Reduce ambiguity

According to systems designer and educator Terence Love (2002), design has “different meanings in different domains, [is] used in different ways by researchers in the same domain, and [is] found in the literature referring to concepts at different levels of abstraction” (p. 347).

This ambiguity has resulted in theories and research where accounts of design are “contradictory,” causing confusion about which findings are actually applicable from one domain to another.

More recently, the director of the Centre for Philosophy & Design (CEPHAD), Per Galle (2008), warns design researchers and thinkers to be wary of an “insidious inconsistency” that exists between the various competing notions of design. He calls the problem insidious because he believes some designers are not even aware that inconsistent, or worse, incompatible notions of design are used between research papers that reference each other. A significant reason the word design is so insidious is its ambiguity in common use, especially where meanings overlap. Design has a range of meanings from the abstract to the specific:

• a plan;
• a deliberate undercover scheme;
• the arrangement of elements in a work of art;
• a preliminary sketch or a decorative pattern (Merriam-Webster, 2011).

To demonstrate how confusing using the word design can get, design writer and educator John Heskett (2001) provides the following sentence:

“Design is when designers design a design to produce a design.”

Heskett explains how all four uses of design are each a different sense of the word:

“The first usage is as a noun, connoting the field of design as a whole in a very general manner, as in the phrase: “Design is important to national economic competitiveness.” The second usage is as a verb, meaning the action or thought involved in the act of designing. The third also is a noun; this time connoting a plan or intention. Finally, the fourth usage again is a noun, this time meaning the finished product. All the usages have very different meanings, yet even people professionally involved in design continually slip between them, seamlessly moving from one meaning to another without distinction (p. 18).”

Strengthen philosophic foundations

Design research and theory is relatively young compared to most disciplines in today’s university, with its major journals being established only thirty years ago.

A significant part of the discipline’s maturing process is the development of philosophic foundations which includes the following tasks:

• define central concepts;
• determine the scope and bounds of field and criteria used to evaluate designs and design research; and,
• integrate design theory with other bodies of knowledge (Love, 2002, p. 346).

The second and third tasks are informed by the first. Therefore, it is useful to isolate and address definition of central concepts as a first step in developing philosophical foundations for design.

Clarify design education objectives

How an educator defines design has direct implcaitions for curriculum planning. It allows educators to provide reasons for course selection and content within an undergraduate program. This is true not only for curriculum planning within design but interdisciplinary course selection and “integration.”

One’s definition of design also has direct implications for how design educators evaluate student work. Whether work is evaluated according to formalist fine art criterion or through social scientific testing methods, or both, the evaluation requires theory for what counts as quality within design and knowledge within design research.

Improve design practice

As mentioned above, a clear definition of design sets the foundation for design theory. Design theory helps designers understand complex problems and make intelligent and informed decisions.

Epistemological theories are required so a designer can explain to client when to use qualitative or quantitative research methods. Choosing a medium in which to deliver a message requires theories of communications and semiotics to understand how it may be affected and interpreted. Lastly, all design solutions affect the socio-political and environmental context it is placed within, requiring the designer to have a world-view or ethos based on theories about politics and the environment.

In each of these examples, the designer’s understanding of the theories being applied have a direct impact on the design solution. For simple design projects, one does not generally have to be explicit about how their theories impact their design solution. For complex projects, a designer will be expected (most likely by their client) to explain why a certain theory or method is used.