Relevance of Studying the Indian Schools of Philosophy in Design Research: Part I

 Design Research and The Indian Schools of Philosophy

Or

Thinking Design Comprehensively 

Part I 

What is the relationship between the schools of Indian philosophy and design research? Indeed, what could be the relationship between these seemingly unrelated subjects and disciplines? 

I propose to demonstrate that these that there is, or there can be, a very strong relationship between the two, and that a study of the Indian schools of philosophy can guide and structure design research in important ways. 

To begin with, let me furnish a caveat. This study of the schools of philosophy is primarily based on the book, Introduction to Indian Philosophy by DM Chatterjee and SC Datta, though other texts and talks have been accessed and consulted (and a list of these is given at the end of the paper). Chatterjee and Datta limit their explanation to the nine main schools of philosophy prevalent in the Indian subcontinent since most ancient times. My discussion will also be limited to these nine schools: Charvaka, Jaina, Bauddha, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Yoga, Samkhya, Mimamsa, and Vedanta. 

Additionally, given the fact that I am analysing these schools from the point of view of design research — whereas of course, there is much more to these schools — what I say needs to be noted as only a specific, partial, even a simplistic reading of what these nine schools are all about.

Main Propositions:

I have two main arguments to propose. 

1: That the overall methodology of enquiry and methods of research followed by, and common to, all the nine schools, whatever their individual features and differences might be, is a rigorous and efficient way of structuring research. This methodology could be followed with advantage certainly in design research — and perhaps, in most, if not in all kinds of research.

2: That each individual school offers certain directions that can guide the process of design research, and therefore influence for the better, the outcomes, applications or products generated by such research. 

A third and supplementary argument is that the present interpretations and teaching of design and research in formal institutions — and consequently practiced by most design professionals, do not uncover the full potential of design or research.

First Proposition:

In this part, I will clarify the first proposition that I argue for: namely, that the general methodology of enquiry followed by the Indian schools of philosophy is a rigorous and efficient way of structuring research. Let me start by going over the structure of enquiry followed by and common to the nine schools. This consists of the four steps of: PurvaPaksha (prior or existing views), Khandana (the analysis or refutation of such views), UttaraPaksha (the subsequent view arrived at after analysis or refutation), and Siddhantha (the conclusion reached or the principle or thesis advanced).

Translated into research methodology, this implies that for any subject or issue we are researching on or wish to find out more of, we begin by surveying and studying the existing information-base and points of view on that subject. This existing bank of knowledge is termed as PurvaPaksha, and may consist of: 

A) information recorded, preserved and transmitted from earlier times — such as texts, talks, folk wisdom, songs, sayings, proverbs, artefacts, illustrations, drawings, maps, scriptures and so on; 

B) information gained from and culled from our own discussions and observations — with subject-experts, stakeholders, users, and the very objects or artefacts of study. 

An important point to appreciate here, is that the nomenclature of PurvaPaksh thus embraces and includes all kinds of sources. It does not separate primary from secondary, quantitative from qualitative. It is a holistic term that prompts us to look at a wide area and array of sources.

The second step, Khandana, is to critically analyse this information that we have collected from multiple sources. Khandana literally means ‘to break’ or ‘to deconstruct’. Therefore, this step involves picking apart and analysing the arguments or main points put forth in the existing knowledge base that we have accessed. This implies that it is not enough to stop at collecting exhaustive information, or to just look at it cursorily. It has to be thoroughly scrutinised, understood, and then assessed for its value, its logic and its coherence.

The third step is the UttaraPaksha, or the subsequent view. This is a view we arrive at after exhaustive collection of information, and intensive analysis of that information. In other words, we can only make up our minds and offer our point of view after we have finished with the first two steps. We cannot rush in to put forth our opinion; we have to base it on these previous steps, and be able to justify the validity of our view to ourselves and to others. Such a methodology thus, stops us from jumping to conclusions, from being swayed by personal prejudices and biases, and guides us in being thorough as well as analytical.

Lastly, the fourth step is Siddhantha or the principle of the viewpoint that we support. Here, we move from the important (but still incomplete) stage of formulating our view based on logical and exhaustive study and analysis, to extracting its inherent principle. It is not enough to just take a strong theoretical stand at the end of our study; we further need to recognise and state the underlying principle of our stand. Such a recognition and statement leads the way for practical utilisation of the knowledge that we have gained. In other words, we cannot stop at an academic or theoretical acceptance of a stance, we have to pull out the principle our stance is built on.

This methodology works as a spiral — and is relevant at different scales and across all kinds of information. At an overall level, it helps in structuring our research process: from identifying appropriate sources, to analysing these sources appropriately, to understanding and utilising these sources to aid design. At the level of each individual source, it helps us to make sense of it —  whether a text, talk, illustration, object, conversation — through the four steps of PurvaPaksha, Khandana, Uttarapaksh and Siddhantha.

Illustration:

Let me illustrate how this methodology operates for any source, by a brief examination of an everyday object, a particular strainer I have in my kitchen. In this case, the PurvaPaksha is the object itself: the viewpoint contained and expressed explicitly and implicitly in the object — through its appearance, material, dimensions, workmanship, details, etc. as well as through the experience of using the object, and existing information on it.

The explicit information I obtain by observing the strainer is that it:

• Is made of stainless steel (it carries an indicative label/mark and does not rust even in brackish water and atmosphere); 
• Is ten inches long in all, with a diameter of four inches; 
• Has ten rings of holes; the holes are not even, nor in perfect circular rings;
• The rim has a certain thickness;
• Is cool/cold to touch in winter; hot in summer; and gets easily heated in contact with hot liquids; 
• The handle protrudes out five and a quarter inches from one side;
• There is a protrusion of the rim from the other side: three quarters of an inch with a small decorative pattern in the centre;
• There is a slight curvature to the handle both ways;
• The size of its holes is small;
• The cross-section of the actual strainer is a shallow curve.

This explicit information gives clues to implicit information about the process, cost, method of production, and so on.

After looking at the object and taking out such information, we move on to the next step: Khandana (analysing or deconstructing it) to deduce its limitation and its scope, and therefore its success (or failure) as a design. We may look at parameters of workability, visual as well as functional balance; aesthetic quality, ease of maintenance or reuse, ethics of production and process, ecological and economic cost, etc. This analysis reveals that :

• The large size of the strainer leads to liquids frequently spilling out when pouring through it;
• Its protruding handle leads to its overbalancing on occasion;
• The small size of its holes makes it difficult to use it to strain liquids or sieve powders, flour, etc.
• it is not capable of being used in multiple ways; 
• It is relatively easy to clean compared to steel wire strainers;
• It is machine produced; its manufacture involves industrially processed materials;
• its entire form is one seamless surface, and less prone to break;
• It does not involve frequent replacement;
• There is no particular tactile pleasure in using or seeing it, though it is a clean and non-fussy design.

This guides us to devise our own point of view or Uttarapaksh, and formulate our stance.

Are we happy with the object the way it is? Would we want to develop our own version of this strainer with modifications? Would we want to make a completely different strainer? Would we want to change just a particular attribute or all: its material, process of manufacture, details, size, arrangement of holes? My point of view is that the design is not efficient and only partially successful for tasks of straining or sieving. It appears as if it has been designed by the law of averages: to work for more than one function. It has the advantage of not being needed to be replaced, and from that point of view design obsolescence is not its feature. The quality of frugality which is a part of Indian mindsets implies that there is no real cause to replace it, unless it comes apart or breaks — which is unlikely. Nonetheless it can be an irritant when it causes (which is often) spillage, overbalance, thermal discomfort or takes too long to strain liquids or sieve powders. Its overall size, its detailing, workmanship, all can be improved for the better.

The Siddhantha that I extract from it as a design-lesson in general, this is that it is far better to design an object to at least fulfil one purpose really well, rather than make it such that we hope it can fulfil many purposes. In particular, the Siddhantha for this object, is that to strain milk or tea properly, which is a major use of a strainer in Indian households, it requires to have a substantial curve in its cross-section — preferably be semi-circular. The size of the holes also ought not to be too small so that the milk/tea can flow at a reasonable rate. Other details like an unbalanced size of the handle, etc. are also there. As far as real application is concerned, if I were to design a strainer, I would give primacy to its curvature, the arrangement and size of the holes for straining, and its visual and functional balance.  If I could, I would also prefer to use a non-industrial material and process which could also be long-lasting and potentially recyclable without investment of too much non-renewable mechanical energy — perhaps a material like brass.

Research is therefore, the beginning of design itself. These steps, which are part of the methodology of the Indian Schools, if followed properly in design research, can help us to avoid mistakes in approaching and comprehending the design process. They can also make our process extremely efficient and water tight. Lastly, they can aid us in clear articulation of our own design stance, so that we can develop our designs in a complete and comprehensive way.