The responses to my previous blog entry on the Electronic Patient Dossier (EPD) helped bring home to me the fact that it is precisely the combination of all kinds of functions in the EPD and its potential that makes it so very tricky. People from a wide range of scientific disciplines have something to say about the EPD and they have not hesitated to express their opinions. Good and functional design becomes complex when so much knowledge converges on a single topic. This is exactly why design is a real scientific discipline in my opinion, and one that is clearly related to engineering. Design & engineering, in other words.

There is no question in my mind that design belongs at the university. It is an academic discipline indeed. It is a pity that other scientists, whether coming from the humanities or the exact sciences, often fail to recognise design’s academic qualities. In my opinion the question is about how best to approach the problem that you are studying.

Let’s take the EPD again. You can start your research from a technical perspective (e.g. database and data flow), or you can begin with a query (e.g. what do the patient and the doctor want, and why?). But you can also study the various functions and potentials of the EPD from the perspective of design theories. A design theory examines, for instance, how patients will use the EPD, while also looking at methods for dealing with EPD-related data flows. This combination of answers is rarely seen in the approaches generally taken in the humanities or the exact sciences.

It is worthwhile considering the merits of the design question in many areas of scientific research. Anyway, design is indispensable in the final step towards practical application. That makes two reasons to apply the scientific method to design. I also feel that the concept of creativity is part of this research question.

Engineering, design, science and the humanities. It’s a shame that academics tend to make things so difficult for each other when it comes to the one true path to scientific knowledge. And things can become downright dangerous when research funds from the government and other sources are awarded with no regard for design as a scientific discipline. This is a blind spot, and not just from a theoretical perspective, but also in the context of social responsibility. Is this all due to a lack of creativity?

We will accept our responsibility during the Dies Natalis celebrations on 9 January and we will pursue the concepts of engineering, design, science, the humanities and creativity, too. I would like to invite you all to come so that together we can get 2009 off to a fantastic start!

Prof. Jacob Fokkema
Rector Magnificus