In a curriculum review group I’m part of, an article was shared that clarified many of my ideas about design education. Nigel Cross’s article, “Designerly ways of knowing” outlines a framework for thinking about design education, and the implications of these way of knowing for developing design education as a discipline. Cross introduces the concept of "designerly ways of knowing" as consisting of
Designers tackle ‘ill-defined’ problems
Designers mode of problem solving is ‘solution-focused’
Designers use a mode of thinking that is constructive
Designers use ‘codes that translate abstract requirements into concrete objects
Designers use these codes to both “read” and “write” in “object languages”
Of interest particularly are the first two ways of knowing. An ill-defined problem is one which does not have an “optimal” solution; rather it requires the designer to produce a practical result. Compared to the problem-analysis approach in science, which seeks to analyze and understand the nature of the problem, the designer’s task is to produce a solution that has a practical result. To this end, designers begin by defining the constraints of a problem and establishing what features of a successful solution might entail. We can see these approaches in how user research, the design brief, and design specifications are established and used to guide the development and evaluation of a solution.
Cross goes on to compare the approach of scientific problem solving which is focused on analysis, to that of design which seeks to synthesize solutions. He notes that the design method is an approach, a “pattern of behavior” focused on inventing novel things of value. One quote in particular captures the how designers approach problems;
The solution is not simply lying there among the data, like the dog among the spots in the well known perceptual puzzle; it has to be actively constructed by the designers own efforts. (emphasis mine)
It is this active construction that is such a rewarding and exciting part of the classroom. This is how and why design can be an empowering discipline for young people to engage with. Engaging with authentic problems and real clients is the unique and defining aspects of a strong design inquiry. This phrase has made me rethink how I frame problems for my students and how I support them to frame the problems they choose to engage with. Our design curriculum asks us to engage with this pattern of behavior, but it is up to the educators to develop the learning experiences that develop and encourage this pattern. From the perspective of a design educator, this raises some interesting questions:
In what ways are these ways of knowing connected or reflected in our curriculum and rubrics?
How might these ways of knowing be scaffolded in a 5-year design program like MYP design?
What elements need to be in place in a design program in order to develop and encourage these designerly ways of knowing?
A few years ago our department looked at what it means to be a student of design, and what kind of designer do we want to educate. This article has helped hone those ideas further, while also providing new perspectives to consider. That’s the next pedagogical direction to investigate: How do we develop and scaffold “designerly ways of knowing”?