Abstract
Design seems to have emerged from the niche in which it had remained for decades, not to say centuries, at least as far as research in the history of philosophy and science are concerned. Nowadays, the idea of design has reached our theories of epistemology: a field that, at first glance, seems to be quite far removed from the analysis of practical situations. The objective of this chapter is to explore just how far design epistemology (DE) can be adopted as a methodological framework for research in the field of public health, and precisely what it adds to classic epistemology or even to the standard methodology of applied science. On the one hand, we will analyse different approaches to DE and related terms and expressions such as “design thinking”, “design theory” and “designerly ways of knowing”; on the other, we will consider where to place public health within the field of academic knowledge and research and the disciplines involved in this field of research range from biomedical science to sociology and demography. Finally, we will see how DE can offer proposals and solutions to the challenges that a phenomenon as complex as public health currently faces. That is, we will measure up DE proposals against public health research needs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I wonder whether this distinction, in terms of the definition it gives, would be equivalent to “epistemology of design” (which Bengoa calls “epistemology for design”) and “design epistemology” (which Bengoa calls “epistemology of design”). It is a linguistic question but it seems more appropriate to me.
A distinction that could help us to clarify Bengoa’s distinction is that between “ethics of neuroscience” and “neuroethics”. The former studies the ethical implications of the progress made by neuroscientists and the practices of professionals in this field; while the latter takes neuroscience as a basis for understanding and explaining social, moral and broadly philosophical decisions. We could also bring to mind other such distinctions, like that between “philosophy of cognitive science” and the “cognitive approach to the philosophy of science”. The former refers to the philosophical analysis of cognitive science, just as we refer to the philosophy of physics, of chemistry, of biology or of the social sciences; while the latter refers to models of science that are grounded in cognitive science: an approach pioneered by R. Giere, among others.
- 2.
In the original Spanish, this reads: “una epistemología que utilice como herramienta para conocer a la realidad del propio diseño”. The translation is ambiguous insofar as it is not clear whether we are to use design itself to examine reality (see the alternative interpretation later in the paragraph) or, as I have rendered it here, to use epistemology to examine design itself, which sounds rather vague to say the least.
- 3.
In section “The Importance of Cognitive Models” we consider cognitive models, which are particularly important for human-scale design.
- 4.
Although Östman applies it to architecture, the general principles and the criteria for considering DE to be suitable for architecture are the same as for its suitability for medicine and overall for research in health sciences.
- 5.
The literature on research in health public is vast and it would be impossible to give an exhaustive overview of it in this work. The choice of the proposal by Frenk et al. in no way means that it is the only adequate one for this research but we can say that it contains the elements necessary to undertake it, it integrates the factors that intervene in public health and it provides a proposal for an interdisciplinary approach.
References
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bengoa, G. (2011). Distintos acercamientos epistemológicos: cinco enfoques sobre los objetos. Seminario en la Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo | UBA Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Brooks, F. P. (2010). The design of design: essays from a computer scientist. New York: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Caplan, R. (1982). Why there are no locks on the bathroom doors in the Hotel Louis XIV and other object lesson. Mcmillan: St Martins Press.
Collopy, F. (2004). “I think with my hands”: On balancing the analytical and the intuitive in designing. In R. J. Boland & F. Callopy (Eds.), Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Committee for the Study of the Future of Public Health. (1988). The future of public health. Published by the National Academy of Sciences.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.
Dalsgaard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 143–155.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
Estany, A., & Herrera, R. M. (2016). Innovación en saber teórico y práctico. London: College Publications.
Frenk, J., Bobadilla, J. L., Sepúlveda, J., Rosenthal, J., & Ruelas, E. (1986). Un modelo conceptual para la investigación en salud pública. Boletín de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana, 101(5), 477–492.
Gregory, S. A. (1966). Design and the design method. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The design method. London: Butterworth.
Karabeg, D. (2012). Design Epistemology. Information, 3, 1–x.
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. MIT’s Design Issues, 26, 1.
Kranzberg, M. (1967). The unity of science-technology. American Scientist, 55(1), 48–66.
Kranzberg, M. (1968). The disunity of science-technology. American Scientist, 56(1), 21–34.
Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2009). Design thinking. Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. New York: Allworth Press.
Love, T. (2000). Philosophy of design: A metatheoretical structure for design theory. Design Studies, 21, 293–313.
Mahdjoubi, D. (2003). Epistemology of design. In Integrated design and process technology (pp. 1–5). IDPT, June.
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
McCrory, R. J. (1974). The design method-A scientific approach to valid design. In F. Rapp (Ed.), Contributions to a philosophy of technology (pp. 158–173). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Niiniluoto, I. (1993). The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis, 38, 1–21.
Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design. Why we love (or hate) everyday things, Basic Books. Versión castellana de: El diseño emocional. Por qué nos gustan (o no) los objetos cotidianos, Paidós Ibérica, Barcelona, 2005.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2007). Public health: ethical issues.
Östman, L. E. (2005a) A pragmatist theory of design. The impact of the pragmatist philosophy of John Dewey on architecture and design. PhD Dissertation School of Architecture Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Östman, L. E. (2005b). Design theory is a philosophical discipline-Reframing the epistemological issues in design theory. Design System Evolution.
Papanek, V. (1976). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. Frogmore: Paladin.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Planning, 4, 155–169.
Rylander, A. (2009). Design thinking as knowledge work: Epistemological foundations and practical implications. Design Management Journal, 4, 7–19.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Simon, H. (1969). The science of the artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT (1996, 3rd ed.).
Vogel, C. M. (2009). Notes on the evolution of design thinking: A work in progress. En T. Lockwood (Ed.), Design thinking. Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. New York: Allworth Press.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish Government’s Directorate-General for Science Research and Development via research project: FFI2017-85711-P Epistemic Innovation: The Biomedical Sciences Case.
This work is part of the consolidated research network “Grup d’Estudis Humanístics de Ciència I Tecnologia” (GEHUCT) (“Humanistic Studies of Science and Technology Research Group”), recognised and funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya, reference 2017 SGR 568.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Estany, A. (2019). Design Epistemology for Public Health Research. In: Vallverdú, J., Puyol, A., Estany, A. (eds) Philosophical and Methodological Debates in Public Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28626-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28626-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28625-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28626-2
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)