1 The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Design, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, Re-ad.dk2 Institute of Product Design, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Design, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, Re-ad.dk3 unknown
Recently, Robert Farrell and Cliff Hooker opposed the conventional view that ‘design and science are distinct types of intellectual study and production’, claiming that science and design ‘are not different in kind’, and explicitly challenging proponents of the conventional view to ‘provide explicit arguments’ in its defence. This calls for an in-depth conceptual clarification of the science-design relationship. The aims of the present paper are to take up the gauntlet thrown by Farrell and Hooker, and in so doing, to provide such a clarification. We first analyse Farrell & Hooker's arguments, explaining why we find them unconvincing. We then propose a plausible conception of design versus science, and offer several arguments for considering design and science distinct, albeit related, concepts.
Design Studies, 2014, Vol 35, Issue 3, p. 201-231
artefact; design methodology; design theory; epistemology; philosophy of design