Design is not a science, and that’s okay

If you’ve worked in design for long enough, you will have come up against resistance that aims to discredit methods as ‘unscientific’. But that’s a feature, not a bug.

What is design?

Design is a multifaceted discipline that cannot be confined to a single definition or limited to traditional branches like industrial or graphic design. Designing is one of the most complicated human activities.[^1] It encompasses a broad range of ideas, methods, and practices, all aimed at transforming existing situations into preferred ones.

Herbert A. Simon’s definition, "Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones," highlights the universality of design.[^2] Simon framed design as a "third science," this positivist view has since been critiqued. But the core idea—that design is about conceiving and planning for preferred futures— remains relevant and helpful when delineating the act of design from the outputs of the design process.

Historically, design was closely tied to craft. In the pre-industrial era, it was an artisanal activity where craftsmen were deeply involved in both the conception and production of objects. This approach was intuitive, relying on traditional skills and a deep understanding of materials. However, the industrial revolution brought a shift. The need for mass production and efficiency led to the development of more structured, process-driven approaches, marking the beginning of the movement toward making design more scientific.

In order to be taken seriously in the modern world, design aspired to be as scientific as possible, adopting specific processes and methodologies. This aspiration was driven by a desire to align design with the rigor and objectivity associated with scientific disciplines. By framing design in these terms, it sought credibility and validation in a world that often prioritised empirical evidence and measurable outcomes. However, this push toward scientification had the effect of constraining the inherently creative and subjective nature of design, leading to tensions and critiques within the field, and a split between how academics and practitioners viewed design.[^3] Academics leaning to a more positivist view and practitioner being more pragmatic.

The introduction of participatory methods in the mid-20th century challenged the notion of the designer as the sole expert. These methods, rooted in social sciences and grassroots community development, emphasise collaboration, empowerment, and the inclusion of diverse voices. The first wave of participatory design emerged in the 1970s in Scandinavia, focusing on involving workers in the design process of workplace technologies. Rooted in democratic values and influenced by labour movements, this approach aimed to empower users by integrating their experiences and knowledge into the design, challenging the traditional top-down design methods that dominated the field. [^4]

The rise of design thinking in the 2000s, particularly its application to business problems, can be seen as a swing back towards viewing design as a science. This approach, with its structured processes, step-by-step toolkits, and emphasis on problem-solving, mirrors the scientific method's systematic nature. By making design accessible through these frameworks, design thinking aimed to bring the rigor and predictability of science to the creative process. However, this shift risked oversimplifying the inherently complex and iterative nature of design, leading to criticism that design thinking had become too formulaic and rigid, losing some of its innovative and holistic potential.

Design is distinct from science in that it deals with poorly defined problems where a single solution may not be possible. Designers must navigate this ambiguity, employing creativity, intuition, and abductive reasoning to generate solutions that benefit individuals and society. Unlike the linear problem-solving methods often associated with science, design is iterative and dynamic. As Cross suggests, professional designers have developed unique ways of knowing has been developed to specifically work in spaces where the problem space is unclear,[^5] what Schön calls a "conversation between situation and solution."[^6]

The limits of a purely scientific approach

As a society, we prioritise scientific knowledge. We see it as the only ‘objective’ truth. But in reality, scientific inquiry is influenced by cultural and social contexts, making it not entirely objective. It’s important to recognise and value other forms of knowledge, such as those from the arts, humanities, and traditional practices. A pluralistic approach that incorporates both scientific and designerly ways of knowing is needed.

As a result of our love for the scientific, we tend to trust quantifiable outcomes while neglecting the qualitative. This is evident in how governments measure the success of initiatives, often relying on metrics that may not capture what truly contributes to a good life, such as relationships, joy, or feelings of belonging. The pressure to meet hard metrics can result in "teaching to the test," where softer, less measurable aspects are overlooked. While design itself doesn't inherently prioritise these elements, it has the potential to do so if practitioners are mindful of these dynamics. Feminist and decolonial critiques highlight that even co-design can perpetuate these issues if not carefully managed.[^7] By being aware of these limitations, we can prioritise what truly matters in our designs, ensuring that qualitative aspects are given their due importance.

Design for the Pluriverse

As design has expanded from creating objects and symbols to addressing complex challenges, there has been a renewed push towards more participative methods. This shift aligns with the need to recognise diverse ways of being and knowing, often referred to as "design for the pluriverse." This concept, championed by advocates like Arturo Escobar, emphasises the importance of inclusivity, equity, and respect for indigenous and marginalised knowledge systems.[^8]

Richard Buchanan’s four orders of design provide a framework for understanding the evolving scope and impact of design practice.[^9] These orders—symbols, products, interactions, and systems—represent different levels of complexity and focus. Buchanan argues that the fourth order designer must integrate connected systems and activities, ensuring that design decisions are made in discussion with all stakeholders, reflecting a growing sense of purpose and commitment.

Participation in design involves engaging various stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives are considered. Design can either reinforce or challenge dominant ways of thinking, such as colonial, patriarchal, and neoliberal perspectives. Expert-led design can be extractive, but even participative methods like co-design have faced critiques for potentially masking extractive practices under the language of democracy and participation. This underscores the importance of awareness and a commitment to authentically addressing power imbalances.

Ultimately, implementing design within any organisation requires shifts in ways of thinking, being, and knowing. Recognising that design is not a science is a crucial part of this transformation. The goal isn't to defend design methods in scientific terms, but rather to embrace a broader spectrum of knowledge. This includes expert and scientific knowledge alongside lived experiences. Only when embracing multiple forms of knowledge will the benefits of design be fully realised.

Footnotes

[^1]: Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315072043

[^2]: Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press.

[^3]: Blackler, A. et al. (2021) ‘Can We Define Design? Analyzing Twenty Years of Debate on a Large Email Discussion List’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(1), pp. 41–70. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.11.004.

[^4]: Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) ‘Co-creation and the new landscapes of design’, CoDesign, 4(1), pp. 5–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.

[^5]: Cross, N. (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.

[^6]: Schön, D.A. (1984) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Arena: Ashgate.

[^7]: Nielsen, B.F. and Bjerck, M. (2022) ‘Relational Design’, Proceedings of the Design Society, 2, pp. 1061–1070. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.108.

[^8]: Escobar, A. (2018) Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press.

[^9]: Buchanan, R. (1992) ‘Wicked problems in design thinking’, Design issues, 8(2), pp. 5–21.