Design and science

Raymond A Willem
Department of Mechanical Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, N M 88003, USA

The basis of design and the nature of those activities which may reasonably be termed design are explored. Based in part on this exploration, two observations regarding the interaction of science with design are made. These observations appear to be generalizable. Keywords: design, science, knowledge

Science, understood simply as knowledge of the natural world, has been a long-term human interest. For early man, survival depended on observations made of the natural environment and its seasonal changes; this is no less true of preliterate societies existing today. In historical times, developments made in western science have continued to increase man's understanding of nature, including himself. These developments have been documented largely by the scientists themselves: luminaries such as Archimedes, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Harvey, Newton, Darwin and Einstein. Their efforts and those of countless others have produced the host of science disciplines we know today, each discipline having a coterie of scientists examining not only the product of the discipline but, more importantly, the orthodoxy of the production methods. The product of each discipline is some special variety of knowledge unique to that discipline. The goal of design is not to produce knowledge, but rather to take action, to produce change in man's environment. Though knowledge may provide a rationale for change or contribute to its implementation, produchag knowledge and creating change are distinctly different activities. Science, however, serves as a convenient benchmark from which to view design. By measuring the 'magnitude' and 'direction' of design's deviation from that reference, we learn something more about design. As in the case of science, design was also important to the survival of early man since, without the ability to design,

he would have been incapable of devising suitable clothing, tools and devices for hunting. Design has also been with man from that time to this. However, where science is knowledge, designing is the expression of an innate human ability, an ability to change the environment presumably for the better. Perhaps because it involves an innate ability rather than knowable objects and phenomena, humans have shown decidedly less curiosity about design than about science. Design has almost no luminaries such as science has (Leonardo da Vinci seems to be one of the few but he is also well known for his work in art and science). Also, design was essentially unrecognized as a coherent group of human activities (such as the coherence recognized among the sciences) until the later half of this century and this recognition is still far from complete. An indication of this is the coverage given to both science and design in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ~. Whereas 'design' receives a generic quarter-page treatment, science under the heading 'Science, The History of' receives a ten-page essay dealing with an array of sciences and their development. Other writers have also found science to be a convenient reference. According to Simon 2, 'The natural sciences are concerned with how things a r e . . . Design, on the other hand, is concerned with how things ought to b e . . . ' . March 3 expresses a similar thought: 'Science investigates extant forms. Design initiates novel forms'. Cross 4, in contrasting the sciences, the humanities and design, finds that science studies 'the natural world'

Vol 11 No 1 January 1 9 9 0

0142-694x/90/01043-05 1990 Butterworth & Co (Publishers)Ltd $03.00

43

while design studies 'the man-made world'; science uses methods of 'controlled experiment, classification, analysis' while design uses 'modelling, pattern-formation, synthesis'; and finally, the values of science are 'objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for " t r u t h " ' , while the values of design are 'practicality, ingenuity, empathy and a concern for "appropriateness" '. Though the activities of design and science have little in common, science in the form of science knowledge is intimately involved in design. Science knowledge is part of the fabric with which designers design. Consider, for example, the popular blowdryer for drying hair. Principles of electricity are applied in connecting the wall outlet, switch, heating element and motor in a circuit, while the motor operation is a demonstration of electromagnetism. Fluid dynamics is involved in the fan design, and principles of convective heat-transfer guide the shaping and placement of the heating coils. Metallurgy was significant in the development of the nichrome alloy of the heating coils, while polymer chemistry was involved in the development of the plastic case material. Human factors principles are applied in developing the overall geometry and case design, as are principles from art concerning aesthetics. The blowdryer is an example of science and design inseperably joined: they coexist in the same space, science made visible through design.

DESIGN
Humans are designers. The world created by humans - the 'artificial world' referred to by Simon 2 - - is radically different today from what it was 100, 1000 or 10 000 years ago. Humans continuously revise and add to their world creating new art, new organization, and new artefacts. The world of the weaverbird or termite over the same period of time has changed not at all. The weaverbird and termite, however, are moved to do much of what they do by instinct of which humans are largely free. In humans, instinct has been replaced in large part by a flexible and elegant capacity: the ability (and desire) to design, to create. Design begins with an intelligence perceiving a need and, if the activity is successful, concludes with the development of an effective means of meeting that need. Central to design is the creative act. This is not to imply that all needs are met creatively. Some are met by found solutions, found in handbooks, catalogues, department stores, etc. However, if a need is met through design, then creativity is involved. Archer 5 indicates that 'the creative leap from pondering the question to finding a solution' is 'the real crux of the act of designing'. It is this creative leap that makes the essential connection between the design problem information and the problem solutions. Logic alone cannot make this connection since, as Archer indicates, 'if the solution to a problem arises automatically and inevitably from the interaction of the data, then the problem is not, by defmition, a design problem'; it is not an ill-structured problem. It is an interesting exercise to look around a room and

note that essentially every object in sight is the product of design. The exceptions are those things that are products of nature in their natural state. 'The world we live in today is much more a man-made, or artificial, world than it is a natural world', Simon 2 states. This artificial world is the product of many designers. Simon includes among them, 'Everyone . . . who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones'. His rationale: 'The intellectual activity that produces material artefacts [such as engineers produce] is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state'. Simon also specifically includes composers of music among designers. Others have found design in various diverse activities. Rabins et al. 6 see it as an important element in many professions as well as being central to engineering, the fine arts, architecture, and urban and regional planning. In their well-known book on writing, Stunk and White 7 indicate, 'Design informs the simplest structure whether of brick and steel or of prose'. Thomas and Carroll 8 recognize it occurring in some instances of letter writing and also in the activity of giving names to things. There is an arbitrariness about this group of activities which is reported to have design content. Though one may agree with the conclusion, at the same time it seems there are many other human activities for which the same claim can be made and which are not normally considered to be design. Take acting as an example: while the architect designs in steel and stone, the actor designs in gestures, intonations and facial expressions. On one level these activities are starkly different, on another they appear the same. If acting is designing, why is it so? Since the nature of design is elusive and difficult to express in universal terms, the activity of designing has been defined largely by association. For example, in creating a parallel between architecture and acting above, an association was made between acting (perhaps not recognized as design) and architecture (generally recognized as design) with the implication that if one is design, so must be the other. This is basically the same line of reasoning used by Simon: if devising a sales plan for a company requires the same type of intellectual activity as is used in developing engineering artefacts, then it is design. This reasoning, however, paints design the colour of engineering (or architecture) and obscures the nature of design even further. As a result, when activities such as writing or acting are examined for design content, since they appear distant from engineering they also appear distant from design. However, they are design, not because they are like engineering but because they are (like) design. All human-made things, material and immaterial, were designed at one time. The alternative to their being designed is that human beings made them instinctively, like the termites and weaverbirds, but I am not aware of anything that humans make this way. To the contrary, there is evidence of design in every direction one looks. In a ballet performance, for example, layers of design are

44

DESIGN STUDIES

visible. The design of the composer and choreographer are, perhaps, foremost. But there is also the set and costume design, as well as the designing of the director and the individual dancers. Though these design activities often overlap, the centre of focus and primary responsibility of each designer is different. (It is interesting to note that in this regard, the designing of a ballet production is like the designing of an engineering system.) What then is the common thread that identifies design? I believe design is the intentional development of anything. Design must be intentional in that it requires an intelligence to both have an intention and act on it; design cannot result from chance. Also, a development must occur indicating that a plan or prototype for something new is devised. Lastly, design can be of anything, material or immaterial. Design is a creative response to external events, It pervades all parts of human life. We even design our responses and interactions with other people, both verbal and written. Designed things are not necessarily attractive or functional or in possession of any special quality; in fact, they may fail to achieve the goal for which they were designed. Likewise, the presence of beauty or the occurrence of things in a pleasing order is not a necessary indication of design. Mountain scenery is often beautiful and yet it is basically random and, in the present context, without design. Design occurs when the intention do design is present and when the action taken is derived at least in part from a creative sense rather than instinct or imitation. If one's response to an external event is totally imitative, however, this constitutes finding rather than designing a response. In The Universal Traveler, Koberg and Bagnall 9 take a similarly broad view of design. They see design as the process of creative probl~.m-solving though they are not explicit about particular activities they include as designing. However, since they use the words 'design' and 'creative problem-solving' interchangably, it is their view that when creative problem-solving is happening, design is also happening. It may be disconcerting to consider the large variety of activities which are included in the broadly cast concept of design suggested above. The alternative, however, is to arbitrarily assign the designation of 'design' to some activities while withholding it from others. To call what engineers do design while not using the same designation for an actor's development of a character or a chef's development of a recipe seems capricious. Furthermore, the recognition of a large host of coherent activities as design may provide a richness of experience that is presently missing from the field. The variety of disciplines which are joined under the umbrella of science seems not to have had a detrimental effect on any of them.

SCIENCE IN DESIGN
The definition of science that will be operative in the

remainder of this paper is, ' . . . the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunders t a n d i n g . . . ' 10. Therefore, the accumulated knowledge base in a given discipline constitutes the science of that discipline. For example, the knowledge base for producing effective written discourse constitutes the science of writing, just as the knowledge base of physics constitutes the science of physics. The thesis of this section is a generalization on what was observed in the example of the blowdryer: design makes science visible. (In this context, science becomes 'visible' when it is used to produce change.) The proposal being made here, however, is that it is only through design that science is made visible. It is only through design that science moves beyond the pure knowledge of the laboratory experiment or textbook principle and acquires operational consequences. The rationale to support this proposal follows directly from the definition of design given in the previous section. By that definition, design is the intentional development of anything - the process by which intentional change in the human environment is devised. Then it is only through design that science can participate in producing this change. Such participation is synonomous with science becoming visible. (Alternatively, another rationale can be developed based on the nature of science. It starts with the premise that science can have value for only three reasons: the intrinsic value that knowledge may have, to be used in determining new knowledge, and to be used in design. It is only in the third mode - used in design - that science becomes visible.) This thesis describes a basic principle concerning the interaction between science and design. The blowdryer is an instance of it in which primarily physical sciences contribute to the artefact design. (For other examples, we need only to examine the designed things around us.) This principle, however, extends beyond the physical sciences and is applicable in any science area. In the social sciences, the same principle can be demonstrated. Looking at economics, this science becomes visible when it is used to design a prescription to effect an economic system. Examples of this are the development (design) of public policies by a government to achieve higher employment, greater economic stability or self-sustaining economic growth or some combination of these. In microeconomic terms, economics becomes visible, for example, when it is used to devise a plan to promote a company's survival during an economic downturn and eventual expansion under new market conditions. Considering psychology, it is evident that this science becomes visible when it is used, for example, in a clinical setting to develop a course of therapy for a client or in an industrial setting when it is used to develop a system of work incentives or the layout of gauges on an instrument panel. Again, it is a design context in which the science is made visible. Likewise, it is the knowledge (science) of acting that informs the actor and the knowledge of food preparation

Vol 11 No 1 January 1990

45

that informs the chef as each pursues their respective creative goals. Examples of this kind could be given in a near endless series until all cases where science enters design are listed. It would include essentially all design areas (though not all science areas) since as a new area of creative expression emerges, the science to move it to higher performance levels is, in most cases, quick to develop if it does not already exist.

tions inherent in mechanical printers, particularly that of speed, the solution concept has been radically changed to laser printing.

DESIGN WITHOUT SCIENCE

It is perhaps possible to see the activity of designing most clearly when it is viewed with little or no science component present. In this way, design can be observed in a relatively basic form. Consider a person standing next to a deep well. This person, not being able to see more than a metre or two into the well, wishes to determine if there is water in the well and at what depth. There is a stone on the ground nearby which the person notices and then a thought emerges: the stone can be used as a water detector and depth gauge by simply dropping it down the well. Recognizing the potential uses that can be made of the stone constitutes designing; a water indicator and depth gauge were developed. This example is not totally devoid of science since the person would be making use of the knowledge that a stone makes a splashing sound when it strikes water and that the length of time that it takes is an indication of the distance fallen. A comparable, but even simpler, example is recognizing that a twig or dry grass stem can be used to poke into an ant or termite hole and extract insects therein. It has been reported that chimpanzees are capable of doing this ~1 and in a very real sense are capable of designing this simple tool. In saying this, it is assumed that this behaviour is not instinctive and, at least on its first occurrence, was not imitative. T h e actions just described contain elements of metaphor: seeing in an object (stone or twig) something which it is not. Another kind of creative act involves arranging things in patterns. The arranged things can be flowers, musical notes, patches of colour, words, etc., and the activity can range from the highly complex involving much science to the simple involving little or no science. At the simple end of the spectrum is the example of a child creating a melody by slowly tapping the keys of a piano with one finger. When a series of notes is found that is pleasing, they might be repeated so that the design can be enjoyed again. It is interesting to note that whales have been observed to exhibit a similar behaviour 12. They have been observed to sing songs lasting perhaps twenty minutes which they will repeat again and again. In the following season, however, a new song will have been developed and again sung repeatedly. It appears evident, then, that higher forms of life other than humans are capable of performing simple design tasks. What is more significant, however, is that these examples provide us with a further indication that when design is seen in its most simple form, what is observable is the creative act alone. This brings to mind Archer's observation that the 'creative leap' is the 'crux' of designing.

INTERACTIONS
It can be anticipated that disciplines involving design have both science and design in their educational programmes. (In engineering fields, the relevant sciences often constitute the major part of the programme.) It is natural that they would since the sciences support design in important ways. Consider an artist who did not know how to develop perspective in a painting or who could not tap the accumulated human knowledge on the use of line, colour and form. Similarly, consider an engineer who was ignorant of the engineering sciences. It is unlikely that either person could perform at a professional level in spite of whatever natural talent they might bring to their work. The above examples illustrate the importance of science to design. The level of the available supporting sciences determines in large part the level of the resulting design. As a further illustration, consider on the one hand a primitive wheel like that on an ox cart which has its origins somewhere back in prehistory and, on the other hand, the modern radial automobile tyre. While the primitive wheel is almost devoid of science content, the high performance radial tyre is possible only with a large structure of supporting science ranging from petroleum extraction to polymer chemistry to steel making. Without the necessary supporting science, the radial tyre could not exist. Looking in another design direction, that of art, consider on the one hand the marvellous group of prehistoric paintings on the walls and ceilings of the Lascaux Cave in France and, on the other, the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Though both are recognized as works of art, it is evident that Michelangelo et al. had a great deal more science at their disposal than did the anonymous cave painters. In this example, the science being discussed goes beyond the purely physical development of paints and other artist's materials; the more significant part involves the discoveries and developments made by generations of artists in the effective use of those materials. In other design areas, the same parallel development of the products of design and the supporting science can be seen. The principle which appears evident here is that design can rise only to the level of the science which is available to support it. To circumvent this constraint, it is possible to change to a radically different solution concept and, in the process, open up a different supporting science. This has been done, for example, in the case of computer output printers. To overcome the limita-

46

DESIGN STUDIES

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Design problems come in many forms. In this paper, however, design and its interaction with science are being explored at a sufficiently generic level that the differences between design problems do not appear. What is being probed are characteristics that all design has in common, starting from the basis for it being called design. A picture of design is emerging from this examination indicating that design is a process in which creativity and knowledge (science) interact to produce novelty in the man-made world. Though human creativity may be relatively constant, knowledge is cumulative and everincreasing thus resulting in designed products which move overall towards higher levels of refinement and sophistication. Knowledge used in design takes many forms. In some instances, part of it is contained in previous generations of designs. In these cases, knowledge may take the form of a principle which has been developed and refined through successive applications or it may be a principle which, after generations of refmement, is discarded because it has led to a dead end. It might also be an old component on which improvements have been made or, perhaps, one which is used unchanged. This knowledge forms a science of its own, a science of how a certain need can be met or function can be performed. In addition to the interaction of creativity and science in design, there is a third ingredient called design problem information which plays an important role. Design problem information is the information which the designer has of the problem and which guides the designer in his/her work (see Reference 13). Since it constitutes the designer's knowledge of the problem, it provides focus and direction to the designing activity. Therefore, design problem information is the substance upon which creativity and science are brought to bear with the desired outcome of producing a new design.

the amount of relevant knowledge available is increased, so is the potential quality of the effect. Therefore, though science and design are different, the quality of a designed product is dependent on the pool of relevant science available for its design. Furthermore, it is through design that science exceeds being pure knowledge and participates in creating an effect.

REFERENCES 1 Encyclopaedia Britannica The new encyclopaedia britannica, 15th ed, Chicago (1987)

2 Simon, H A The sciencesof the artificial, 2nd ed, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1981)
March, L J 'The logic of design' Developments in design methodology (Ed. N Cross), Wiley, New York (1984) pp 265-276

4 Cross, N 'Designerly ways of knowing' Design Studies Vol 3 No 4 (October 1982) pp 221-227 5 Archer, L B 'Systematic method for designers' Developments in design methodology, op. cit. pp 57-82 6 Rabins, M J e t al. Goals and priorities for research in engineering design, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1986)
7 Strunk Jr, W and White E B The elements of style, 3rd ed, Macmillian, New York (1979) 8 Thomas, J C and Carroll, J M 'The psychological study of design' Design Studies Vol 1 No 1 (July 1979) pp 5-11 9 Koberg, D and Bagnall, J The universal traveler, 2nd ed, William Kaufmarm, Los Altos, CA, USA (1981) 10 Merriam Webster Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary, Springfield, MA, USA (1987)

CONCLUSION

11 Goodall, J 'New discoveries among Africa's chimpanzees' The Journal of the National Geographic Society Vol 128 No 6 (December 1965) pp 802-831 12 Payne, R 'Humpbacks: their mysterious songs' The Journal of the National Geographic Society Vol 155 No 1 (January 1979) pp 18-25 13 Willem, R A 'On knowing design' Design Studies Vol 9 No 4 (October 1988) pp 223-228

The principal function of science, at least in the sense it has been used here, is to create knowledge. For its part, the principal function of desg'm is to have an effect. Though these two are very different, in order to have an effect it is normally important to use knowledge and as

Vol 11 No 1 January 1990

47