Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:06:16.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On research methodology towards a scientific theory of engineering design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

John R. Dixon
John R. Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, U.S.A.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to raise awareness and generate discussion about research methodology in engineering design. Design researchers are viewed as a single communicating community searching for scientific theories of engineering design; that is, theories that can be tested by formal methods of hypothesis testing. In the paper, the scientific method for validating theories is reviewed, and the need for operational definitions and for experiments to identify variables and meaningful abstractions is stressed. The development of a design problem taxonomy is advocated. Generating theories is viewed as guided search. Three types of design theories are described: prescriptive, cognitive descriptive, and computational. It is argued that to seek prescriptions is premature and that, unless the human and institutional variables are reduced to knowledge and control, cognitive descriptive theories will be impossibly complex. A case is made for a computational approach, though it also shown that computational and cognitive research approaches can be mutually supportive.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , August 1987, pp. 145 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Antonnson, E. 1987. Development and testing of hypotheses in engineering design research. Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design 109–153, June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgman, P. W. 1955. The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: MacMillanGoogle Scholar
Chnstakis, A. N., Keever, D. B. and Warfield, J. N. 1987. Development of a generalized design theory and methodology. In: Waldron, M. B. (Ed.), Proceedings from the NSF Workshop on the Design Process.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. R. and Howe, A. E. 1988. The invisible hand: how evaluation guides research. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. R., Howe, A., Cohen, P. R. and Simmons, M. K. 1987. Dominic I: Progress toward domain independence in design by iterative redesign. Engineering with Computers 2 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, J. R., Duffey, M., Irani, R., Meunier, K. and Orleup, M. 1988. A proposed taxonomy for mechanical design problems. To be published in the Proceedings 1988 ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, San Francisco, July.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. 1978. Understanding Scientific Reasoning. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. S. 1949. The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacque, R. and Powell, J. A. 1981. Design: Science: Method, Proceedings of the 1980 Design Research Society Conference. Guildford: Westbury House.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 1987. A knowledge representation framework for automated engineering analysis. MS thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kornfield, W. A. and Hewitt, C., 1981. The scientific community metaphor. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-11, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kulkarni, V., Dixon, J. R., Sunderland, J. E., and Simmons, M. K., 1985. Expert systems for design: design of heat fins as an example of conflicting sub-goals and the use of dependencies, Proceedings of the 1985 ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Meunier, K., Dixon, J. R., and Simmons, M. K. 1988. Iterative respecification: a computational model for hierarchical system design to be published in Proceedings 1988 ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, San Francisco, July 1988.Google Scholar
Nadler, G. 1981. The Planning and Design Approach. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Nakazawa, H. and Suh, N. P. 1984. Process planning based on information concept. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 1 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orelup, M. F., Dixon, J. R., and Simmons, M. K. 1987. Dominic II: more progress towards domain independent design by iterative redesign. Proceedings ASME Winter Annual Meeting, December 1987.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. 1984. Engineering Design. New York: The Design Council and Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rabins, M. 1986. Goals and priorities for research in engineering design. An NSF Workshop. ASME.Google Scholar
Rinderle, J. R. and Suh, N. P. 1982. Measures of functional coupling in design. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 104 383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1969. The Science of design. Science of the Artificial. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1977. Models of Discovery, Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N. P., Bell, A. C. and Gossard, D. C. 1978. On an axiomatic approach to manufacturing and manufacturing systems. ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 100 127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillers, W., Newsome, S. and Finger, S. 1988. Proceedings of the 1988 NSF Design Theory and Methodology Grantees Workshop, Troy, N Y. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ullman, D. G., Stauffer, L. A., and Dietterich, T. G. 1987. Preliminary results of an experimental study of the mechanical design process. In: Waldron, M. B. (Ed.), Proceedings from the NSF Workshop on the Design Process, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Waldron, M. B., Ed. 1987. Proceedings from the NSF Workshop on the Design Process, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Waldron, K. J., and Waldron, M. B. 1987. A retrospective study of a complex mechanical system design. In: Waldon, M. B. (Ed.), Proceedings from the NSF Workshop on the Design Process, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Wallance, K. N., and Hales, C. 1983. The application and evaluation of formal design engineering methods. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, H. 1983. Automation in thinking in design. Computer Applications in Production and Engineering Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar