Thesis proposal

The conflict and mutual distrust between designers and scientists/engineers hinders the process of design. Too often in the design community, derogatory statements toward engineers are heard. Whether said in jest or earnest, these statements break down the communication between the parties and fuel the general distrust. Statements along the lines of ,“they just-build, ugly, unrefined monstrosities” and “forget the sciency stuff, design from how you feel it should be, you don't want to be an engineer”, immediately separate the designer from the science world, cutting out a whole area of inspiration and of valuable refinement resources. It narrows the starting point of idea generation and creates a much narrower unaccommodating field. It is realized that many, if not the majority of designers, can happily work with engineers on a daily basis. Many of these will be able to do it with few communication problems. However, those designers who don't and then make it well known what they think of this scientific world create a situation where conflict is more likely in the future. Whenever there is the coming together of ‘different approaches, goals and understandings’, ‘conflict, misunderstanding and distrust’ are always lurking near. People, on either side talking discouragingly about the other, make the field cloudy; so only a good communicator can walk in without preset prejudices. So what causes this conflict from both the design and science perspectives (scientists have the similar communication issues and prejudices)? What would cooperation and understanding enable the designer to do.?And what would be required for this to happen?

Conflict is caused by a number of factors on both sides. Scientists become frustrated at designers because they either ignore or do not value the goals and methods of the scientist. Scientists have the incorrect stereotype in their minds that designers just “make stuff pretty” that they ignore function and how the world works. There is also a very negative stereotype of designers as being fussy, stubborn and impossible to work with. So their preconceived ideas create a rift. There is far too much over generalization of what a designer is. There is also a frustration with “fuzzy designers”, designers who do not seriously consider the feasibility of their design in the real world. Designs can push the boundaries of what has been done and what is generally understood but it must still allow for the fact that it will be built in this world and has to work in this world. Science being the study of how the world works can then test the design. There is also a problem in being able to fully explain the designs so that they can be understood by the engineer or scientist.

It may seem that the designers are getting a hard time but exacting the same thing is happening on the other side. Many designers think that scientists ignore or do not value the goals of the designer; that scientists do not see importance of aesthetics and many of the other design principles. There is a stereotype that engineers just make big, ugly, functional things. And that if you design something “out there” they just tell you it can’t be done”, or ask “why would you want to do that, it’s stupid”. There is a frustration with narrow-minded scientists who will only accept what they already know. there is also a fear in the design world that design will become a formula or science. And once again there is a huge problem of over generalization of what a “scientist” is.

How to reach a place of understanding and cooperation:

• Respect !!!
• Understanding
• Explanations of the others goals, values and approaches of each discipline and a realization that they are both good
• Understanding of what the other party brings
• A knowledge of each other’s concepts and terms
• Communication

Why would we want to? What would it achieve?

• A whole new area for inspiration
• New methods of approaching design
• A sure way of measuring a design
• A way to inform or back up intuition ( particularly in terms of psychology of perception)
• Enables designs to be made or used ( in materials or new technology)

I do not think design should be a science. IT ISN’T. Designing to a formula doesn’t work. It needs creativity and intuition. However, science can feed creativity, explain and enforce intuition, and help to measure a design - not just in terms of function, but also in the way the design is perceived and responded to.

Andrew Ingram. “What is Form vs. Function?” Andrew Ingram . Andrew Ingram. 21 Feb 07. <http://www.andrewingram.net/articles/what_is_form_vs_function/ >march 2008.

Authors not stated. “Brooks Stevens. Industrial Strength Design: How Brooks Stevens Shaped Your World” Milwaukee art museum. Editors not stated. June 2003. <http://www.mam.org/exhibitions/_sites/brooks/biography.asp >march 2008.

Adam. “I am not a stylist.” I AN ADAM. Adam. Wed, 03/28/2007 - 08:45. <http://adam.theoherns.com/content/i-am-not-stylist >march 2008.

Csven. “The Death of “Industrial Design.” reBang weblog. Csven. February 27th. <http://blog.rebang.com/?p=711 >march 2008.

Author not stated. “Designers vs. engineers” petting-zoo. Editors not stated. Fri, 09 Jan 1998 http://www.petting-zoo.net/~deadbeef/archive/3354.html originally from http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/9526.html which is no longer available.

http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/12/1096

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Dreyfuss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_methods

http://www.designmuseum.org/design/ross-lovegrove

http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/design-is-rocket