Publication detail

Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?

VERKERKE, G. VAN DER HOUWEN, E. BROEKHUIS, A. BURŠA, J. CATAPANO, G. MCCULLAGH, P. MOTTAGHY, K. NIEDERER, P. REILLY, R. ROGALEWICZ, V. SEGERS, P. VERDONSCHOT, N.

Original Title

Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?

English Title

Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?

Type

journal article in Web of Science

Language

en

Original Abstract

Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem. We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering. Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.

English abstract

Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem. We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering. Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.

Keywords

Engineering education; Specialisation; Multidisciplinarity; methodical design;

RIV year

2013

Released

15.05.2013

Publisher

Elsevier BV

Pages from

1516

Pages to

1527

Pages count

12

Documents

BibTex


@article{BUT104237,
  author="Gijsbertus J {Verkerke} and Eduard B {van der Houwen} and Anton A {Broekhuis} and Jiří {Burša} and Gerardo {Catapano} and Paul {McCullagh} and Khosrow {Mottaghy} and Peter {Niederer} and Richard {Reilly} and Vladimír {Rogalewicz} and patrick {Segers} and Nico {Verdonschot}",
  title="Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive?",
  annote="Science and design are two completely separated areas of expertise with their own specialists. Science analyses the existing world to create new knowledge, design uses existing knowledge to create a new world. This tunnel-vision mentality and narrow-minded approach is dangerous for problem solving, where a broad view on potential solutions is required to realise a high-quality answer on the defined problem.

We state that design benefits from scientific methods, resulting in a more effective design process and in better products, while science benefits from a design approach, resulting in more efficient and effective results. Our philosophy is illustrated using examples from the field of biomedical engineering.

Both methods can benefit tremendously from each other. By applying scientific methods, superior choices will be made in the design process. With design, more accurate, effective and efficient science will be performed.",
  address="Elsevier BV",
  chapter="104237",
  doi="10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.009",
  institution="Elsevier BV",
  number="7",
  volume="41",
  year="2013",
  month="may",
  pages="1516--1527",
  publisher="Elsevier BV",
  type="journal article in Web of Science"
}