The designtist - does such a beast even exist?

A dear friend and I started talking about building a site called "1000 bad ideas".  The idea is that a series of problems are thrown out to the community, and they are encouraged to submit designs that would solve it.  Any idea is fair game, and there is equal value in "good" and "bad" ideas.  The big idea is proliferation of ideas which will be pruned and combined, used for inspiration or tossed aside to ultimately create a solution. This is a macrocognitive version of my personal design process. Keep churnin' out the bad ideas, whittling away the bad while preserving the promising pieces. Sometimes throwing the whole thing out and starting over. Learning the whole way.

Lately, I have been trying to figure out how science fits into the language and process of design.  I have been reading about big words like epistemelogical, I've dipped my toes into the Bauhaus, and have consulted the oracles about what truly is design. I've also been reflecting on what it is to be a scientist.  Since I have been steeped in PhD training for the last two years, I figure I have a pretty unique perspective on the intersection of these two very different traditions. Here are the questions I'm hoping to answer:

  1. How do design thinking and the scientific process coexist?
  2. When is it advantageous to answer our questions with the design process (i.e., design research and exploration)
  3. When is it advantageous to answer our questions with the scientific method?
By the way, would you participate in "1000 bad ideas"?


Related articles: