HD·F2·06 Advanced
Critical Thinking for Designers
Reasoning clearly in an industry full of hype.
Design is full of confident claims, about trends, tools, and best practices, that don't survive scrutiny. This course builds the reasoning discipline to question a brief, evaluate research claims, spot fallacies in design arguments, and critique work rigorously without resorting to either blind deference or contrarianism.
In Development
This course's full module content is being written. The outline below is final, subscribe for updates when it publishes.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
- 01 Identify hidden assumptions in a design brief before accepting it at face value
- 02 Recognise common logical fallacies used in design arguments and pitches
- 03 Evaluate the strength of evidence behind a research claim or trend
- 04 Distinguish personal opinion, industry trend, and durable design principle
- 05 Critique design work rigorously without resorting to either deference or contrarianism
- 06 Build a personal, defensible framework for design judgment
- Neither deference nor contrarianism is critical thinking
- Critical thinking questions the brief as much as the solution
- It is a discipline that can be practised, not a personality trait
- Unstated assumptions cause the most expensive rework
- Ask what the brief assumes as much as what it states
- Surfacing an assumption is not the same as rejecting it
- Appeal to authority: 'Apple does it this way' is not an argument
- Survivorship bias distorts most 'successful design' case studies
- Naming a fallacy in the room changes the conversation
- Sample size and method determine what a finding can support
- Correlation in user data is not causation
- Ask what evidence would have to look like to disprove the claim
- Principles outlast trends; trends outlast opinions
- Ask how long a claim has held true, and under what conditions
- Trends dressed as principles age badly and expensively
- Critique the work against the brief, not against personal taste alone
- Separate function critique from taste critique explicitly
- Vague praise is as unhelpful as vague criticism
- Steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning
- A decision that survives its strongest defence deserves more scrutiny
- This builds trust with collaborators who hold the opposing view
- Write your principles down; unwritten ones drift
- A framework should be revisable, not fixed dogma
- Judgment improves through examined practice, not just experience