
181-190.
creative individual designers to gain insight into the creative pro-
5 J. Burr and M. Andreason, "Design
cess and innovative product development.
Models in Mechatronic Product
Gabriela Goldschmidt8 (Architecture, Technion, Haifa, Israel)
Development" Design Studies 10: 3
(1989): 155-1 62. The Designer as a Team of One Comparative protocol analyses of an
6 F. Downing, "Conversations in Imagery" individual designer and a small team tackling the same design
Design Studies 13: 3 (1992): 291-319. problem.
7 R. Roy, "Case Studies of Creativity in
Terry Purcell and John Gero9 (Design Science, Sydney Uni-
Innovative Product Development" Design
versity, Australia) Design and Other Types of Fixation Experimental
Studies 14: 4 (1993): 423-443.
8 G. Goldschmidt, "The Designer as a Team studies of problem solving in design, aimed at understanding the
of One" Design Studies, 16:2 (1995): causes and effects of fixation.
189-209. Jars-Erik Janlert and Erik Stolterman10 (Computing and In-
9 T. Purcell and J. Gero "Design and Other
formatics, Umea University, Sweden) The Character of Things A
Types of Fixation" Design Studies, 17:4
consideration of how things (hardware and software), as well as
(1996): 363-383.
10 L-E. Janlert and E. Stolterman "The
people, can have a "character."

Character of Things" Design Studies 18: What these examples of "best practice" in design research
3 (1997): 297-31 7. have in common include the following characteristics.

8 Design Issues: Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 1999

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The research is:

Purposive, based on identification of an issue or problem

worthy and capable of investigation.

Inquisitive, seeking to acquire new knowledge.

Informed, conducted from an awareness of previous, related
research.

Methodical, planned and carried out in a disciplined manner.

Communicable, generating and reporting results which are
testable and accessible by others.

These characteristics are, of course, normal features of good

research in any discipline. I do not think that such normal, academic
criteria inhibit or preclude research that is "designerly" in its origins
and intentions. However, they would exclude works of so-called
research that fail to communicate, and which are undisciplined or
ill-informed.
I think also that we should draw a distinction between
works of practice and works of research. I do not see how normal
works of practice can be regarded as works of research. The whole
point of doing research is to extract reliable knowledge from either
the natural or artificial world, and to make that knowledge available
to others in re-usable form. This does not mean that works of design
practice must be wholly excluded from design research, but it does
mean that, to qualify as research, there must be reflection by the
practitioner on the work, and communication of some re-usable
results from that reflection.
The design fields covered in the selected papers, above, have
included architectural design, engineering design, industrial design
and software design, and the methods of inquiry underlying the
research have ranged from philosophical analysis, through case
studies and interviews, to protocol studies. They are examples
drawn from an ongoing research "conversation" about design
which is being shared by members of widely differing professions
and disciplines. They draw upon the research paradigms and meth-
ods of both the arts and the sciences, but they also contribute to the
emerging paradigms and methods of design research.
One of the dangers in this new field of design research is that
researchers from other, non-design, disciplines will import methods
and approaches that are inappropriate to developing the under-
standing of design. Researchers from psychology or computer
science, for example, have tended to assume that there is "nothing
special" about design as an activity for investigation. However,
developments such as artificial intelligence and other computer
modeling in design have perhaps served mainly to demonstrate the
high-level cognitive ability of designers, and how much more
research is needed to understand it. Better progress seems to be
made by designer-researchers, and for this reason the recent
European series of workshops and symposia on descriptive model-

Design Issues: Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 1999 9

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ing of design by Cross et al.,11 Akin et al.,12 Frankenburger at al.,13
featuring a younger generation of designer-researchers, has been
extremely useful in developing the methodology of inquiry in
design research. As design grows as a discipline with its own
research base, so we can hope that there will be a growth in the
number of emerging designer-researchers.
Another of the dangers is that researchers adhere to under-
lying paradigms of which they are only vaguely aware. We need to
develop this intellectual awareness within our community. A good
example here is the work of Kees Dourest,"4 in making an explicit
analysis and comparison of the paradigms underlying the approach
of Herbert Simon, on the one hand, and Donald Schon on the other.
These two scholars have been the most influential in our field,
11 N. Cross, H. Christiaans, and K. Dorst
representing positivist and constructivist philosophies, respectively.
eds., Analysing Design Activity, The Delft
Simon's positivism leads to a view of design as "rational problem
Design Protocols Workshop, (Chichester,
solving," and Sch6n's leads to a view of design as "reflective prac-
UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1995).

12 0. Akin and G. Saglamer eds., Descriptive tice." These two might appear to be in conflict, but Dross's use of
Models of Design, (Istanbul Technical the two paradigms in analyzing design activity leads him to the
University, Turkey: Faculty of view that the different paradigms have complementary strengths
Architecture, 1996).
for gaining an overview of the whole range of activities in design.
13 E. Frankenburger, P. Badke-Schaub and H.
We are still building the appropriate paradigm for design
Birkhofer eds., Designers-The Key to

Successful Product Development,

research. My personal "touch-stone" theory for this paradigm is that

(London, UK: Springer Verlag, 1998). there are "designerly ways of knowing;" 15 many of the examples of
14 K. Dorst, "Describing Design: A design research I have referred to are contributions to building our
Comparison of Paradigms," Ph.D. Thesis,
understanding of this concept of particular, designerly ability. I
(Delft University of Technology, The
believe that building such a paradigm will be helpful, in the long
Netherlands: Faculty of Industrial Design
run, to design practice and design education. We still know rela-
Engineering, 1997).

15 N. Cross, "Designerly Ways of Knowing" tively little about the mystery of design ability, and that limits our
Design Studies, 3: 4 (1982): 221-227. "proper study of mankind." This is the goal for design research.

10 Design Issues: Volume 15, Number 2 Summer 1999

This content downloaded from

59.180.233.146 on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:32:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms