4
Editorial M 'ost readers of Design Studies will be familiar with the use of keywords for . searching databases, particularly when conductirlg literature searches. Most will also be familiar with the frustration of retrieving lots of irrelevant references that just happen to have the selected keyword attached to them, and with the suprising and sometimes amusing cross-connections that can occur with the same word being used in quite different domains. The word 'design' is perhaps especially prone to appear in all sorts of different sources. Because of these frustrations and surprises, over the past year, we have been trying to be more rigorous about the use of keywords that are attached to the papers published in this journal. Our intention is to limit the use of keywords to a restricted set, so that literature searchers will find Design Studies a reliable database, and it will be easier to trace papers that are relevant to one's interests. It will also make our own annual indexes of published papers a more useful resource, giving more cross-reference links between papers on associated topics. In order to begin the process of drawing-up a restricted keyword list, we reviewed the unre- stricted use of keywords that Design Studies authors had applied to their papers over the four years 1992-1995. Over 200 different keywords had been used (for 96 papers). Only 44 of these had been used more than once. The most fre- quent keyword used by authors had been 'com- puter-aided design' or 'CAD', which appeared ELSEVIER 14 times. The next most frequently used was 'design process' (or 'processes'), which appeared 11 times. The occurrence of a themed topic in special issues influenced some of the uses of keywords, for example 'engineering design, (10 occurrences) and 'protocol analysis' (8 occurrences), which were the subjects of spe- cial issues in 1995. But some 170 keywords had been used once only, and another 28 had been used only twice. Therefore, in consultation with the Regional Editors, we began trying to reduce the list to something more manageable, which allowed authors enough freedom to characterize their paper appropriately from a restricted set of key- words. We have now established a Design Stud- ies keyword list of 100 words, which authors are asked to select from but with the possibility of adding one other word of their own choice. The restricted keywords list is printed at the end of this Editorial, and provides a useful indicator of the range of subject matter covered by this jour- nal. The list reflects the range of design domains that we cover, and the variety of interests that our authors bring to their studies of design. The first and last words on the list perhaps indicate the span of our eclecticism: from aesthetics to workplace design. In this particular issue it is a pleasure to be able to begin with the inaugural lecture given by Pro- fessor Michael Tovey at Coventry University. In my previous editorial, this time last year, I bemoaned the news that some colleagues in 0142-694X/97 $17.00 Design Studies 18 (1997) 1-4 PII: S0142-694X(96)00036-1 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

Editorial

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Editorial

M ' o s t readers of Design Studies will be

familiar with the use of keywords for

. searching databases, particularly

when conductirlg literature searches. Most will

also be familiar with the frustration of retrieving

lots of irrelevant references that just happen to

have the selected keyword attached to them, and

with the suprising and sometimes amusing

cross-connections that can occur with the same

word being used in quite different domains. The

word 'design' is perhaps especially prone to

appear in all sorts of different sources.

Because of these frustrations and surprises, over

the past year, we have been trying to be more

rigorous about the use of keywords that are

attached to the papers published in this journal.

Our intention is to limit the use of keywords to

a restricted set, so that literature searchers will

find Design Studies a reliable database, and it

will be easier to trace papers that are relevant to

one's interests. It will also make our own annual

indexes of published papers a more useful

resource, giving more cross-reference links

between papers on associated topics.

In order to begin the process of drawing-up a

restricted keyword list, we reviewed the unre-

stricted use of keywords that Design Studies authors had applied to their papers over the four

years 1992-1995. Over 200 different keywords

had been used (for 96 papers). Only 44 of these

had been used more than once. The most fre-

quent keyword used by authors had been 'com-

puter-aided design' or 'CAD' , which appeared

ELSEVIER

14 times. The next most frequently used was

'design process' (or 'processes'), which

appeared 11 times. The occurrence of a themed

topic in special issues influenced some of the

uses of keywords, for example 'engineering

design, (10 occurrences) and 'protocol analysis'

(8 occurrences), which were the subjects of spe-

cial issues in 1995. But some 170 keywords had

been used once only, and another 28 had been

used only twice.

Therefore, in consultation with the Regional

Editors, we began trying to reduce the list to

something more manageable, which allowed

authors enough freedom to characterize their

paper appropriately from a restricted set of key-

words. We have now established a Design Stud-

ies keyword list of 100 words, which authors are

asked to select from but with the possibility of

adding one other word of their own choice. The

restricted keywords list is printed at the end of

this Editorial, and provides a useful indicator of

the range of subject matter covered by this jour-

nal. The list reflects the range of design domains

that we cover, and the variety of interests that

our authors bring to their studies of design. The

first and last words on the list perhaps indicate

the span of our eclecticism: from aesthetics to

workplace design.

In this particular issue it is a pleasure to be able

to begin with the inaugural lecture given by Pro-

fessor Michael Tovey at Coventry University. In

my previous editorial, this time last year, I

bemoaned the news that some colleagues in

0142-694X/97 $17.00 Design Studies 18 (1997) 1-4 PII: S0142-694X(96)00036-1 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

design research seem not to be getting the recog-

nition they are due in terms of academic pro-

motion. Now at least we have this example of

Michael Tovey getting a well-deserved Chair at

Coventry, and recognition of his research in a

difficult, hybrid area, that of computer support

for the 'styling' function in automotive design.

As with many other areas of design, the intro-

duction of computer support for stylists has been

at first resisted and then used as a means of

beginning to get a clearer idea of the purpose

and value of the function that is to be supported.

Tovey's paper addresses the nature of the 'intuit-

ive' processes involved in industrial design, and

surveys the research in CAD that he has been

pursuing.

Wright's paper also provides a useful review,

looking at the literature on managing the 'neces-

sary evil' of engineering changes - - the modi-

fications to product components that sometimes

have to be introduced after the product has

entered production. Wright suggests that this

'problem' might more often be seen as an

'opportunity', affording incremental evolution in

product design. It is not inconceivable that such

a change in viewpoint would be assisted by the

kind of knowledge management facility being

explored in the following paper, by Parent. The

suggestion of an engineering change would be

an opportunity for a dialogue to begin between

people with different perspectives on the design

of the product in question; or the initiation of a

dialogue might lead to suggestions for incremen-

tal product improvements.

The paper by van der Voordt, Vrielink and van

Wegen is concerned with architectural design,

and studying the relationships between the spa-

tial layout of a building (its floorplan) and the

'social configuration' that is implied, encour-

aged or constrained by that layout. They inte-

grate comparative floorplan analysis with post-

occupancy evaluation in order to assist better

developments of building programmes (design

briefs) and building designs.

Verma's paper is also in the architectural design

domain, but is about design education and there-

fore has relevance to most other domains as

well. The paper is based on an empirical study

aimed at exploring the relationships between

students' prior professional experience and their

education in design theory. Does prior experi-

ence help or hinder the learning of theory? The

results of the study support the view that theory

is more usefully introduced after students have

had some practical experience. In the same con-

text, Cooke argues for the inclusion of training

in 'consistent methods of reasoning' within

architectural education, and he uses law as a

paradigmatic source for such reasoning methods.

Presumably, similar considerations of the devel-

opment of reasoning abilities should apply in all

domains of design education, and this therefore

ties in well with Holt's paper on the role of judgement in engineering design. Once again we

see how common themes underly some appar-

ently rather diverse contributions to the study

of design!

Nigel Cross

2 Design Studies Vol 18 No 1 January 1997

Design Studies keywords list aesthetics architectural design artificial evolution artificial intelligence automotive design built environment case study/studies collaborative design communication community architecture computational n~Lodel(s) computer-aided design computer-supported design conceptual design concurrent design creative design creativity decision making decision support systems design activity design automation design behaviou~" design cognition design educatio~ design history design intervention design knowled~;e design management design methodology design method(s) design model(s) design participation design philosophy design policy design practice design precedenls design problem(:0 design process(es) design rationale design research design science

design strategy design studies design techniques design technology design theory design tools detail design distributed design drawing(s) eco design embodiment design engineering design environmental design environmental impact epistemology ergonomics evaluation expert systems facility programming generic design goal setting graphic design green design human factors industrial design information design information processing innovation interface design interior design intuitive design marketing mechatronics modelling perception planning problem solving product design product development product modelling product testing programming psychology of design

Editorial 3

reasoning

research methods

science of design

scientific design

simulation

social design

software design

system(s) design

systematic design

teamwork

technology

urban design

user behaviour

user participation

user testing

workplace design

4 Design Studies Vol 18 No 1 January 1997