the professor john eggleston memorial lecture 2006. · pdf filethe professor john eggleston...

Loughborough UniversityInstitutional Repository

The Professor JohnEggleston memorial lecture

2006. Values, humanjudgement and sustainabilityin design and technology

education.

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repositoryby the/an author.

Citation: NORMAN, E.W.L., 2006. The Professor John Eggleston memoriallecture 2006. Values, human judgement and sustainability in design and tech-nology education . Design and Technology Education: an International Journal,11 (3), pp. 11-34

Additional Information:

• This is an article from the serial, Design and Technology Educa-tion: an International Journal [ c© DATE]. It is also available at:https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/6404

Version: Published

Publisher: c© Design and Technology Association

Please cite the published version.

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/6404

This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the

following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

Abstract

This lecture seeks to explore some aspects ofthe conceptual progress that has been made indesign and technology education since thepioneering work of Professor John Eggleston(1971). This exploration draws on researchconducted within the Design Education ResearchGroup at Loughborough University over the lastten years, which indicates the crucial part thathuman judgement plays in design decision-making. The implications are discussed withinthe context of the sustainability agenda and therole of appropriate eco-design tools is noted.The vital contributions of ‘learning by doing’ anda ‘hands-on approach’ are emphasised and thekey relationship between innovation, designingand the articulation of knowledge is recognised.The lecture concludes by discussing theimportance of this relationship, as well as takinginterdisciplinary approaches, for research andcurriculum development in design andtechnology education.

Key words

values, knowledge, articulation, innovation,sustainability, interdisciplinary, design andtechnology

Introduction

This Keynote Address has four broad aims:

• to review aspects of conceptual progress indesign and technology education sinceProfessor John Eggleston’s initial work;

• to indicate the particular research focus of theDesign Education Research Group (DERG) atLoughborough University;

• to explore the role of human judgement andvalues in determining sustainable futures;

• to indicate the importance of takinginterdisciplinary perspectives.

Current (UK at least) orthodoxies

The current structure of design and technologyeducation was not predetermined. As Laytonobserved:

It could all have been different. Otheroptions were available. What we encountertoday is the result of decisions which reflectthe value judgements of those who shapeda development which was in no senseinevitable.

(Layton 1992:10)

This can be illustrated by briefly exploringsome current orthodoxies: theoretical positionswhich are taken as established, but over whichthere is considerable room for doubt. Forexample, there is a commonly held conceptionthat creativity is to do with generating a rangeof alternative solutions. If you look at aparticular area of the design field ‘as a whole’,then this might be arguable, but at least someof the evidence is against it when you analyseindividual acts of designing. In writing aboutthe enthusiasm which emerged for models of‘the design process’ in the 1960s, Baynes notedthe outcomes of comparing such models withactual designing.

Studies of how designers actually worked inpractice did not appear to conform to any ofthe theoretical models of the design processthen current… Although designers didappear to use divergent and convergentthought processes and there was (almost bydefinition) a journey from divergent toconvergent, it certainly did not proceed in alinear way. Several new theories emerged. Itbegan to look as though many designersactually started with the solution (!) or atleast with a strong personal conviction aboutthe direction to follow. They certainly didnot use any formal procedures to stimulatedivergent thought – on the contrary, they

RESE

ARC

H

The Professor John Eggleston Memorial Lecture 2006Values, human judgement and sustainability in designand technology education

Dr Eddie Norman, Senior Lecturer, Department of Design and

Technology, Loughborough University, UK

11Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 11, 3

appeared to draw on their accumulated storeof professional expertise to leap to a designidea that held out the promise of meetingthe requirements. They even worked over arelatively long period to ‘fill in’ the detailsand realise the design. It was soon clear thatdifferent designers worked in different waysand that procedures in distinct fields ofdesign also differed.

(Baynes et al, Ch 3, in preparation)

Other more recent studies concerning theinfluence of design expertise have essentiallyconfirmed these findings (e.g. Cross et al, 1994;Ball, 2004; Cross, 2004)

Recent work by Dasgupta (2004) has similarlycast doubt on the generation of alternatives asthe true vehicle of the creative mind. Dasguptaexamined three case studies from the historiesof natural science, technology and art1 andconcluded:

…a fecundity2 in the generation of variationson which the selection is supposed to workaccording to the variation-selection model isnot evident in any of the examples.

In none of the case studies presented here isthere any evidence whatsoever of blindvariations being generated. On the contrary,the cognitive process in each instance wasgoal driven and knowledge driven.

(411-412)

Nevertheless, the concept of creativity as aDarwinian process seems to have now becomeembedded in our examination specifications(e.g. see Table 1), although there is a healthyambiguity in the ‘or design detail’ suggestedunder ‘ii’.

As a further example consider perhaps one ofthe most crucial current orthodoxies, asindicated by ‘iii’ in Table 1; namely, anacceptance of ‘fragmentation’, rather thanrequiring ‘holism’. Evaluating against criteria ina product design specification (PDS) assumesthat the whole is equal to the sum of the partsand risks assuming that different aspects of thePDS can be weighted equally, if one of the morerudimentary procedures of this type is followed.In reality the outcome of such procedures islikely to be a reflection of how designers weightone area against another i.e. a designer’spersonal values. Such procedures also facilitatethe avoidance of craft (tacit knowing, skill) as anintegral part of designing through negating therole of holistic judgement and promote ideasconcerning the separation of mind and body(dualism, or action then reflection).

Current brain research is now indicating theopposite. The separation of mind and body maywell be confirmed as a theoretical construct, the‘ghost in the machine’ (Ryle, 1949) and thought,emotional responses, senses and kinaestheticmovement might all turn out to be fully linkedand interdependent, which would require areturn to a holistic view of designing andgreater recognition of the importance ofjudgement. Figure 1 shows a view of designingfrom the 1970s, which Professor Ken Baynes

RESE

ARC

H

The Professor John Eggleston Memorial Lecture 2006Values, human judgement and sustainability in design andtechnology education

12 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 11, 3

i Use a range of design strategies togenerate a wide range ofimaginative ideas that showevidence of ingenuity and flair

ii Use knowledge and understandinggained through research to developand refine alternative designs and/ordesign detail

iii Evaluate and test the feasibility ofideas against specification criteria

b Generatingideas

Table 1 AO1 Designing Assessment Objectives

for Edexcel AS/A GCE in Design and

Technology (Product Design) (2006)

1The case studies were in natural science, Jagadis Chandra Bose (1858-1937) and his ‘Monistic Thesis’; intechnology, James Watt (1736-1819) and his ‘Separate Condenser’; and in art, Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) andhis ‘Picture from Afar’ (Guernica)). 2Within biology or demography fecundity refers to the ability of an organism or population to reproduce.

used in many lectures. With its references to‘interaction through all the senses’ andmodelling ‘in the social world’ it would seemthat perspectives on the meaning of designinghave narrowed over the decades.

As a first example of the need forinterdisciplinary perspectives in order to tacklethese issues, consider this quotation from areview of two recently published archaeologybooks by Godson (2006).

Many disciplines have been inspired by recentdevelopments in neuroscience using varioussuccessful approaches to the scanning of ahuman brain as a jumping-off point, althoughattempts to correlate brain activities withexperience are proving more tricky. Such workis helping to link the brain more intimately tothe body by showing that the brain monitorsthe processes of the body, including itsbiochemical and emotional states. The olddichotomies between thought and emotionare starting to break down to be replaced by amore holistic view of human experience. Also,emphasis on links between the brain and therest of the body takes the search for humanintelligence out of the body and into the

world. Artefacts and landscapes represent aseries of activations for the skills of the body,so that links between human muscles and theobjects they deploy become crucial. Theembodied human being works in partnershipwith the material world in order to createactions that are socially salient and effective…

It is this body-world combination that may beintegral to forms of human intelligence,throwing new emphasis on the link betweenthe human senses, the forms of artefacts thatappeal to the senses and the social valuesattached to people and things. Such anemphasis on the combination of the body andthe rest of the material world as the locus forintelligence reformulates notions of mind. The mind has long suffered from an uneasyrelationship with the brain – the materialbrain being seen as the locus of theimmaterial mind, which had the effect ofsubtly dematerialising the brain. But nowthat the brain is newly enfolded back into thebody and the body is reconnected with theartefactual world, where is the mind? (30)

The remainder of the review, and the books it isreviewing (Lewis-Williams and Pearce, 2005

and Mithen, 2005) are equallyfascinating from the perspective ofthose trying to understand thenature of design intelligence. Itseems clear that research inarchaeology and design andtechnology education share muchpotential common ground.

It is arguable that such particularviews of creativity (selecting fromalternatives) and design decision-making (analysing against a productdesign specification) lead inevitablyto correspondingly particular notionsof ‘a design process’. In fact, theyare the conceptual consequences ofthinking too much about ‘a designprocess’ and how to simplify thecomplexity of design and designingtowards the goal of curriculumdesign. But let’s take a step back

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 1 Diagram from the 1970s: Basic elements in the

relationship between imaging and modelling represented

by Ken Baynes (Baynes et al, in preparation)

and consider the position when Professor JohnEggleston started his work on the Design andCraft Education Project at Keele University inthe late 1960s.

It is clear that ‘(a) design process for secondaryschools’ looked very different then to the onewe are used to seeing today, and, in the contextof this presentation, one of the key reasons forthis has been the ‘downplaying’ of the role thathuman judgement plays in designing. Egglestonclearly recognised that ‘judgements anddecisions’ dominated the later phases of theresolution of a design task, but the model inFigure 2 is equally clear in indicating the role ofhuman judgement in ‘identifying the controlfactors’. Recording data, communicating ideas,applying knowledge, social skills andintellectual and motor skills are not ‘valueneutral activities’. The outcomes are the result

of human judgements. It would almost appearthat somewhere along the line more proceduralinterpretations aligned to ‘science’ have cometo be allowed to have too great an influence onthe understanding of designing, and the casewhich was so strongly made by Eggleston andby Archer and his colleagues at the DesignEducation Unit at the Royal College of Art (RCA)in the 1960s and 1970s has been slowly eroded(Archer et al, 2005).

Even the realisation phase in Eggleston’s modelof the ‘investigation of design factors’ is moreenlightened than recent product-centredinterpretations. Consumer purchasing (orRoberts’ (2005) transitive model of designing)and the ‘servicing of mechanisms’ (reusepresumably) were then on the agenda.

The Loughborough approach

Much of the design educationresearch at Loughborough isfounded on the theoreticalunderstanding of the nature ofdesign and designingdeveloped at the RCA. Beinglocated in the BridgemanCentre, one of the bestequipped buildings for‘designing and making’ in theUK, it is perhaps alsounsurprising that much of theDepartment of Design andTechnology Department’sresearch is focussed on the actof designing. Figure 3 shows aview of design andtechnological activity aspresented by Roberts (2005).

In 1982 George Hicks led aWorking Party for the UK’sAssessment of Performance Unit(APU), which was set the task ofexploring the nature of designand technology. Amongst theimportant ideas which emergedfrom that group was thecategorisation of the key factorsinfluencing design decision-

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 2 The design process from the Design and Craft

Education Project (Eggleston et al,1971:2)

RESE

ARC

H



making into knowledge, skills and values. Thiswas extended in a 1998 paper by Norman, whichargued that the technology which is used for thepurposes of designing could similarly beusefully described in terms of these same threecategories (technology for design).

Figure 4 shows a model of designing based onthis concept which was presented at DATA’sMillennium conference (Norman, 2000). Theessential point is that for a particular designer,working on a particular project, thetechnological boundary is their knowledge,skills and values. Design education orprofessional development can seek to addressany of these categories in order to improvedesign capability, but it is likely to be somecombination of changes in knowledge, skillsand values that is needed. So, technology at amicro-level can be seen as a constraininginfluence on designing and at a macro-level asthe means through which society creates itsmaterial culture. It might be thought that therewas a generally agreed position concerning thenature and meaning of ‘technology’ or

‘technological knowledge’ that could have beenadopted, but this is not the case.

Carl Mitcham published his seminal workThinking Through Technology in 1994, in whichhe identified four different ways ofconceptualising technology, as objects,knowledge, activities and volition3. De Vriesrecently commented on this position as follows.

The Continentally orientated philosophy oftechnology has mainly focused ontechnology as volition. As a result the ideasthat have emerged in the remaining threeconceptualization modes are fairly limited…In the knowledge domain the main result isthat we now recognise that there issomething like “technological knowledge”,which is different from scientific knowledge(Baird, 2004; Laudan, 1984; Vincenti, 1990),although in practice the two can be almostindistinguishable… But what defines thespecific nature of technological knowledge isstill not well explored.

(2006: 19-20)

discrepancy discrepancy mis-match resolution mis-match

incompatibility incompatibility

Figure 3 Design and technological activity as learning: problem solving as a continuous process

contained in focusing on overlapping states of affairs (Roberts, 2005: 29)

3De Vries (2006:19) explains these categories as follows. ‘By “technology as objects,” Mitcham means that wecan regard technology as a set of objects that are the result of designing and making. Mostly we speak of“technical artefacts” when the objects are the result of technological activities. “Technology as knowledge” refersto the idea that technology is a discipline with a distinct kind of knowledge. The domain of “technology asprocesses” deals with designing, making, and using as the main types of processes in technology. “Technologyas volition” refers to the notion that technology is part of the human will and is therefore an intrinsic part of ourculture, and that technology for that reason has everything to do with values that humans hold.’

RESE

ARC

H



My PhD research at Loughborough was that ofa reflective practitioner, and some of theresearch questions I sought to address areshown below.

• What is the relationship of designing toparticular technologies ?

• What are the most effective strategies for theteaching and learning of such technologies forindustrial designers4?

• For which technologies must there befoundations of learning prior to designing andwhich can be accessed at the point of need?

• To what extent can flexible learning andemerging information technology alter thisposition?

Fuller accounts of this research can be found inthe papers brought together for the award of the

PhD (Norman 2002). The important matterhere is that the research was exploring thepedagogical implications of recognising thatindividuals designing by themselves or ingroups have a technological boundarycomprised of their knowledge, skills andvalues. They are decision-makerscharacterised by ‘bounded, but expandable,rationality’ (Hatchuel, 2002); a topic whichwill be returned to in the next section.

One further outcome of this research wasthe desire to examine the notion ofrepresenting the boundary for designing asknowledge, skills and values in more depth.This was the fundamental intention of thePhD programme completed by Dr OwainPedgley, which has since become known asthe ‘polymer guitar project’. The real goalwas to explore the ‘knowledge strand’ ofthis boundary in greater depth (Pedgley,1999). If the overlapping circles in Figure 5are imagined to be a cross-section of thisboundary, then Pedgley was exploring theshaded ‘knowledge area’.

The relationship of propositionalknowledge (articulated knowledge, knowing

that) to designing was more researched (e.g.Vincenti, 1990), than tacit knowledge (Polanyi,1962) or knowing how (Ryle, 1949). For theselatter areas, it was also more problematic todistinguish knowledge from values and skills,so Pedgley’s research was purposefullydirected towards them. A further discussion ofthe overlapping of knowledge and values ascategories has recently been published byPavlova (2005:127-147), and as Lawson hasnoted in discussing technological knowledge:

This knowledge is predictive but uncertainand laden with values. It is clear that theapplication of such knowledge is a highlyselective process and therefore inevitablyresults in designers making their own uniqueinterpretation of design problems (Lawson,2004:14).

problem solving as acontinuous process, contained infocussing on overlapping states of affairs

technology as the summation of knowledge.skills and values

designing

resolution – anacceptable degree

of closure of the gap

mis-match – acondition ofdiscrepancy,tension or

incompatibility

Figure 4 Technology as the summation of

knowledge, skills and values (Norman, 2000:129)

4Technology is being used here in the sense indicated in Figure 4 i.e. as the summation of all the knowledge,skills and values employed when designing

From a designing perspective, and particularlyin the context of innovation, it was alsoimportant to understand the relationshipbetween the articulation of knowledge and itsphysical manifestation in products. So, after acareful check that all the available materialsscience of polymers concerned soundabsorption rather than generation, the polymerguitar project was conceived (Norman, 1993).Pedgley kept a detailed diary of designing rightfrom the start of the project (as illustrated bythe analysis in Figure 6), and so there is acomplete case study of design innovation andthe creation of associated articulatedknowledge to be told, when the story iscomplete. However, like many a good novel ordrama, there are a number of possible endingsfrom this point in time, and events must unfoldto shape the final chapters.

Some of the implications of this project inrelation to innovation were discussed in apaper concerning Doyle’s concept of technicity(2004) by Norman and Pedgley at DATA’s 2005International Research Conference.

Technicity might best be characterised by acreative capacity to:a) deconstruct and reconstruct nature, andb) communicate by drawing

(Doyle, 2004: 67)

The technicity hypothesisis is that ‘innovationis to be expected (and that) technicity is itsintellectual driver’ (ibid:71). The polymer guitarproject provided credible empirical evidence tosupport this hypothesis and the paperconcluded as follows.

Human decision-making is an expression ofthe art of making judgements based onincomplete information about existingfactors and future consequences. This is theessence of design activity, and hence then ofthe existence of products and theirassociated technology (given that theexistence of the artefacts or systemspreceded the explanation of theirperformance, empirically or otherwise). In the same way that each game of chess ishighly likely to be different, so with productdesign dependent on a multitude ofsequential decisions, the designs willinevitably be different. So, in some respect,every resolution of a design problem couldbe seen as innovative, in the sense that withrespect to some factors it is a ‘better fit’ forthe design intentions than its predecessors.It is a matter of judgement as to whether thebetter fit is of more value than other betterfits. So, on the view that technicity can beunderstood as the capability underlyinghuman decision-making in the face ofuncertainties, perhaps innovation can beinterpreted as inevitable and productevolution considered the survival of themost valued.

(Norman and Pedgley, 2005: 138)

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 5 A cross-section of a boundary of

designing represented by knowledge, skills

and values

This implied relationship between the creation ofarticulated knowledge, designing and innovationlies at the heart of the issues surrounding thedevelopment of knowledge-based economies(e.g. Cox, 2005). Not surprisingly, it is also one ofthe debates with which the UK’s QCA(Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) haschosen to become engaged through undertakingthe RECORD&T project following the lead ofProfessor Geoffrey Harrison. This project5

stemmed from an analysis of …design education for engineering as aconsistent, progressive, academic discipline,from primary to higher education; adiscipline based on:• a recognition of the nature of creativity,• both tacit and articulate knowledge and

understanding, and

• how creativity and understanding worktogether in the processes of designing,making, and innovating

(Harrison, 2002)

The quotation comes from an interestingpublication which pursued and illustrated theseideas using examples from UK practice, from‘the very first years’ to ‘the professionalengineer’, for which the ‘polymer guitar projectwas used as a case study of the emergence ofarticulated from tacit knowledge (ibid:58-59).Perhaps these relationships are best illustratedby the diagram (Figure 7) used by Vincenti inthe conclusions to his study of What EngineersKnow and How They Know It: AnalyticalStudies from Aeronautical History (1993). Hiscase studies clearly demonstrate that design

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 6 Materials and manufacturing information searches for the polymer acoustic guitar

(Pedgley, 1999:231)

5RECORD&T stands for RECOgnising Real Design & Technology and details of the project can be found athttp://www.qca.org.uk/15423.html. Evidence is presented relating to contexts for designing and making,strategies for designing and making, functions in design and making, sectors in knowledge and understandingfor designing and making and concepts in design and technology.

knowledge is both used by engineers andgenerated by engineers through their activities:and much of the knowledge generated maywell be tacit rather than articulated. It becomesa company’s or individual’s ‘know how’, andcan be as valuable, both commercially in an IP(intellectual property) portfolio and indesigning, as articulated knowledge (e.g.patents). Both Vincenti’s study and theRECORD&T project were essentially targetingthis same agenda, that of understanding therelationship between designing, the articulationof knowledge and innovation.

The data Pedgley gathered through his diary ofdesigning was triangulated against case studiesfrom the literature and in-depth interviews withprofessional designers. Much as Vincenti’smodel suggests, Pedgley’s research revealedhow industrial designers’ experiential base formaterials and processes decisions extends farbeyond propositional knowledge. ‘Thedistinctiveness of industrial designers’ attention

to materials and processes lies in diversityrather than specialism’ (1999:327). And as hegoes on to explain:

… in straightforward terms, it may beconsidered a synergy between attentionsthat are the prerogative of the designer-maker, ‘…through hands-on making ofmodels and prototypes or through workshopexperimentation, knowledge is derived ofhow materials and processes can satisfyutilitarian and expressive functions of aproduct’ and those that are the prerogativeof the design engineer, ‘…the use ofquantified materials data is entirelyappropriate, especially for use inmathematical calculations relating toutilitarian performance.’ [ibid: 328] Mostcritically, ‘…designers were agreed that therewas no substitute for hands-on examinationand handling of products to learn aboutdesign.’ [ibid: 319].

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 7 Design knowledge and its generating activities (Vincenti, 1993:226

Values and designing

Pedgley’s PhD moved Loughborough’s agendaforward considerably in reinforcing theessential requirement of direct engagementwith materials, and the complexity ofexploring the technological boundary ofdesigning. It was clear that it was not alwayspossible to distinguish knowledge fromvalues, and that judgements were often beingmade made on a spectrum of grounds. It isworth noting how strongly Pedgley’s empiricaldata are reinforcing Eggleston’s model ofdesigning (e.g. Figure 2, ‘Foundation workthrough soft materials (i.e. card, clay etc).Production of models’).

As a second example of the importance ofinterdisciplinary perspectives, the role ofhuman judgement in decision-making has beena key focus of substantial research in themanagement field because of the potentialrisks to the economic sustainability ofcompanies arising from biases and errors (e.g.Bazerman, 2002). As sustainability has come tobe interpreted in terms of social andenvironmental criteria, as well as economic,there is an emerging need to understand thebroader role of human judgement in theseareas. Product design, while actuallyresponsible for a relatively small percentage(approximately 5-10%) of the total costs, has asignificant impact on the actual costs incurredwithin the system. Fabrycky (1987) estimatedthat up to 85 percent of life cycle costs arecommitted by the end of the preliminary designstages. Similarly, Bhamra et al (1999) foundthat it is the early design stages which have thegreatest influence over the environmentalimpact of the product. Consequently, it is clearthat biases and errors in the judgements ofdesigners have potential consequences morefar-reaching than economic success or failure.

Bazerman represented a rational‘management’ decision-maker as follows, andthe similarity to ‘the design process’ isdisturbing.

…Let us look at six steps you should take,either implicitly or explicitly, when applyinga “rational” decision-making process to eachscenario.

1. Define the problem…

2. Identify the criteria…

3. Weight the criteria…

4. Generate alternatives…

5. Rate each alternative on each criterion…

6. Compute the optimal decision… (2002:3-4)

At best, such models describe what might bedone. In his Nobel Prize-winning work Simon(1957) described individual judgements asbeing made within a bounded-rationalityframework. Whilst individuals are attempting tomake rational decisions, they might lackimportant information about the definition ofthe problem and the relevant criteria, time andcost can limit the information available, andtheir capabilities can limit their analyses. The resulting decisions were seen as beingintuitively based, and the resulting judgementsas ‘satisficing’ i.e. resulting in acceptable orsufficient positions. In 1974 Tversky andKahneman published research building onSimon’s work and described some of thesystematic biases that affect managementdecisions. As Bazerman reported:

Their work, and work that followed, led toour modern understanding of judgement.Specifically, researchers have found thatpeople rely on a number of simplifyingstrategies, or rules of thumb, in makingdecisions. These simplifying strategies arecalled heuristics. As the standard rules thatimplicitly direct our judgement, heuristicsserve as a mechanism for coping with thecomplex environment surrounding ourdecisions. (2002:5)

He goes on to describe in detail three generalcognitive heuristics that ‘affect virtually allindividuals’ (ibid:5):

RESE

ARC

H



• the ‘availability’ heuristic… a bias towardsthe familiar;

• the ‘representativeness’ heuristic… a biastowards known categories;

• ‘anchoring and adjustment’… a biastowards an initial starting position.

Since that time on-going research in themanagement field has pursued the cognitivebiases associated with human judgement andtheir implications for the decisions resulting(e.g. Thaler, 2000), but there have not beencomparable research efforts in relation todesign decision-making.

Perhaps the reason is that the direconsequences of ‘bias’ in design decision-making have not been fully appreciated, orperhaps not until recently. It was certainly clearto us at Loughborough in 2002, when RhodaColes started her PhD research, that we neededa much greater understanding of the role valuesplay in design decision-making. The positionreached might be summarised as follows.

Designers work within, and are products oftheir culture. They have acquired knowledgefrom that culture, and work with technologies,which embody the accumulated knowledge oftheir society. They develop personal values,but are influenced by the values of all thestakeholders to a design (Norman, Ch 8, inBaynes et al, in preparation).

Coles’s PhD can be visualised as a detailedexamination of the values strand of the‘knowledge, skills and values’ boundary fordesigning as shown in Figure 8.

Following a full literature review and somepilot studies Coles developed a new taxonomyfor analysing the use of values in designing asshown in Figure 9. A discussion of itsdevelopment has been published as part of abroader account of this strand ofLoughborough’s research (Norman, Pedgleyand Coles, 2004a and 2004b).

Coles found examples of other researchersbeginning work in this area. For example,Kaldate et al (2003) write about decision trapsas a result of heuristics and the development ofa decision tool for overcoming these trapswithin the context of sustainable design.

Designers deal with this new set ofcomplexities through a traditional reductionistapproach, breaking the problem into smallersub-problems and hoping that if they solveeach of these sub-problems in isolation, it willlead to the desired final solution (…) it canlead to the products that do not reflect thetrue preferences of the customers, are notsustainable, or do not achieve the best levelof sustainability possible

(Kaldate et al 2003:1).

The process of anchoring, where designersselect a design that is readily available fromwhich they make modifications is anothercommon heuristic reported by Kaldate (2003).As Coles writes:

Designers also use products as a greatsource of inspiration and studies haveshown that inventors not only use mentalimages but also ‘worked from existingobjects to create new ones,’ (Middleton,2003:111). Ashby and Johnson also suggest

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 8 Rhoda Coles PhD programme

that it is common for designers to undertake‘selection by similarity, seeking materialswith selected attributes that match those ofan existing material, without knowing whythese have the values they do, merely thatthey are relevant for the success of thedesign’ (2003:131). These objects must havetherefore held some value to the designer intheir original form or they had ‘somemeaningful relationship to the to-be-invented object’ (Middleton 2003:111). Thisconcept is important in our understanding ofthe influence of values on design decision-making as:

There is a great wealth of knowledge carriedin the objects of our material culture… A significant branch of designerly ways ofknowing, then, is the knowledge that residesin objects. Designers are immersed in thismaterial culture and draw upon it as theprimary source of their thinking. Designershave the ability to both ‘read’ and ‘write’ inthis culture…

(Cross, 1982:225)

Coles’s main empirical data was gathered byanalysing eight case studies of designers ofvarying levels of expertise (from first yearundergraduates to professional designers).They were each asked to design a lectern usingrecycled polymer sheet materials for Recoup6

in a ‘one day event’. Retrospective interviewsand protocol analysis were used to support theanalysis of the designing, and the data wastriangulated against a ‘normal’ project and thefindings from the literature. Coles will bereporting her results in due course, but Table 2gives a flavour of her results, and shedescribed these results as follows.

Existing artefacts or materials were selectedto be combined with the product that isbeing designed in order to associate theirvalue with the new artefact (for examplethree participants made the decision to usesteel in their designs in order to associatethe lectern with the high embedded value ofsteel, as they all perceived steel to beindicative of quality). New designs are alsodeveloped to resemble an existing item inorder to take on similar values. Theseselected products can also be from previousprojects, the outcomes of which must holdsome value for the participant.

(ibid)

RESE

ARC

H



problem solving as a continuous process, containedin focusing on overlapping states of affairs

technology as the summation of knowledge.skills and values

designing

resolution – anacceptable degree

of closure of the gap

mis-match – acondition ofdiscrepancy,

tension orincompatibility

Figure 9 Values in

designing and

Coles’ taxonomy

for the analysis of

their use in design

decision-making

6Recoup is a national organisation concerned with the recycling of used polymers. Further details can be found at http://www.recoup.org/business/default.asp

External

• Societal Values• Identified Stakeholder Values• Economic System Values• Values Embedded in Design

Internal

• Percieved Societal Values• Percieved Identified Stakeholder

Values• Percieved Economic System

Values• Embedding Values in Design• Designer’s Personal Values• Meta-Values

Coles’s research not only categorises empiricaldata on the way values are used by designersin their decision-making, but also on how theimportance and category of values used alterduring the designing. The review of thesefindings from an educational perspective is justbeginning at Loughborough University, andparticularly in the context of sustainabledesign.

The difficulty of making a design decision

In describing the role of scientific knowledge indesign decision-making, Layton discussed themodel shown in Figure 10. Everydayknowledge was seen as being constructed intoscientific knowledge through science educationand then de-/re-constructed in combinationwith ‘other knowledge and judgements’ inorder to provide knowledge for practical action.

The meaning of this can be illustrated byconsidering the example of selecting betweenglass and polymer as the most appropriatematerial for a citrus juicer in the context ofsustainability. This is one of the tasks whichwas given to 60 Year 12 students (aged 16-17),who recently attended a Sustainable DesignAwards (SDA)7 ‘Schools Day’ at LoughboroughUniversity as indicated in Figure 11. Thestudents were learning about sustainabledesign ‘by doing’, and were being supported inlearning to make necessary judgements. Theplan for the day is shown in Table 3.

RESE

ARC

H



Bar chairs Steel (3 people)Surfboard(negative)

Kite Flower petals

Swan Glass (4 people)Bird tables(negave)

SnakeVirgin plastic

Dyson vacuum cleaner

Marble (3 people) Tree (negative)Martini glass

(negative)

Polyprop integral hinges

Coke bottle (4 people, I negative)

SlateSharks fin (2 people)

Other bottles (3 people)

Holly leaf chair(previous project)

Modern art LeatheretteClear tubing

(previous projectExhibition stands Carpet

7SDA is the Sustainable Design Awards organised by a partnership led by Practical Action. Further details can be found at http://www.sda-uk.org

Table 2. Existing materials and designs used with new designs to transfer embedded value or to

reject ideas through not wanting the association (Coles, 2006, in preparation)

If an attempt had been made to address thisquestion from first principles, then there wouldhave been at least two areas in which verydifficult judgements would have needed to bemade, specifically:

• the balancing of economic, social andenvironmental priorities;

• the balancing of issues relating to thisgeneration with future scenarios (inter-/intra-generational equity).

If a life cycle analysis were completed thenglobal impact categories like resourcedepletion, greenhouse gases and depletion ofthe ozone layer, and regional impact categories,like ozone formation, acidification, eutroficationand persistent toxicity, would need to beassessed and quantified. Judgements wouldthen need to be made about their relativeenvironmental importance, and then about thesignificance of these environmental issues inrelation to social and economic issues in thecontext of this generation of global citizens,and future generations. Clearly, if anydesigning was going to take place thatafternoon, then appropriate sustainable designtools were needed. Eco-indicators (eco-points)8provide an effective way of reaching a decisionon the environmental issues, as shown inTable 4. The environmental impact of issueslike material use, processing, transportation,landfill and recycling can be rapidly assessed,and it can be quickly established that thetransportation of the oranges from Spain willprove to be the significant longer term issue.

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 10 Construction and de-/re-construction of scientific knowledge (Layton, 1993: 59)

Figure 11 Citrus juicers made from a variety of

materials

8Detailed information concerning the development of can be found by downloading the Eco-indicator Manualfor Designers from http://www.pre.nl

In order to provide eco-indicators valuesenvironmental experts have had to perform alife cycle analysis and reach judgements aboutrelative importance. For the calculation of eco-indicators three aggregate values arecalculated: damage to human health; damageto eco-systems; and resource depletion. Tocalculate the eco-indicators value a panel of365 people from a Swiss LCA interest groupdecided to use the weightings 1:1:0.5respectively. In the context of this paper, thekey point is that the eco-design tool has beenprovided by making judgements on behalf ofthe designer. Just because the eco-point is asingle number, it should not be thought of ashaving any scientific precision. So it is not amatter of whether judgements will be made,

but who makes them. In order to supportstudents in making such judgements the‘design abacus’ was explored as described inthe next section.

If the embodied energy or CO2 footprints forthe glass and citrus juicers are calculatedinstead, as shown in Table 5, then this mightappear to avoid making a judgement, but this isnot the case. The judgement has to be made asto whether to use carbon emissions or energyconsumption as the criterion, or how to weightthem if you chose both, and that resourcedepletion or toxicity are not important issues.These measures are more transparent, but notvalue neutral.

RESE

ARC

H



Time Activity Notes

10.00-10.45am Introduction to theSDA and sustainabledesign

10.45-11.30am Life-cycle analysis(LCA) of a ‘juice shot’

The ‘juice shot’ has the juice ingredients, apolymer bottle, a metal foil top, cardboardpackaging and a paper printed and glued label toconsider.

11.30-12.00 pm Ecopoints and thecitrus juicers

The LCA will have demonstrated the complexityof the task. The use of eco-indicatorsdemonstrates one tool which has been developedto help designers deal with this complexity.

12.00-12.30pm Design abacus for a‘juice drink’

The eco-indicators are useful, but restricted toenvironmental issues. The design abacusprovides a framework for considering relativejudgements between environment, social andeconomic issues. Putting values for the juice shoton the abacus provides a baseline for theafternoon’s designing

1.30-4.00pm Group designing of amore sustainable wayof making a juicedrink

Juice drinks could be made in a home kitchen, ina supermarket as a service, or in the countries oforigin of the fruit and vegetables used. Thisprovides a rich context in which to exploresustainable design and eco-design tools.

Table 3 The plan for Loughborough University’s SDA Schools Day

However knowing all of this, there is the realitythat despite the better environmentalperformance and the established safety of theuse of polyethylene for food products, manypeople would still choose glass, because, forexample, of the perception that it feels moreexpensive, up-market, hygienic, solid, durableand of higher quality. So perhaps the stainlesssteel, or beech wood (from a sustainablesource) juicers should also be considered.

There are no easy answers to such apparentlysimple choices.

RESE

ARC

H



Material or process Amount (kg)Indicator

(points per kg)Result

Glass 0.235 58 13.6

Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 0.02 360 7.2

…adding in transport from the FarEast by sea (20000km)

(tkm) (points per tkm)

Glass 4.7 0.8 + 3.8

LDPE 0.4 0.8 + 0.3

…adding in transport from the FarEast by air (10000km)

Glass 2.35 80 + 188

LDPE 0.2 80 + 16

…adding in processing for PE (no eco-indicator for glass moulding)

(kg) (points per kg)

PE injection moulding 0.02 21 + 0.4

...adding in landfill

Glass 0.235 1.4 + 0.3

Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 0.02 3.0 + 0.1

…savings from recycling

Glass 0.235 -15 -3.5

Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 0.02 -240 -4.8

…adding in the transport of 1kg oforanges from Spain (1500km)

(tkm) (points per tkm)

28t truck 1.5 22 33

Table 4 The application of eco-indicators to the selection of the most appropriate material for a

citrus juicer

Values as the essential tool of sustainable

design

It is evident that sustainable design decisionsdepend on judgements which are driven byvalues. This recognition led to the introductionof sustainable design as optional moduleswithin the Industrial Design and Technologyprogrammes at Loughborough University in2000 (Bhamra et al, 2002; Badni and Coles,2003). The experience gained from these

modules was an important aspect of thecontribution which Loughborough Universityhas been able to make to the SDA (Capewelland Norman, 2003). Students find suchjudgments easier to make if a framework isprovided, for example by the design abacusshown in Figure 12, which was developed by‘Shot in the Dark’10. Figures 13a-c show acompleted ‘design abacuses’ from the recentSchools Day.

RESE

ARC

H



Material or process Amount (kg)Embodied energy (MJ per kg)

Result (MJ)

Glass 0.235 13 3.1

Low Density Polyethylene(LDPE)

0.02 76.9 1.5

…adding in processing

Glass 0.235 7.078 +1.7


0.02 9.477 +0.2

CO2 footprint (kg per kg) Result (kg)

Glass 0.235 0.7 0.16


0.02 1.95 0.04

Table 5 Embodied energy and CO2 footprints for the glass and plastic citrus juicers9

9The values for the embodied energy and CO2 footprint were taken from the Cambridge Engineering Selector(CES) EduPack 2006 Standard Edition

10Shot in the Dark is an eco-design consultancy and further details can be found athttp://www.shotinthedark.co.uk/html/ecodesign.htm

Learning through (whilst) designing

The general issues concerning ‘learning bydoing’ and related ‘teaching by showing’ havebeen previously discussed in traditionalcontexts (e.g. Norman, 2000), but it is clear thatthe complexity of the tasks to which designersand design students must respond isincreasing. The design abacus not onlyprovides a framework for structuring designjudgements, but also suggests to designersthat they should note their confidence in the

judgement they have made. The informationrequirements will increase as the designer’srole widens, and it is inevitable that the Internetwill play an increasing role in helping to meetdesigners’ information requirements. Simmons has recently completed an analysis ofthe content of 25 sustainable design websites asa first step in his PhD programme and isreporting the outcome at the 2006 D&TAssociation International Research Conference.Figure 14 shows one of the ‘spider diagrams’ he

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 12 The ‘design abacus’: a framework

for making judgements in sustainable design

Figure 13a A design abacus completed by a

group of students during the SDA Schools Day

at Loughborough University: economic criteria

Figure 13c A design abacus completed by a


at Loughborough University: social criteria

Figure 13b A design abacus completed by a


at Loughborough University: environmental

criteria

has used to conduct this analysis , in this casefor the SDA website, which he helped to design.

There was insufficient time on the Schools Dayfor the students to use the SDA website, butthey were certainly able to justify their designsby using the design abacus. This qualitativetool seemed to present the students with fewdifficulties, which is both surprising andencouraging, because of the complexity of theagendas being addressed. The key matter is theattention that the students play to the

‘confidence indication’ and what theysubsequently choose to do about it. However,comprehensive the web resources become,their effectiveness will be initially governed bythe students’ decisions to make use of them (ornot). For the designers of the web-based toolsthe key issue will be the extent to which theyfacilitate designers’ judgements and whichjudgements are made on the designers’ behalf.Figure 15a and 15b show some of thedesigning taking place.

Conclusions

So, has there been any substantial conceptualprogress since Eggleston’s initial model of ‘ adesign process for secondary schools’ waspublished? It certainly seems reasonable tosuggest that there has not been as much asthere should have been, and one conclusion ofthe discussion in this presentation is that aprimary cause of the lack of such progress isthe downplaying of the role of humanjudgement. Innovation should be essentiallyassociated with the articulation of knowledge:from tacit understanding to recorded forms;from knowing how to knowing that. Forexample, a well recognised endpoint for aninnovation is the filing of patent, when theknowledge is articulated and its nature changes.

The empirical evidence from research atLoughborough University points to the need to

RESE

ARC

H



11The twelve arms of the spider diagram are derived from the 12 features of a sustainable society developed at Keele University, UK in an ESRC project involving 60 academics

Figure 15a Learning by doing on the SDA

Schools Day at Loughborough University

Figure 14 A ‘spider diagram’ indicating the

content of a sustainable design website

(Simmons and Badni, 2006:129)

Figure 15b Learning by doing on the SDA

Schools Day at Loughborough University

reinforce the key role that human judgementsmake to both innovation and designing. Tacitknowledge is expressed through know how,and it is crucial to defend the ‘hands on’approaches that develop know how andlearning by doing, if the goal is innovationwithin a knowledge-based economy. The keyrelationships which must be developed arebetween innovation, designing and thearticulation of knowledge. One of the keychallenges for future research is to developunderstanding of what this means in a virtualworld e.g. the research by Thorsteinsson andDenton (2006) reported at this conference.

In broader terms it is equally important todefend action research, which is the ‘hands on’approach ideally suited to design andtechnology education (Norman, Owen-Jacksonand Spendlove, 2006). This is the way in whichinnovation in the curriculum will happen, andthe tacit knowledge of design and technologyeducators will become articulated. Actionresearch programmes to explore designdecision-making with younger students couldmake key contributions to our understanding(e.g. Welch et al, 2006; Mettas andConstantinou, 2006) and to curriculum

development. Similarly the discussion here has demonstratedthat as the agenda which design andtechnology education must address widens itwill be necessary to engage with otherdisciplines, e.g. archaeology, cognitive science,management and philosophy, in order to fullycome to terms with sustainability agendas. It isinteresting to reflect on the survey conductedby the then Trent Polytechnic (now NottinghamTrent University) for the APU in 1983, which isshown in Figure 16 (Eggleston, 1996). It was across-curricular survey of the contributions ofdifferent subjects to technologicalunderstanding, and was conducted in terms ofthe knowledge, skills and values categoriesidentified by the APU in 1982. If design andtechnology is to make its unique contributionto children’s curriculum experience, then itmust focus on its core agenda, which atLoughborough we would see as the act ofdesigning, and draw on children’s cross-curricular experiences.

However, returning to music and guitars toillustrate just how complex this could all turnout to be, as Pedgley wrote:

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 16 The contributions of UK school subjects to technological

understanding: a survey conducted for the APU in 1983

Decker (1999) reports that the generalpublic, when subjected to blind audio testsbetween high-end and entry-levelinstruments, showed an ability to discernhigh quality from not so high quality.However, blind tests by acoustic physicistsgiven audio spectra and vibration modedata for high-end and entry-levelinstruments could not discern high qualityfrom not so high quality. So as technology

currently stands, the luthier's tacit knowingmust still be regarded as the most valuableof sources of expertise for polymer guitardesign. This begs the questions: what is theluthier hearing/feeling to discriminatebetween good and bad materials? What is inthe luthier's mind when devising a bracingpattern, and what sensory cues are beingemployed?

If only we could scientifically predict whatwould happen if we moved a strut slightly tothe left… an easy enough task for RobArmstrong (Figure 17), but still highlyproblematic (Figures 18 and 19).

Acknowledgements

My particular thanks are due to Dr TracyBhamra, Rhoda Coles, Dr Owain Pedgley andPeter Simmons of the Department of Designand Technology at Loughborough University,who willingly contributed to the developmentof this paper.

[email protected]

RESE

ARC

H



Figure 17 Rob Armstrong demonstrating know

how in deciding on a bracing pattern

Figure 18 Knowledge still in need of

articulation: an audio spectrogram from a ‘top

of the range’ Rob Armstrong acoustic (No. 673)

Figure 19 Knowledge still in need of

articulation: an audio spectrogram for an

all-polymer acoustic guitar

References

Archer L B, Baynes K and Roberts P H (2005) A Framework for Design and Design Education:A reader containing key papers from the 1970sand 80s, DATA, Wellesbourne, UK

Ashby M and Johnson K (2003) Materials anddesign: the art and science of material selectionin product design, Butterworth Heinemann,Oxford

Badni K and Coles R (2003) ‘A Review of theRecent Eco-design Education Initiative forIndustrial Design and Technologyundergraduates at Loughborough University’,The Journal of Design and TechnologyEducation, 8(2), 65-79

Baird D (2004) Thing Knowledge, ChicagoUniversity Press, Chicago

Ball L J, Ormerod T C and Morley N J (2004)‘Spontaneous analogising in engineeringdesign: a comparative analysis of experts andnovices’, Design Studies, 25 (5), 495-508

Baynes K et al (in preparation) Modelling theFuture, Chapter 3

Bazerman M H (2002) Judgement in ManagerialDecision Making (fifth edition), John Wiley andSons, New York

Bhamra T, Lofthouse V and Norman E (2002)‘Ecodesign Education Strategies: A recentinitiative for Industrial Design and Technologyundergraduates at Loughborough University’,The Journal of Design and TechnologyEducation, 7(2), 133-141

Bhamra, T A, S Evans, T C McAloone, M Simon, S Poole, and A Sweatman (1999)‘Integrating Environmental Decisions into theProduct Development Process: Part 1 The EarlyStages’. Proceedings of the First InternationalSymposium on Environmentally ConsciousDesign and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo,Japan, February 1999. Los Amitos, CA: IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers),329-333.

Capewell I and Norman E (2003) ‘TheSustainable Design Award: Supporting 16 plusstudents in addressing sustainable design

issues’, The Journal of Design and TechnologyEducation, 8(2), 82-90

Coles R L (2006) An exploration of the rolevalues play in design decision-making, PhDthesis in preparation, Loughborough University,UK

Cox P (2005) Cox Review of Creativity inBusiness: building on the UK’s strengths, HMTreasury, http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/cox

Cross N (1982) ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’,Design Studies, 3(4), 221-27

Cross N (2004) ‘Expertise in Design: anoverview’, Design Studies, 25 (5), 427-41

Cross N, Christiaans H and Dorst K (1994)‘Design Expertise amongst Student Designers’,Journal of Art and Design Education, 13, 39-56

Dasgupta S (2004) ‘Is Creativity a DarwinianProcess?’, Creativity Research Journal, 16(4),403-413

Decker J (1999) 'What makes a Rainsong haveits unique sound?', available at:http://www.rainsong.com/acc101.htm (accessed08.03.05)

De Vries M J (2006) ‘Technological Knowledgeand Artifacts: an analytical view’. In J R Dakers(Ed) Defining Technological Literacy: Towardsan epistemological framework, PalgraveMacmillan, New York

Doyle, M (2004) ‘The evolution of technicity:whence creativity and innovation? In Norman EW L, Spendlove, D, Grover, P and Mitchell, A(Eds), Creativity and Innovation: DATAInternational Research Conference 2004, TheDesign and Technology Association,Wellesbourne, 67-72

Edexcel (2006) Specification for AS/A CGE inDesign and Technology (Product Design), Issue4, October 2003,http://www.edexcel.org.uk/quals/gce/dt/adv/9094/ (last accessed 26 June, 2006)

Eggleston J et al (1971) Design for Today:Schools’ Council design and craft educationproject, Arnold, London

RESE

ARC

H



Eggleston J (1996) Teaching Design andTechnology (Second Edition), Open UniversityPress, Buckingham - Philadelphia

Fabrycky, W J(1987) ‘Designing for the LifeCycle’, Mechanical Engineering, January, 72-74.

Gosden C (2006) ‘Stone Age Man was a TouchyFeely Type’, The Times Higher, 3 March, 30

Harrison G B (2002) The Continuum of DesignEducation for Engineering, The EngineeringCouncil, London

Hatchuel, A (2002) ‘Towards Design Theory andExpandable Rationality: The unfinishedprogram of Herbert Simon’, Journal ofManagement and Governance, 5, 3-4

Hicks G et al (1982) Understanding Design andTechnology, Assessment of Performance Unit:London

Kaldate et al (2003) ‘Overcoming Decision Trapsin Sustainable Design’, Proceedings of the 14thInternational Conference on EngineeringDesign, Stockholm, Sweden

Laudan R (1984) ‘Introduction’. In R Laudan (Ed)The Nature of Technological Knowledge.: Aremodels of scientific change relevant? D ReidelPublishing Company, Dordrecht, 1-26

Lawson B ( 2004) ‘Schemata, Gambits andPrecedent: some factors in design expertise’,Design Studies, 25 (5), 443-457

Layton D (1992) Values and Design &Technology – Design Curriculum Matters: 2,Department of Design and Technology,Loughborough University of Technology, UK

Layton D (1993) Technology’s Challenge toScience Education: Cathedral, quarry orcompany store?, Open University Press,Buckingham

Lewis-Williams D and Pearce D (2005) Insidethe Neolithic Mind, Thames & Hudson, London

Mettas A C and Constantinou C P (2006) ‘TheDevelopment of Optimisation Decision-makingSkills within the Area of Technology Educationthrough a Technology Fair’. In E W L Norman,G Owen-Jackson and D Spendlove (Eds)Designing the Future : DATA International

Research Conference 2006, The Design andTechnology Association, Wellesbourne, UK, 79-88

Middleton H (2003) ‘Some New Ideas on NewIdeas: Creative, inventive thinking, values anddesign and technology education’. In J Dakersand M J de Vries (Eds) Patt-13: InternationalConference on Design and TechnologyEducation Research 2003, University ofGlasgow, 165-169

Mitcham, C (1994) Thinking ThroughTechnology: The path between engineering andphilosophy, University of Chigago Press,Chicago

Mithen S (2005) The Singing Neanderthals,Phoenix, London

Norman E W L (1993) ‘Science for design’,Physics Education, 28(5), 301-306

Norman E (1998) ‘The Nature of Technology forDesign’, International Journal of Technologyand Design Education, 8(1), 67-87

Norman E (2000) ‘The Teaching and Learning ofTechnology for Design’. In Kimbell R (Ed)Design and Technology InternationalMillennium Conference 2000, The Design andTechnology Association, Wellesbourne, UK,128-134

Norman E W L (2002) The TechnologicalKnowledge Base of Design and AssociatedPedagogical Issues, PhD published papers,Loughborough University, UK

Norman E (2003) ‘Innovation in Design andTechnology: the polymer acoustic guitar andthe case for the relegation of the designprocess’. In E W L Norman and D Spendlove(Eds) Design Matters: DATA InternationalResearch Conference 2003, The Design andTechnology Association, Wellesbourne, UK,131-139

Norman E, Pedgley O, Coles R (2004a) ‘DesignDecision-making and Materials: Researchagendas and gathering evidence’, The Journalof Design and Technology Education, 9(2), 107-115

RESE

ARC

H



Norman E, Pedgley O, Coles R (2004b) ‘DesignDecision-making and Materials: Investigationsin the context of recycled polymers’. In Designand Manufacture for Sustainable Development2004, T Bhamra and B Hon (Eds), ProfessionalEngineering Publishing Limited, Bury StEdmunds, UK, 209-219

Norman E and Pedgley O (2005) ‘Technicity asthe Conceptual Basis for Explaining Innovationin Design and Technology’. In E W L Norman, DSpendlove and P Grover (Eds), Inspire andEducate: DATA International ResearchConference 2005, The Design and TechnologyAssociation, Wellesbourne, UK, 91-97

Norman, E, Owen-Jackson, G and Spendlove D(2006) ‘Editorial’, Designing the Future : D&TAssociation International Research Conference2006, The Design and Technology Association,Wellesbourne, UK, 1-8

Pavlova M (2005) ‘Knowledge and Values inTechnology Education’, International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 15, 127-147

Pedgley O F (1999) Industrial Designers’Attention to Materials and ManufacturingProcesses: Analyses at macroscopic andmicroscopic levels, PhD thesis, LoughboroughUniversity

Polanyi M (1962) ‘Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing onSome Problems of Philosophy’, Reviews ofModern Physics, 34(4), 601-616

Roberts P H (2005) ‘Of Models, Modelling andDesign: an applied philosophical enquiry’, AFramework for Design and Design Education: Areader containing key papers from the 1970sand 80s, The Design and TechnologyAssociation, Wellesbourne, UK, 22-33

Ryle G (1949) The Concept of Mind,Hutchinson, London

Simmons P C and Badni K (2006) ‘Developing aFramework for Analysing the Effectiveness ofSustainable Design websites in InfluencingDesign Decisions’, In E W L Norman et al (Ed)Designing the Future : D&T AssociationInternational Research Conference 2006, TheDesign and Technology Association,Wellesbourne, UK, 121-134

Simon H A (1957) Models of Man, John Wileyand Sons, New York

Thaler R (2000) From Homo Economicus toHomo Sapiens, University of Chicago workingpaper

Thorsteinsson G and Denton H G (2006)‘Ideation in a Virtual Reality Environment: A pilot project from Iceland in innovationeducation’. In E W L Norman, G Owen-Jacksonand D Spendlove (Eds) Designing the Future :D&T Association International ResearchConference 2006, The Design and TechnologyAssociation, Wellesbourne, UK, 155-164

Tversky and Kahneman (1974) ‘Judgementunder Uncertainty: heuristics and biases’,Science, 185, 1124-1131

Welch M, Barlex D and O’Donnell E (2006)‘Elementary Students’ Beliefs about Designersand Designing’. In E W L Norman, G Owen-Jackson and D Spendlove (Eds) Designing theFuture : D&T Association International ResearchConference 2006, The Design and TechnologyAssociation, Wellesbourne, UK, 165-176

Vincenti W G (1990) What Engineers Know andHow They Know It: Analytical studies fromaeronautical history, The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore

RESE

ARC

H



the professor john eggleston memorial lecture 2006. · pdf filethe professor john eggleston...

Documents