Erik Stolterman is a professor at Indiana University School of Informatics. He is one of the leading researchers in software design, but he also studies design as a creative process. In his book "The Design Way" from 2003, Stolterman describes how design has long since become something more and other than craft and industrial production. To Erik Stolterman, design is a world view that offers a particular perspective, like, for example, politics or religion.

By Charlie Breindahl

What is your view of the expanded concept of design?
As I understand the expanded concept of design - that is, if I understand it correctly - it reflects an approach to the world. It's a human approach to the world, and it's an approach on par with other approaches such as science, art, religion or politics. As I see it, each of these approaches has its particular qualities, and people use these approaches for specific purposes.

As I understand the expanded concept of design - that is, if I understand it correctly - it reflects an approach to the world. It's a human approach to the world, and it's an approach on par with other approaches such as science, art, religion or politics. As I see it, each of these approaches has its particular qualities, and people use these approaches for specific purposes.

One's choice of approach takes place in relation to one's understanding of the particular problem as well as a more comprehensive world view. In some cases, one may choose a political approach, in other cases a religious or a scientific approach, and sometimes the choice falls on design as an approach to the problem. That's my understanding of the term, and that's the level where I choose to place it.

Professor Erik Stolterman from Indiana University School of Informatics researches design as creative process, among others.

What is the consequence of the expanded concept of design for the way in which we think and talk about design?
The consequence is the realisation that design is not yet seen in the proper context. There's a growing understanding that design is important and interesting, but when people talk about design, design is still assigned a subordinate role. Design is more or less seen as a tool that can be applied by various approaches to the world. Companies, for example, have learned to use design as a tool for making money. Science also uses design as a tool, and the same is true of the other approaches.

In a way, it's fine that the approaches are able to borrow from one another, but the problem I see is that design is not acknowledged on the same level as the other approaches. Specifically, this means that many of the things that designers do are not understood and acknowledged by the other approaches.

If we take the relationship between researchers and artists, there usually aren't any problems there. Both parties will respect each other's approach and be fully aware that art can't be produced by scientific means. If one were to produce art through a scientific process it would cease to be art. Unfortunately, design is not met with a similar understanding.

We are currently seeing a strong tendency to render design scientific, the idea apparently being that design is this uncontrolled, vague thing that we have to structure to make it more like science - but this fails to acknowledge that if you were to do that, you would take away the very core of design.

As long as there is this lack of awareness that design has its own tradition and its own way of doing things, there's a very real risk that people might destroy design.

What is the consequence of the expanded concept of design for the way in which we perceive and approach design research? What challenges does the expanded concept of design entail?
I'm not saying that design research can't be done. It's possible to do lots of research into and about design, but design can't be turned into research, which is a different matter altogether. It's fine to do research and to attempt to learn more about design, just as it's fine, for example, to use design approaches in a research project. You can definitely use design approaches as a research tool if you want to accomplish certain things, but you can't turn research into design.

I'm not saying that design research can't be done. It's possible to do lots of research into and about design, but design can't be turned into research, which is a different matter altogether. It's fine to do research and to attempt to learn more about design, just as it's fine, for example, to use design approaches in a research project. You can definitely use design approaches as a research tool if you want to accomplish certain things, but you can't turn research into design.

In fact, I recently wrote an article about what it means to be a disciplined designer. Many people talk about design as this strange, intuitive process, which you can never really grasp, and in my article I try to demonstrate that this perception is completely wrong. I want to explain that design is just as disciplined as any other approach.

It's precisely because design is this crazy, flexible, completely intuitive process that we have developed all these tools and techniques. This is very deliberate, and if you want to control what you're doing as a designer, you have to be very disciplined. You can't do design without knowing the procedure. As with the other approaches, you must be absolutely certain what it is you're doing.

It's only when design is viewed through a scientific lens that design does not seem structured and rational. If you look at design through a designer's lens, design is completely structured and rational.
 

Stolterman, E. (2008). The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55-65, http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/240/148.

 

Mind Design #10, 2008