ABSTRACT In design theory, we often come across scholarly efforts that seek to define design as a unique discipline and to characterize it as a distinct category of practice, with its own epistemology in that it differs from sciences, arts and humanities (Cross, N. 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Oxford: Berg.; Dorst, K. 2015. Frame innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Nelson, H. G., and E. Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. The MIT Press.; Redström, J. 2017. Making Design Theory. MIT Press.). Although such efforts are helpful in teasing forward the nature of design epistemologies and practices, we question them by critically engaging with epistemic paradigms informing design education, its structural forms, origins and purposes, historically, while suggesting the time has come to reevaluate design’s relationships with other epistemological traditions, including the sciences and humanities. We unpack history of design education, in order to problematize what we have come to view as overly schematized epistemological distinctions, most notably the asserted opposition between (what Schön calls) technical rationality and an alternative epistemology broadly linked to pragmatism and/or phenomenology. We do so by offering a genealogy of design education showing that since the nineteenth century, design programmes have continuously, if diversely, taught novice designers, methods, crafts, and attitudes that reflect diverse epistemological traditions. Theorists and educators of design have a shared interest in balancing the needs to appreciate and help develop that which is distinctive of design and also to build upon design’s rich epistemological connections to the sciences and humanities. Whereas the former helps the field improve its abilities to contribute to society, the latter provides many of the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical resources that make such contributions possible.

中文翻译：

---

关于设计理论的设计教育告诉我们什么：教学谱系

摘要在设计理论中，我们经常会遇到学术界的努力，这些尝试试图将设计定义为一门独特的学科并将其表征为实践的不同类别，它具有自己的认识论，因为它不同于科学，艺术和人文科学（Cross，N. 2011.设计思维：了解设计师的思维方式和工作方式，牛津：伯格；多斯特，K。2015.框架创新：通过设计创造新思维，剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，纳尔逊，HG和E.斯托尔特曼，2012。 《设计方式：不可预测的世界中的有意改变》，麻省理工学院出版社；雷德斯特伦，J.，2017年。《制定设计理论》，麻省理工学院出版社。尽管这些努力有助于弄清设计认识论和实践的本质，但我们通过批判性地与认识论范式进行交流来质疑它们，以告知设计教育，其结构形式，起源和目的，从历史上看，虽然暗示现在是时候重新评估设计与其他认识论传统（包括科学和人文科学）的关系了。我们对设计教育的历史进行剖析，以便对我们所认为的过于图示化的认识论区别（尤其是技术理性和广泛地与实用主义和/或现象学联系在一起的替代认识论）之间断言的对立进行质疑。为此，我们提供了设计教育的家谱，以表明自19世纪以来，设计计划（即使是多种多样的）也不断教导新手设计师，方法，手工艺和态度，这些方法反映了不同的认识论传统。设计的理论家和教育家们在平衡欣赏和帮助发展设计特有的需求之间，以及在设计与科学和人文科学之间丰富的认识论联系的基础上，有着共同的利益。前者帮助该领域提高其为社会做贡献的能力，而后者则提供了许多理论，方法和教学资源，使这些贡献成为可能。