May be for me What is design and science ? It is different and for I think for example like the Technology and Sciences OR Engineer and Scientis. On behalf the question for that how we are applying and using on Implementation .

Thanks.

Dear Dr. Kismurtono, I agree with you, the questions ‘What is science?’ and ‘What is design? are also of importance. Nevertheless, in my understanding, methodologically, the word ‘science’ in ‘design science’ refers to how design is studied rather than what it is. As a researcher in the field of industrial design engineering, I have observed that there are many very different opinions on the reality and essence of design science (and of design research).

Some researchers believe that there is no need for anything like design science, for design is actually a creative practice (an art or craft). Others claim that design science is ‘scientific’ study of design within or above the disciplinary boundaries with adopted or developed research methods. Yet others argue the design science is eventually the science(s) of artifacts. Some say that design science is fundamentally different from natural, human, social, technical and abstract science because of its specific ontology, epistemology and methodology.

The variety of the opinions is well reflected by the current literature, though the propositions of many current publications (books or articles) can be deduced from the work of Archer, Hubka/Eder, Behesti, Eekels, Cross, etc. On the other hand, I cannot see signs of convergence of the views or philosophical stances. Many researchers discussed that design science intends to construct its own understanding of the world (‘designerly way of knowing’). It creates mental models that correspond to both the generic scientific inquiry and the subjective experiences.

In fact this gave the floor to my question. Does a unified design science (UDS) exist? Is UDS indeed possible? And, if the answer is confirmative, how does it manifest? Does UDS manifest as the enterprise for a creative construction of the empirically feasible reality or for an objective intellectual reconstruction of the empirically knowable reality in various contexts, or for both? What is then the role of design research? I think this issue indeed deserves a public debate.

Dear professor Horvath, I agree with you.  "Does a unified design science (UDS) exist? Is UDS indeed possible?"  indeed deserves a public debate. However, I think for most researchers Design science means "the science of design", as it is used in the book "Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1996)". Does the science of design exist? Simon has answered these questions in his book: "These essays then attempt to explain how a science of the artificial is possible and to illustrate its nature" (Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1996), Page xii ).

Then, the question is what is Design science? Does it exist? what is the difference between "the science of design" and "design science". If there exists Design science, then the theory on it should be normative or descriptive?

Simon  said “Natural science has  found  a  way  to exclude  the normative  and  to concern itself solely with how things are. Can or should we maintain  this  exclusion when we move from natural to artificial phenomena, from analysis to synthesis?”

His answer: "…, I may say that I hold to the pristine empiricist's position of the irreducibility of "ought" to "is," …. This position is entirely consistent with treating natural or artifical goal- seeking systems  as  phenomena,  without  commitment  to their goals."

I think the understanding of these questions may distinguish between "acquiring knowledge about design processes in general" and "acquiring knowledge via designing artifacts" (I used the sentence from Michael Aram).

A research design may be described as a series of decisions that as a whole form a strategy for answering the research questions and testing the hypotheses. Supporting this way of thinking, Cavana et al. (2001) view research design as a structured set of rational decision-making choices, or guidelines, to assist in generating valid and reliable research results. A research design in a positivist setting covers decisions about the choice of data collection methods, and about measurement and scaling procedures, instruments, samples and data analysis (Cavana et al, 2001). A good research design must make sure that the information obtained is relevant to the research problem, and that it was collected by objective procedures.

The most commonly classified research designs of exploratory, descriptive or causal research .

Regards,

Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., and Sekaran, U. (2001), Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

How about design research?

In the old paradigm, Design deals with the idea of artificial and primarily contributes to the designing/making/managing/consuming the artificial world. However, through the course, it is evident that it makes a dent in the natural world. It is proven and articulated in the new paradigms like circular economy, systems, sustainability etc.

Totally agree with you Prof. Horvath on Design Science being a methodological tool rather than what it is. In the new paradigm, I believe, Design Science includes the systemic and entangled study of Design rather the binary, natural and artificial. I think UDS can include all of them to specifically cater to its ontology, epistemology and methodology, but has to go beyond the idea of duality.

Addenda: Victor Margolin, Richard Buchanan and Dennis Doordan (2010) discuss following in 'The Designed World' about the two strands of Design Research as:

1. Research for/towards Design: Research that is pragmatically directly to making a product.

2. Design Studies: Reflecting on how products are made and used both in the present and the past. It focuses more on the philosophical, anthropological, psychological, and social meaning and consequences of products.

The design research literature contains a large number of references to processes that are described incidentally to the production of research-based designs. Many of these descriptions are specific to research contexts and to the practical needs of design practitioners. However, The design science research is about how to conduct research and addresses the meta level of conducting research at a higher level of abstraction: it is research about design research.

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 24(3), 45-77.

Dear Dr. Mirkazemi,

Would you please so kind to define what you mean by research-based designs? Does it mean artifacts and/or services generated based on (unearthed or synthesized) new/novel (scientific/disciplinary) knowledge (explored in forerunning research cycles) or something more specific? Thanks a lot. Best regards,

I.H.

I think it's a necessarity to consider a conductor for every material. science is bulkier than research in my viewpoint...Therefore, in this case we can take design science as upper level of design research and while embracing the research, it could evaluate-correct-conduct all its facets... I mean all things categorized undertitled design research (method, approach, practices,...). Hence, differentiation of these two inter-connected terms seems to be very energy-consuming...

🤔

the design science research (DSR) involves designing artifacts that have utility on human life challenges, and the design process goes hand in hand with research. Usually most of the DSR projects are user centered.

There are a lot of different activities going on under these titles.

One of the difficulties in definition is that research, design and science can be recursive. We can research research. We can design design. We can explore science scientifically. Add in the idea that scientific research is a form of design activity, and also the more standard ways that science and design contribute to each other (the role of designed artefacts in science; the role of e.g. materials science in design). Science, research and design occur in more than one place within any one activity.

Ranulph Glanville put it playfully like this:

why design research?

why design design research?

why design design research research?

why not design research?

why research design?

I think this is why Frayling's formulation (including later clarifications by Findeli, Jonas) of research for design, about/into design, by/through design has been so durable. It categorises research in terms of the purposes and position of the researcher, rather than in terms of content, and one can understand how these different activities may contribute to each other.

Dear Dr. Horvath,

Yes, It means artifacts generated based on development projects.

Sincerely,

Following are my observations on design and design science. We must understand something before we proceed to define it. All that comes between 'conceptualization' of a product or a 'system' and the production of the final product or system comes within the purview of 'design'. First of all design must be guided by a purpose. Design must consider aesthetic, economic, environmental, usability, cultural and spatial considerations etc. to produce the final product. Conflict between these considerations and trade-off is inevitable. Design must generate features product-under-consideration must have. Design must also generate rules for features selection and rationale (which features to choose and why? Design must also address complexity issues of the system as well. All this can not happen either by chance or by common sense. Dismissing design as merely a craft and art is doing disservice to it. More later....

Design Science is a research methodology associated with Information Technology. Design science offers specific guidelines for evaluation and iteration with the research project.

It can be found in may disciplines and fields, mainly in engineering and computer science and there are several approaches used in DSR. It is worth noting that during last decade the most commonly accepted name for the field has changed from "Design Science" to "Design Science Research". However, Hevner in 2004, speculated that DR is research about design wherease DSR is research using design as a research method or technique.

Дизайн исследования - это комбинация требований относительно сбора и анализа данных, необходимых для достижения целей исследования. Основные типы дизайна: Кросс-секционный дизайн предполагает сбор данных относительно большого числа единиц наблюдения. ... Данные собирают один раз и носят количественный характер.

Research design is a combination of the requirements for the collection and analysis of data necessary to achieve the objectives of the study. The main types of design: Cross-sectional design involves the collection of data on a large number of units of observation. ... Data is collected once and is quantitative.

The original question concerns design research.

I suggest you take a look at what

Ranulph Glanville has written about it. E.g. Re-searching Design and Designing Research.it is not a new topic and he has extensively written about this topic.

Not forgetting about what Dr. Rai pointed at, the main issue is nowadays that both design research and design science have multiple interpretations, definitions, even philosophical stances. A minute ago, a search with the term ' define:"design research" ' resulted in "About 31.900 results (0,54 seconds)". It shows that design research, likewise 'design science', is broadly covered, discussed and debated in the related literature. This gives the rationality of the original question, which can be further articulated by the following questions:

a. Is it possible to provide one-one universal definition for 'design research' and 'design science'?

b. If the answer is 'yes', then why can it be done? If the answer is 'not', then why can it be not done?

c. What is (or can be) the objective or the necessity or the advantage of striving after one-one universal definition?

d. Will shared uniform definitions help doing research, education and communication?

e. Is the intention to search for more generic and robust (ontological, epistemological and methodological) definitions not against the freedom of academic thinking?

Dear Dr. Koering, please kindly explain the relationship of the included link (Research.it) to the discussed topic. Thanks a lot. I.H.

May I share my opinion on this question, base on my basic knowledge, the answer are :

a. not, b. the word "design" is currently used by multiple disciplines, each of which has its own perspective base depending on the research context. c. this will make researchers have a "strict" view in conducting research, as a result the research cannot be "liquid" as it is today d. of course it will be very helpful in communicating, but there will be multi-perception for others e. the definition will make the reader know / find out the background of thought of the researcher, the things that underlie the research are interpreted by the reader based on the knowledge base

Note: researchers need to explain the mindset of "design research" and "design science" in their papers, of course this will help readers sort out according to the context of the case

Best regards

b. Does it mean that there is no reason to consider a transdisciplinary kernel of design research?