The Multiple Traditions of Design Research

Conference paper


Design research has developed strongly in recent years, but it has perhaps not lived up to its early promise. In particular, industrial impact has been patchy, and impact on public policy has been poor. This paper argues that the design research community is multi-faceted. A consequence of its breadth is that it is divided, to its cost, along disciplinary and geographical lines. An overview of the design research landscape is presented, and proposals are made for the diverse traditions of the research community to come together to create an integrated view on design research, in particular for industry and the wider community.


Design research progress Research collaboration 



I would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues in the Design Society for their inputs and inspiration in the preparation of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Simon, H.A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd Edn.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moulton, A. (1976) Engineering Design Education (Moulton Report). Design Council, London.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cross, N. (2007) Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1):1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial (1st Edn.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hubka, V. (1982) Principles of Engineering Design. Butterworth, Guildford.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. Temple Smith, London.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W. (1984) Engineering Design. Springer/Design Council, London.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hales, C. (1987) Analysis of the engineering design process in an industrial context, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suh, N. (1990) The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pugh, S. (1991) Total Design. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ReVelle, J.B., Moran, J.W., Cox, C.A. (1998) The QFD Handbook. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouti, A., Kadi, D.A. (1994) A state of the art review of FMEA/FMECA. International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering, 1(4):515–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boothroyd, G. (1994) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Computer-Aided Design, 26(7):505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    RepRap project. Accessed March 2010.
  15. 15.
    Azarm, S. (2008) Journal Impact Factor: What It Is and It Is Not (Invited Guest Editorial) Journal of Mechanical Design, 130(10):100301-1.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaw, K.E. (2006) Paradigms or contested concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2):18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhn, T (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank Pajares, synopsis of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Philosophers Web Magazine. Accessed March 2010.
  19. 19.
    Blessing, L., Chakrabarti, A. (2009) DRM, a Design Research Meth-odology. Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IdMRC Social Research Methods lecture series. Accessed March 2010.
  21. 21.
    Stempfle, J., Badke-Schaub, P. (2002) Thinking in design teams – an analysis of team communication. De-sign Studies, 23(5):473–496.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M., Blessing, L. (2002) Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1):1–11.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    When Design Education and Design Research Meet (2010) Engineering and product design education Conference, 2010.
  24. 24.
    International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) web site. Accessed March 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BathClaverton Down, BathUK

Personalised recommendations