Uncovering potential bias in engineering design: a comparative review of bias research in medicine

IF 1.8 Q3 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING Design Science Pub Date : 2023-07-17 DOI:10.1017/dsj.2023.17
M. Agyemang, Doertha A. Andreae, Christopher McComb
{"title":"Uncovering potential bias in engineering design: a comparative review of bias research in medicine","authors":"M. Agyemang, Doertha A. Andreae, Christopher McComb","doi":"10.1017/dsj.2023.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Engineering design research has focused on developing and refining methods and evaluating design education in design education, design research and design in practice. One important aspect that is not thoroughly investigated is the influence of bias on design within these spaces of design. Bias is known to impact the interpretation of information, decision-making and practices in all areas. These factors are vital in engineering design education, practice and research, emphasizing the importance of investigating bias. The first goal of this study is to highlight and synthesize existing bias research in design education, research and practice. The second goal is to identify areas where bias may be under-researched or under-reported in design. To achieve these goals, a comparative analysis is performed against a comparable field: medicine. Many parallels exist between both fields. Patient–provider and designer–end-user relationships are comparable. Medical education is comparable to design education with the cooperative, inquiry-based and integrated learning pedagogy approaches. Lastly, physicians and design engineers both solve cognitively complex systems-oriented problems. Leveraging research on bias in medicine enables us to highlight gaps in engineering design. Recommendations are made to help design researchers address these gaps.","PeriodicalId":54146,"journal":{"name":"Design Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2023.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Engineering design research has focused on developing and refining methods and evaluating design education in design education, design research and design in practice. One important aspect that is not thoroughly investigated is the influence of bias on design within these spaces of design. Bias is known to impact the interpretation of information, decision-making and practices in all areas. These factors are vital in engineering design education, practice and research, emphasizing the importance of investigating bias. The first goal of this study is to highlight and synthesize existing bias research in design education, research and practice. The second goal is to identify areas where bias may be under-researched or under-reported in design. To achieve these goals, a comparative analysis is performed against a comparable field: medicine. Many parallels exist between both fields. Patient–provider and designer–end-user relationships are comparable. Medical education is comparable to design education with the cooperative, inquiry-based and integrated learning pedagogy approaches. Lastly, physicians and design engineers both solve cognitively complex systems-oriented problems. Leveraging research on bias in medicine enables us to highlight gaps in engineering design. Recommendations are made to help design researchers address these gaps.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭示工程设计中的潜在偏见:医学偏见研究的比较综述
摘要工程设计研究的重点是在设计教育、设计研究和设计实践中开发和提炼方法,评价设计教育。一个未被彻底研究的重要方面是在这些设计空间内,偏见对设计的影响。众所周知,偏见会影响所有领域的信息解释、决策和做法。这些因素在工程设计教育、实践和研究中至关重要,强调了调查偏差的重要性。本研究的第一个目标是突出和综合设计教育、研究和实践中现有的偏见研究。第二个目标是确定在设计中可能研究不足或报告不足的领域。为了实现这些目标,我们对医学这一可比领域进行了比较分析。这两个领域之间存在许多相似之处。患者-提供者和设计者-最终用户的关系具有可比性。医学教育可与合作式、探究式和综合式学习教育法的设计教育相媲美。最后,医生和设计工程师都能解决认知上复杂的面向系统的问题。利用医学中的偏见研究,我们能够突出工程设计中的差距。建议帮助设计研究人员解决这些差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Design Science
Design Science ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Design issues concerning circular economy assessment methods at the product level: a comparative analysis through a case study of a mobile tiny house Research through co-design Ilmenau’s contributions to Design Science Exploring the impact of design tool usage on design for additive manufacturing processes and outcomes Interesting and impressive: exploring design factors for product graphics interchange format to enhance engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1