Abstract
In higher education, design thinking is often taught as a process. Yet design cognition resides in action and design practices. Dewey’s pragmatism offers a solid epistemology for design thinking. This paper describes a design research whereby Dewey’s inquiry served as the foundation for educating students. Three extensive educational case studies are presented whereby a design inquiry was introduced and became part of the curricula. It was found that students and coaches struggled with doubts experienced as a result of the co-evolution of problem and solution, means and ends. Four coping mechanisms were observed: (1) focus on problems, risking analysis paralysis; (2) focus on creative problem-solving, risking unsubstantiated design; (3) focus on means, risking fixation; and (4) focus on future ends, risking hanging on to a dream. By establishing a joint practice and a community of learners through show-and-share sessions, the students establish solid ground.
Keywords
design thinking, pragmatism, design education, epistemology, boundary objects
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.552
Citation
Stompff, G., Joosten, M., Prince, A., Claessens, M., Geurts, W., and Köppchen, A. (2022) Touch ground: Introducing design inquiry in higher education, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.552
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Research Paper
Included in
Touch ground: Introducing design inquiry in higher education
In higher education, design thinking is often taught as a process. Yet design cognition resides in action and design practices. Dewey’s pragmatism offers a solid epistemology for design thinking. This paper describes a design research whereby Dewey’s inquiry served as the foundation for educating students. Three extensive educational case studies are presented whereby a design inquiry was introduced and became part of the curricula. It was found that students and coaches struggled with doubts experienced as a result of the co-evolution of problem and solution, means and ends. Four coping mechanisms were observed: (1) focus on problems, risking analysis paralysis; (2) focus on creative problem-solving, risking unsubstantiated design; (3) focus on means, risking fixation; and (4) focus on future ends, risking hanging on to a dream. By establishing a joint practice and a community of learners through show-and-share sessions, the students establish solid ground.