|
Rational/scientific approaches are often espoused in normative models of design, yet descriptive research suggests that designers use methods that differ significantly from the
prescribed model of technical rationality. This paper argues that the scientific approach represents one of two dialectical and complementary metatheories of design, both of which are required for effective
design practice. Associated with each perspective are a multitude of attributes including designer ontology, epistemology, role, value system, and role characteristics. This paper draws upon research in
practitioner epistemology, decision-making, and role theory to establish a model linking designer assumptions and designer role. The paper outlines two complementary worldviews that are brought to bear on
the planning and design activity. The scientific worldview, characterized as objectivist, reductionist, and mechanistic, is contrasted with its complement, the humanistic worldview, characterized as
subjectivist, holistic, and organic. For each worldview the model identifies a constellation of internally consistent and mutually reinforcing assumptions, as well as a designer role, value system, and role
characteristics. Four hypotheses are derived linking design metatheory with specific role characteristics including product/service orientation,
task/relational orientation, tolerance for ambiguity, and orientation towards hierarchy. These were tested using secondary data from a sample of 64 information systems developers in the public sector.
Differences were statistically significantly for three of the four hypotheses, with the fourth marginally significant. Scientific designers were more product-oriented, task-oriented, intolerant of ambiguity,
and hierarchically oriented than their humanistic counterparts. Findings were substantiated through a series of confirmatory interviews with several key informants.By calling attention to the
interlocking set of attributes associated with each perspective, the model allows designers and their clients to recognize their innate predispositions, to make conscious and informed choices regarding their
roles in the design process, to diagnose imbalances, and to move fluidly and consciously between perspectives. Many of the classical planning and design dilemmas can be traced to an unbalanced emphasis on a
single perspective. Resistance to change on the part of both practitioners and clients can be understood and accommodated when recognized as a clash of fundamental assumptions. Interventions can be made at
any of the four levels in the model. Implications for the selection, education, socialization, and supervision of designers are discussed. These metatheories are best viewed as complementary perspectives, as
both are required in appropriate balance for effective design. Design strategies which over-value either perspective at the expense of the other are likely to be less powerful and more highly at risk than
those which incorporate both. |
