Design research in the Netherlands 2000 : 24-25 May, 2000, Eindhoven
Henri Achten
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
The first Design Research in the Netherlands symposium was organised in 1995, with the specific aim to offer a forum for academics active in the widely varied field of design research. People studying architecture, industrial design, mechanical engineering, computer science, etc. took part in this meeting. In 1997, a follow-up with an accent on design education was organised under the title "Design Education in the Netherlands." On that occasion, design disciplines with a less research-oriented approach such as fashion design and graphic-design participated in the symposium as well. We are proud to present the proceedings of the second Design Research in the Netherlands symposium, which took place on 24-25 May 2000. Again, the aim of the symposium was to gather academics in the field to discuss their research methods, findings, approaches, and positions. The organisers were very happy to have Mark D. Gross as keynote speaker for the symposium. Mark Gross has been involved in architectural design support with computer tools. His early work has been with, among others, John Habraken at MIT. Research areas include graphic constraint-definition, diagrams, concept design games, and user interfaces. The "Cocktail Napkin" project received widespread acclaim in the human-computer interaction for design field. Mark Gross is currently Associate Professor at the University of Washington, Seatle, where he directs the Design Machine Group. Proceedings These proceedings include two additional papers with respect to the preprints. The paper by Ad den Otter on information ecologies was presented at the symposium, and the paper by Beheshti, Tolman, and van der Veer was submitted afterwards to provide an overview of the Design and Building Informatics Group of Civil Engineering in Delft. The articles included here are by no means a complete overview of all the design research activity that takes place in the Netherlands. To name a few, the departments of Structural Engineering, Computer Science, and Curriculum Development at Twente University, the Artificial Intelligence group of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and most design schools in higher education. Furthermore, there is an ongoing interest within industry to reflect about design and good design practice, although these findings are typically not communicated externally. Nevertheless, the papers gathered here provide a provisional map of design research activity in the Netherlands. Four themes Contributions to the symposium came from the following disciplines: Architecture, Civil Engineering, Technology Management, Industrial Design Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, and Information Technology. The papers have been organised into four themes: Theory, Process, Representation, and Computation. These themes are not absolute categories; they serve to identify main issues that are dealt with in the various papers.
Related papers
Design Research in the Netherlands 2000
The first Design Research in the Netherlands symposium was organised in 1995, with the specific aim to offer a forum for academics active in the widely varied field of design research. People studying architecture, industrial design, mechanical engineering, computer science, etc. took part in this meeting. In 1997, a follow-up with an accent on design education was organised under the title "Design Education in the Netherlands." On that occasion, design disciplines with a less research-oriented approach such as fashion design and graphic-design participated in the symposium as well. We are proud to present the proceedings of the second Design Research in the Netherlands symposium, which took place on 24-25 May 2000. Again, the aim of the symposium was to gather academics in the field to discuss their research methods, findings, approaches, and positions. The organisers were very happy to have Mark D. Gross as keynote speaker for the symposium. Mark Gross has been involved in architectural design support with computer tools. His early work has been with, among others, John Habraken at MIT. Research areas include graphic constraint-definition, diagrams, concept design games, and user interfaces. The "Cocktail Napkin" project received widespread acclaim in the human-computer interaction for design field. Mark Gross is currently Associate Professor at the University of Washington, Seatle, where he directs the Design Machine Group.
Design research in the Netherlands 2010 : proceedings of the symposium held on 20-21 May 2010, Eindhoven University of Technology
Design research in The Netherlands, 2010
DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
A Decade of Design Research in the Netherlands
2005
The changing focus of design research Design Research in the Netherlands 2005 is the third instalment of a symposium that intends to provide a forum for researchers across the academic and designing disciplines. The five-year interval (1995, 2000, and 2005) allows participants to take a step back from daily considerations and to reflect on their basic methodological assumptions, research programmes, and outcomes. It also provides us with the opportunity to witness the dynamics in organisations that are usually less apparent in annual or biannual meetings. Over the three proceedings of the symposium, we can see groups merge, split up, change names, being created, or disappear. The same applies to research programmes. Apart from the general academic dynamics (baffling as these sometimes may appear), do these changes reflect some more fundamental movements within the field of design research? In the proceedings of 1995, Robert Oxman noted two major orientations of design research: the design cognition orientation which leaned very much on protocol analysis, and the computational models orientation which leaned very much on information processing theory (Oxman 1995). Either orientation was grounded in a variety of theories to guide inquiry. At the risk of oversimplifying, one can defend that many considered at the time an overarching theory or vision 'what design is' feasible. Today, this does not seem to be the case anymore, so a shift in understanding must have occurred in the meantime. Perhaps one of many possible answers lies in the formative role that Rational Problem Solving and computation played in design research. The impact of Rational Problem Solving (RPS) and computation on design research is hard to overestimate. It is fair to say that much of the rigorous, methodological, and scientific content of design research has come into being just because of the concepts and framework introduced by RPS and computation. They proved a liberation from the mainly introspective and "beaux-arts"-traditional body of knowledge on design as present up to that period. Design methodology was introduced to solve immediately present large technical challenges for which there was no time to evolve approaches and typology in the traditional way (a point well-put in Jones 1980:27-34). On the other hand, by being so successful, RPS and computation "jumped to solutions," so to speak, rather than introducing time for self-reflection. This seems to be a recurring challenge with innovations, to strike a good balance between keeping the existing and trying the new. Only through confrontation with practice is it possible to learn the value of a new approach, while on the other hand one has to keep in mind the whole context of the problem area. One can note that the applied work of RPS was often performed under (wilful) ignorance of other, sometimes more traditional, ways of working. To be fair, the vast amount of work on RPS yielded a wealth of techniques to tackle all kinds of problems (see Michalewicz and Fogel (2000) for a fine collection), but somehow it seemed that design problems always redefined themselves to stay just out of reach.
Design research in the Netherlands
1995
DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
Design Methods Group
1995
The objective of the symposium was to provide a forum within which the participants might present their research activities and interests to a diverse group of researchers in the field. As an initial goal, we considered this a unique opportunity to gauge the breadth of activity in the Netherlands. Cutting across disciplinary lines, the symposium would also provide a locus for discussion among an intellectually heterogeneous audience sharing a common interest in design research. After consultation we assembled a list of researchers and groups which appeared to us to be comprehensive, and sent out the first announcement. In most cases, the response was positive and immediate. Design research appeared to be ubiquitous. Beyond the initial objectives of communication and information exchange, there is a significant underlying agenda. From a historical point of view the field appears to have reached a plateau. It is well-founded, diverse and active. There are venues for international meetings as well as for scientific publication. Among these, Design Studies, and Nigel Cross have to be singled out as one of the contributing factors in the self-awareness of the research field as well as in its growing definition and maturity. What now appears to be necessary is the development of overall objectives for design research. The term 'design science' seems to hover in the background to imply the emergence of a rigorous design discipline. What are the next steps towards a science of design? How can the multidisciplinary state currently characteristic of the field contribute to its realization? Will the new initiatives of the Graduate Schools of Design currently in stages of inception at both Eindhoven and Delft provide new incentives? Can we now enter a cycle of 'knowledge-based design education' in which what we are learning about design through research can be applied to teaching? Might the Netherlands play a unique role both in research and design pedagogy? The symposium was intended to provide an initial step in enhancing discussion and interchange on these subjects. We were fortunate to have Professor John Gero of the Department of Architectural and Design Science of the University of Sydney as a guest speaker. We are very grateful for his contribution.
Hernandez, G., Evans, M & Cruickshank, L (2013) Design History and the History of Designing. Crafting the Future, 10th European Academy of Design Conference, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, April 2013
This paper outlines a framework for understanding design, it moves the focus from the traditional study of design outcomes – the history of design – to the cognitive processes involved in the act of designing – the history of designing. It will present three consecutive cognitive periods via which the history of designing can be acknowledged to have discussed how the pre-eminence of particular kinds of reasoning are determined by environmental and disciplinary factors. Accordingly, this historical perspective elucidates key elements for recognizing cognitive traits in contemporary design practice, thus aiming to enhance the design process by means of a deeper understanding of the nature of design problems, and ways of tackling them.
Amsterdam_Nature of Design
Visual Presentation: "Before we address the question of ‘What Design Can Do’ for all of us, it would be pertinent to examine in some depth what is the nature of design so that we can try to understand it in all its dimensions. Some of us have been fortunate to watch design thought and action by students and professionals from up close for many years in very challenging circumstances. All these explorations being applied to vastly different situations and contexts, not all successful, but each effort showing signs of what could be achieved if imagination and skill, strategy and sensitivity, knowledge and conviction are brought to focus on the pressing needs of a society. How do you address a latent need or opportunity in a rapidly evolving world and culture when no ready made models exist for one to follow? This is where design comes into its own, since one is able to imagine new possibilities and build and test some of these alternatives as prototypes for creating the contours of a future category of product, space, service, communication or system."
Beyond Design
Design today has become an extremely wide area of expertise, overlapping with many other disciplines. Knowledge of the classics of modern design has almost become a common cultural property. Design objects today are presented in a similar manner as art. This book is my interpretation of the design process, covering all disciplines. In the book, I will be occasionally shifting from one discipline to another, but this is because, in reality, disciplines are overlapping themselves. I think it is important to provide as much as possible a holistic overview. There are many different interpretations of design and according to me, as long as the designer can explain and communicate his work in a rational matter, there are no wrong or right design interpretations. I make no attempt here to create an encyclopedic enumeration of some kind; rather this book is designed, to present a survey of the main lines of the design development, and influential factors that may and will determine the future of the design process. This book represents a contemporary overview of that process and relates to the tendencies of the integrated design approaches in industry and the knowledge that lies behind. This book has been written and designed as a Masters Project at the Bergen National Academy of Arts (2004 - 2006). I would like to thank this institution for choosing me to become a part of the first generation of the Master students in Design and Visual Communication in Norway. Having American, German, French, British, and Norwegian professors, made the work on this book a valuable international experience.
Domains of Design Knowledge: Edited by David Durling, Ph.D. and Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
knowledge maps the continuum of issues in the field. A six-domain model clarifies the integrative nature of design. It is a discipline drawing on (1) the natural sciences, (2) the humanities and liberal arts, and (3) the social and behavioral sciences. It is a field of practice and application drawing on (4) human professions and services, (5) creative and applied arts, and (6) technology and engineering. The paper concludes with proposals for future development. This includes a progressive research program and an agenda of core research issues.
Related topics
Related papers
A philosophical outing to Dutch Design Week
Journal of Human-Technology Relations
Scripts and Codes of Architectural Design Process: Disciplinary Borders and Transfers
[postdisciplinarity, diagrammatic research, design intelligence strategy, microhistories]
Ciric, D. Scripts and Codes of Architectural Design Process: Disciplinary Borders and Transfers. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade University, 2017, 2017
The Sciences of Design: Observations on an Emerging Field
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
The boundaries and contours of design sciences continue to undergo definition and refinement. In many ways, the sciences of design defy disciplinary characterization. They demand multiple epistemologies, theoretical orientations (e.g. construction, analysis or intervention) and value considerations. As our understanding of this emerging field of study grows, we become aware that the sciences of design require a systemic perspective that spans disciplinary boundaries. The Doctoral Consortium at the Design Science Research Conference in Information Sciences and Technology (DESRIST) was an important milepost in their evolution. It provided a forum where students and leading researchers in the design sciences challenged one another to tackle topics and concerns that are similar across different disciplines. This paper reports on the consortium outcomes and insights from mentors who took part in it. We develop a set of observations to guide the evolution of the sciences of design. It is our intent that the observations will be beneficial, not only for IS researchers, but also for colleagues in allied disciplines who are already contributing to shaping the sciences of design.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal—Annual Review
Contemporary post-industrial development has changed the organizational make up of labour in every sector, with a shift towards flexible and collaborative networks of knowledge work, to address issues such as decentralization, coordination and participation. This paper relates to recent developments in the fields of design, technology, and the social sciences in the 'networks' that inform knowledge development and creativity in design. Since the rise of internet, and a knowledge-based society, the concept of "network" stands for a different scheme of organization-from hierarchical structures towards more horizontal geometries, which can develop and spread forms of collaborative creativity. While the image of the designer/artist is often someone who works alone in his office, creating unique masterpieces, design in fact happens to be highly affected by the dynamics of networking. New technologies and their accessibility are shaping a society where 'everybody' cam design, enabling new critical experiences of participation and also activism. This contribution to the design literature will focus on the scenarios concerning the new roles of designer, facing society, and its organisational structure through networks, while experimenting on self-production. Here, design can play a new role as an intelligent actor in complex networks, not just giving solutions with a top-down approach, moreover, spreading and developing tools for collaboration.
Friedman. 2000. Design Knowledge: Context, Content, Continuity.
Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the Future., 2000
Design is a broad field of making and planning disciplines. These include industrial design, graphic design, textile design, furniture design, information design, process design, product design, interface design, transportation design, systems design, urban design, design leadership and design management and well as architecture, engineering, information technology, and computer science. Around the world, conferences, colloquia, seminars, and discussions now focus on design research and on the kinds of design theory that support fruitful research. One purpose of these conferences and meetings is to analyze the field. Another is to generate, develop, and articulate streams of research and theory construction.
Design in Architecture, Software Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
win.tue.nl
The awareness about the gap between general design theory and design practice is increasing. Design practice is not really served with the results of current design theory. To build a bridge between theory and practice, design researchers should know what is really going on in practice. To explore design practice and to find the most important characteristics of design situations, I have chosen an empirical approach based on case studies in which design projects in different disciplines are compared. In each case study, an individual designer is interviewed and the design documents are analysed. The results in this article are based on two architectural projects, two software-engineering projects and two mechanical-engineering projects. The cross-case analysis has resulted in descriptions of design situations in these disciplines. A preliminary design frame to describe design situations in different disciplines has been derived. Based on similarities and differences in the descriptions, conclusions concerning design theory, design education and design practice are given. The most important conclusions are the following. First, designers are often not aware of their design process, but focus mainly on the product. Second, software designers more often than architects and mechanical engineers use methods to structure their overall design process.
Pieter Vermaas, Peter Kroes, Andrew Light and Steven A. Moore (eds): Philosophy and Design. From Engineering to Architecture
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2009
Philosophy of technology is a discipline that has great relevance for technology education. That was why this journal in the past had some special issues on the philosophy of technology, and why new books in that field are reviewed regularly here. “Philosophy and Design”, edited by Vermaas, Kroes, Light and Moore is such a publication. It offers a rich palette of essays and those who will read it, will get a good impression of the sort of themes and issues that are addressed now in this specific branch of philosophy. Twenty-six essays have been brought together in this volume, and that number makes it impossible to discuss them all in detail. In this review I will make an effort to show the variety of topics that are represented in the book. I hope our readers will feel themselves invited to read the book to get a fuller picture of what it has to offer.Several of the contributions to this volume seem to have had their origin in a conference that was held in Delft, the Netherlands, in 2 ...
The PhD Program in Design Science at the University of Sydney
Development and Prospects of PhD Programme in Design Science Education, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan, 2004
This paper presents the historical development of the PhD in design science at The University of Sydney, its criteria and the methods by which a PhD in design science may be pursued. The PhD in design science has two strands: design computing and design cognition. The paper presents some examples of PhD research in design science. Keywords: Doctoral Program, Design Science, Design Computing, Design Cognition
Why Design Matters More Today Than Ever Before
Nordic Design Research Conference, 2011
Sciences have certainly done their best to blow the whistle, warning for an escalating climate disaster. And today seemingly powerful leaders also start to talk boldly about the present need of profound and radical changes. Still, too little seems to change in the directions proposed and if it changes at all, these changes seem to be far too small, far too inconsistent and far too slow to meet the requirements specified by the scientific community. Why is this so? And what could design and design research possible do about it? This explorative paper gives an outline of the matters underpinning two initiatives (D-side and Shaping Futures) taken at the Institute of design at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) in Norway. It is an illustration on the importance of utilizing design competences in what sometimes is labelled Discursive Design by merging different design methods with Foresight and Radical Innovation. The intention with the paper is to call out for a long overdue debate about-and actions that urgently needs to be taken towards the seemingly pretentious, but still designerly, vision of a different, prosperous and 'better' future world.
Design Thinking Diagram a Tool for Decision Making
AMPS Proceedings Series 22.1, 2020
This is Manchester: We do things differently here Manchester, once the 'Industrial Capital' of the world, has long been a test bed for architectural and urban experimentation. From the early settlements that challenged the resilience of the Romans, and then the Vikings, through the massive boom of the industrial period, when such was the frenzy in the city that it earned the sobriquet Cottonopolis, beyond the economic melancholia of the late 20th century, to the unbridled optimism of the 21st. As a progressive city, Manchester has continually reinvented itself. The present reincarnation was led through cultural regeneration facilitated by the adaptive reuse of those great redundant industrial structures, it is a city that encourages smart technologies and embraces a community of 24 Hour Party People. Where better then to hold a conference that explores progressive architectural pedagogyespecially a virtual one! The architectural, landscape, and design studio is a laboratory for experimentation where students are encouraged and expected to question and disrupt the status quo, to explore possible different futures, and to propose radical solutions to unsolvable problems. The need to fuel this move away from more traditional tabular rasa education is the responsibility of academics, and this conference was a wonderful vehicle to explore, expound, discuss, and debate the future of architectural education. During the pandemic we have had to learn to do things differently, not to be down heartened by the difficulty of interacting solely through the computer, but to embrace the nearness that digital communication provides. We have adapted methods of teaching and learning to accommodate this extraordinary situation, we have creatively responded to the pandemic and developed strategies that encourage endeavour, promote wellbeing, and support scholarship. Extraordinary strategies are needed for an extraordinary situation. It was a great pleasure to be able to host the AMPS Teaching-Learning-Research: Design and Environments conference at the Manchester School of Architecture. It was lovely to welcome so many virtual guests to the city. The great success of the online event was the demonstrated by the enthusiasm with which speakers engaged with the conference, the quality of the post-session debate combined with the international dialogue and collaboration, (especially in this time of uncertainty) created by such global citizens. It is an honour to introduce the conference proceedings, presented here as collection of well argued, forward thinking, deliberately controversial, and valuable papers.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.