How does the design community think about design?

ABSTRACT

Design is a term that brings many people together. Collectively, we distinguish ourselves from others by the fact that we are designers and members of a design community. But, design is also a term that pushes people apart. The design that some value in the new fashions in the boutiques in Milan is not seen by everyone as design. While some are impressed with the design of a new telephone, not everyone sees this as design. As a community, we believe design is important. But, as a community, we do not have a common definition of what it is. Many views of design have been proposed. Several classifications of design have been proposed. In this paper, we also seek to classify views on design. Unlike earlier efforts, however, we want to find the classification that the global community of designers uses. To this end, we examine the patterns of citations to key authors' works (Author Co-citation Analysis) to uncover this classification and identify seven key author clusters representing identifiable theory groups or schools of thought/practice in design.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alexander, C., Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1964.
• 2: Alexander, Christopher, et al. A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• 3: Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
• 4: Candy, L. and Edmonds, E. A. Creativity in knowledge work: A process model and requirements for support. Proceedings OZCHI'95, 242--248.
• 5: Candy, L. and Edmonds, E. A. Creative design of the Lotus bicycle: Implications for knowledge support systems research. Design Studies, 1996, 17(1), 71--90.
• 6: Stuart K. Card , Allen Newell , Thomas P. Moran, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1983
• 7: Cross, N. (Ed.) Developments in design methodology. Chichester, New York : Wiley, 1984.
• 8: Clive L. Dym, Engineering design: a synthesis of views, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1995
• 9: Pelle Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1990
• 10: Glegg, G.L. The design of design. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
• 11: John D. Gould , Clayton Lewis, Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think, Communications of the ACM, v.28 n.3, p.300-311, March 1985 [doi>10.1145/3166.3170]
• 12: Jonathan Grudin, The case against user interface consistency, Communications of the ACM, v.32 n.10, p.1164-1173, Oct. 1989 [doi>10.1145/67933.67934]
• 13: Jones, J.C. Design methods: seeds of human futures. London, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1970.
• 14: Kunz, W. and Rittel, H. Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper 131. Center for Planning and Development research, University of California, Berkeley, 1970.
• 15: Mayall, W.H. Principles of Design. London: Design Council, 1979.
• 16: McCain, K.W. Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1990, 433--443.
• 17: McCain, K.W. Core journal networks and co-citation maps: New bibliometric tools for serials research and management. Library Quarterly, 1991, 3111--336.
• 18: Norman, D.A. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
• 19: Jens Rasmussen , Annelise Mark Pejtersen , L. P. Goodstein, Cognitive systems engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1994
• 20: Rittel, H. Second-Generation Design Methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.1984, 317--327.
• 21: Schön, D.A. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books 1983.
• 22: Schön, D.A. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
• 23: Herbert A. Simon, The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996
• 24: Herbert A. Simon, The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996
• 25: Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1973, 24, 265--269.
• 26: Small, H. Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 1978, 8, 327--340
• 27: Small, H. & Griffith, BC. The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 1974, 4, 17--40.
• 28: Kim J. Vicente, Cognitive Work Analysis: Towards Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1999
• 29: Web of Science (2001) Institute for Scientific Information {accessed December 12, 2001 from http://www.isinet.com/isi/products/citation/wos/index.html}
• 30: White, H.D. Co-cited author retrieval. Information Technology and Libraries, 1986, 5, 93--99.
• 31: White, H.D & McCain, K.W. (1989) Bibliometrics. In: M.E. Williams, (Ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), Volume 24, 110--186.
• 32: White, H.D. Author co-citation analysis: Overview and defense. In: C.L. Borgman (Ed.) Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990, 84--106.
• 33: Howard D. White , Katherine W. McCain, Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v.49 n.4, p.327-355, April 1, 1998 [doi>10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<327::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-W]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Theory and methods

General Terms:
Design

Keywords:
design taxonomy, theories of design