A note on the debate on scientific process vs. design process

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingPaper in conference proceedingResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (SciVal)
101 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

It has been often claimed that the scientific process is quite opposite to the design process, mainly based on the former’s analysis of existing phenomena in order to develop a theory, while the design process is an act of synthesis that creates something new in the world. In the light of the developments that led to this conception, and with reference to the current views of the scientific process, we maintain that the scientific process has more similarities with the design process than differences from it. As parallels can be drawn between the two processes, some implications for further research into the fundamentals of the design activity are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design - ICED'11
EditorsThomas Howard, Mougaard Krestine, McAloone Tim, Hansen Claus Thorp
Place of PublicationCopenhagen, Denmark
PublisherDesign Society
Pages356-365
Number of pages12
VolumeDS 68-2
ISBN (Print)978-1-904670-32-2
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Event18th International Conference on Engineering Design, 2011 - Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Duration: 2011 Aug 152011 Aug 18

Publication series

NameICED
PublisherDesign Society
Number2
VolumeDS 68
ISSN (Print)2220-4342
ISSN (Electronic)2223-7941

Conference

Conference18th International Conference on Engineering Design, 2011
Abbreviated titleICED 11
Country/TerritoryDenmark
CityCopenhagen
Period2011/08/152011/08/18

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Keywords

  • Design Sciences
  • Design Method
  • Scientific Method
  • Epistemology
  • Machine Design
  • Maskinkonstruktion

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A note on the debate on scientific process vs. design process'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this