Social norms of “good” design: Interdisciplinary perspectives from a survey of engineers and clinicians in bioengineering

In bioengineering training for new researchers and engineers, a great deal of time is spent discussing what constitutes “good” design. Conceptualization of good design, however, varies widely across interdisciplinary team members, with potential to both foster innovation or lead to unproductive conflict. To explore how groups central to bioengineering teams (physicians/clinicians and engineers/physicists) conceptualize good design, we asked 176 professionals in bioengineering to complete a comprehensive online survey including items designed to assess cognitive and moral foundations (validated MFQ30 tool) and custom items assessing perceptions on good design in three areas (good design characteristics, reputation of design approvers, and perceived design patient/consumer suitability). Of those that responded, 82 completed all quantitative survey sections and were included in this preliminary analysis. Correlations between response areas were examined to explore the possible links between cognitive and moral biases and perspectives on good design. The survey results indicated that both groups were more conservative than average Americans based on previous reports, and clinicians scored higher on average for all MFQ30 domains. Numerous significant correlations with good design were observed among clinicians, while engineers/physicists most closely correlated good design with prescriber approval and scientific/technical literature. The exploratory analysis demonstrated the potential utility of sociological frameworks to explore relationships in design thinking with potential utility to stimulate thriving conversation on team-based design thinking in bioengineering education and practice.