Implications for Research Training and Examination for Design PhDs

A Designerly Way of Researching

It is commonly recognized by the design research community that there is a ‘designerly’ way of knowing articulated by Nigel Cross (1982, 2006), that is distinct from other types of knowledge. Cross positions it as a third way of knowing, distinct from a Scientific or Humanities approach. He uses this simple model to highlight the various philosophical differences between the three disciplines. Cross differentiates them (1982, p. 222) by contrasting the phenomenon of study as:

• In the sciences: the natural world
• In the humanities: human experience
• In design: the man-made world

When Cross and his colleagues at the Royal College of Art proposed the idea of designerly knowing in the early 1980s, design research had already been established for twenty years since the Design Methods movement (the first conference on design methods was held in 1963). However, the criticism and failure of early design research was due to its mistaken focus on ‘scientizing’ the discipline by adopting scientific values (objectivity, rationality and the search [Page 462]for ‘truth’). The philosophy of design was based on the scientific model of positivistic and realist positions that set out to capture the ‘truths’ about design. The ‘design as science’ model assumes that in order to achieve intellectual maturity (Glanville, 1998), design methods and processes have to be discovered, abstracted and codified.

Cross was heavily critical of the failure of these academic leaders to develop the discipline from within, on its own terms. Despite leveraging this criticism in 1982, discourses around the philosophy and methods of a designerly way of knowing have been slow to develop, due in part to the fragmented nature of the design research community. This situation has changed somewhat in the last fifteen years as the trend to academize design has increased the number of qualified researchers.

A Maturing Design Research Paradigm

The emergence of a much larger, internationally based design research community is evident by the increased number of Design PhDs and schools offering PhD programs as the new terminal degree for design. In the UK for example, the number of Design PhDs awarded in the UK has more than doubled (Fisher, Christer, & Mottram, 2005) in the last two decades. In addition, the emergence of design-related international academic conferences and journals reflects a growing maturity within the field. In 2010 alone, there have been over 130 calls on the Design Journal and Conference Call website (http://designcalls.wordpress.com) for conference and journal contributions. There is a sense that design research is reaching an intellectual maturity and confidence in its own research paradigm.

It is in this changing landscape that a more established typology of design methodologies has begun to emerge, used and validated as acceptable forms of research methodology for doctoral level programs. New research paradigms have also emerged, with an increasing number of studies placing design practice as the focus of the investigation. The role of design practice and project has been hotly debated for the last few years. As yet, no conclusive research paradigm has emerged that can be distinctly described as a designerly way of enquiring.

...