Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:37:59.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FROM BAUHAUS TO DESIGN THINKING AND BEYOND: A COMPARISON OF TWO DESIGN EDUCATIONAL SCHOOLS

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

K. Thoring ,
R. M. Mueller ,
S. Giegler  and
P. Badke-Schaub
K. Thoring*
Affiliation:
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
R. M. Mueller
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany University of Twente, The Netherlands
S. Giegler
Affiliation:
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany
P. Badke-Schaub
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
*
*katja@thoring.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper compares two pioneering design educational approaches: the historic Bauhaus school founded in 1919 in Germany, and contemporary design thinking education, based on the example of the “HPI School of Design Thinking”. We compare both approaches according to six emerging categories: (1) curriculum, (2) multi-disciplinarity, (3) mind-set and culture, (4) study environment, (5) conditions for innovation, and (6) socio-economic context. We outline differences and similarities and discuss the possible impact for future design education.

Keywords

design thinkingdesign educationdesign learningBauhaus
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1815 - 1824
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Archer, L.B. (1965), Systematic Method for Designers, Council of Industrial Design (UK), London.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., Roozenburg, N. and Cardoso, C. (2010), “Design thinking: a paradigm on its way from dilution to meaninglessness”, Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
Bauhaus Cooperation (2019), “Classes by Oskar Schlemmer”, Bauhaus100, available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/the-bauhaus/training/curriculum/classes-by-oskar-schlemmer/ (accessed 18 November 2019).Google Scholar
Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F. and Abrell, T. (2016), “Design Thinking as Mindset, Process, and Toolbox”, In: Brenner, W. and Uebernickel, F. (Eds.), Design Thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 3–21.10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. (2008), “Design Thinking”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 84–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, Harper Business, New York.Google Scholar
Carleton, T. and Leifer, L. (2009), “Stanford's ME310 Course as an Evolution of Engineering Design”, In: Roy, R. and Shehab, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference–Competitive Design.Google Scholar
Chen, W. and He, Z. (2013), “The Analysis of the Influence and Inspiration of the Bauhaus on Contemporary Design and Education”, Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 04, p. 323.10.4236/eng.2013.54044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2018), “A brief history of the Design Thinking Research Symposium series”, Design Studies, Vol. 57, pp. 160–164.10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoso, S., Mirauda, P. and Jacob, R. (2018), “Some ideological considerations in the Bauhaus for the development of didactic activities: The influence of the Montessori method, the modernism and the gothic”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 27, pp. 167–176.10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), “Frame Creation and Design in the Expanded Field”, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 22–33.Google Scholar
Droste, M. (2002), Bauhaus: 1919-1933, Taschen, Köln.Google Scholar
Findeli, A. (2001), “Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5–17.10.1162/07479360152103796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochman, E. (1989), Architects of Fortune: Mies van Der Rohe and the Third Reich., 1, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, New York.Google Scholar
Junginger, S. (2013), “Design and Innovation in the Public Sector: Matters of Design in Policy-Making and Policy Implementation”, Annual Review of Policy Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Liedtka, J. (2013), “Design Thinking: What it is and Why it Works”, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 72–79.Google Scholar
Liedtka, J. (2015), “Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 925–938.10.1111/jpim.12163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCarthy, F. (2019), Gropius: The Man Who Built the Bauhaus, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.10.4159/9780674239890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. (2009), The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the next Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
Mueller, R.M. and Thoring, K. (2012), “Design Thinking vs. Lean Startup: A Comparison of two User-Driven Innovation Strategies”, Leading Innovation through Design: Proceedings of the DMI 2012 International Research Conference, presented at the DMI, Design Management Institute, Boston, USA, pp. 151–161.Google Scholar
Orlandi, A.E.C. (2010), “Experimental experience in design education as a resource for innovative thinking: The case of Bruno Munari”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 5039–5044.10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poerschke, U. (2016), Architectural Theory of Modernism: Relating Functions and Forms, Routledge, New York.10.4324/9781315629964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. (1972), “On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations”, Bedriftskonomen, Vol. 8, pp. 390–396.Google Scholar
Rowe, P.G. (1984), Design Thinking, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. London.Google Scholar
Siebenbrodt, M. and Schöbe, L. (2012), Bauhaus: 1919-1933, Weimar-Dessau-Berlin, Parkstone International, New York, available at: (accessed 7 July 2019).Google Scholar
Stanford University. (n.d), “The Center for Design Research”, available at: https://me.stanford.edu/research/labs-and-centers/center-design-research/center-design-research (accessed 8 February 2020).Google Scholar
Thoring, K. (2019), Designing Creative Space, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Thoring, K. and Müller, R.M. (2011), “Understanding Design Thinking: A Process Model based on Method Engineering”, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE), London, UK.Google Scholar
Vogel, C.M. (2009), “Notes on the evolution of design thinking: A work in progress”, Design Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 16–27.10.1111/j.1948-7169.2009.00004.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, K. and Gropius, W. (1983), Walter Gropius, Industriearchitekt, F. Vieweg, Braunschweig.Google Scholar
Wrigley, C. and Straker, K. (2017), “Design Thinking pedagogy: the Educational Design Ladder”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 374–385.10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar