Design and Science Course

To know that we know what we know,
and to know that we do not know what we do not know,
that is true knowledge.
– Copernicus

Understanding the status of design as a form of research is both important and problematic.The National Science Foundation’s Science of Design program, which highlights the role of design in the development of interactive systems, and the First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology both point to the need for a community concerned with articulating different visions of design science and design research.This module will shed some light on the underlying concepts of design and science and their inherent conflicts. The students will reflect on their role as a designer and the methodologies they follow. In addition, the quality criteria that are used in design and science to evaluate the value of the produced knowledge and artifacts will be considered. This documents compiles relevant literature for the Design Science module.


The presentation and the reader of this module is available in the PDF format: Design and Science Reader



  • Judge Jones. (2005). Tammy Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, 1-139.
  • Cowell, A. (1992). After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves. The New York Times, p. 1.
  • ID Master Track Visions
  • Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett. Introduction & Chapter 1
  • Smithson, M. (2000). Statistics with confidence. London: Sage Publications. Chapter 1 & 2
  • Bartneck, C. (2008). What Is Good? – A Comparison Between The Quality Criteria Used In Design And Science. Submitted to CHI2008.
  • Cross, N. (1993). Science and design methodology: A review. Research in Engineering Design, 5(2), 63-69.
  • Levy, R. (1985). Science, technology and design. Design Studies, 6(2), 66-72.
  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chapter 1 & 5
  • Bartneck, C. (2007). Design Methodology is not Design Science. Proceedings of the CHI 2007 Workshop: Converging on a “Science of Design” through the Synthesis of Design Methodologies, San Jose.
  • Pitt, J., C. (2001). What Engineers Know. Techne, 5(3), 17-30.
  • Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge,: Harvard University Press. Introduction
  • Arnowitz, J., & Dykstra-Erickson, E. (2005). CHI and the Practitioner Dilemma. Interactions, 12(4), 5-9.
  • Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proceedings of the CHI2007, San Jose, California, USA pp. 493-502.
  • Bartneck, C., & Rauterberg, M. (2007). HCI Reality – An Unreal Tournament. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65(8), 737-743.
  • Pirsig, R. M. (1995). Subjects, Objects, Data & Values. Proceedings of the Einstein meets Magritte Symposium, Vrije University Brussels.
  • Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. New York: Morrow. Page 165-169

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *