Nigel Cross's paper explores the distinction between design discipline and design science. It traces the historical relationship between design and science, noting that the 1920s and 1960s saw significant developments in the integration of scientific methods into design. The 1960s were marked by the "design methods movement," which aimed to apply scientific principles to design processes. This period was influenced by the post-World War II application of scientific and computational methods to complex problems. In the 1970s, there was a backlash against design methodology, with some pioneers rejecting its underlying values. This was influenced by the social and cultural climate of the time, as well as the lack of success in applying scientific methods to everyday design practice. Rittel and Webber characterized design and planning problems as "wicked" problems, not amenable to scientific techniques. Despite this, design methodology continued to develop, especially in engineering and industrial design. The 1980s saw the emergence of new journals dedicated to design research, theory, and methodology. The paper also discusses three interpretations of the design-science relationship: scientific design, design science, and a science of design. Scientific design refers to modern, industrialized design based on scientific knowledge. Design science is a systematic approach to design, aiming to develop rules and laws of design. A science of design, on the other hand, is the study of design as a subject of scientific investigation. The paper also discusses design as a discipline, emphasizing the unique ways of knowing, thinking, and acting that are specific to design. It contrasts this with the positivist approach of the "design science" movement, advocating for a constructivist paradigm that values reflective practice and the expertise of designers. The paper concludes that design as a discipline has its own intellectual culture, distinct from the sciences and arts, and that it should be studied on its own terms.Nigel Cross's paper explores the distinction between design discipline and design science. It traces the historical relationship between design and science, noting that the 1920s and 1960s saw significant developments in the integration of scientific methods into design. The 1960s were marked by the "design methods movement," which aimed to apply scientific principles to design processes. This period was influenced by the post-World War II application of scientific and computational methods to complex problems. In the 1970s, there was a backlash against design methodology, with some pioneers rejecting its underlying values. This was influenced by the social and cultural climate of the time, as well as the lack of success in applying scientific methods to everyday design practice. Rittel and Webber characterized design and planning problems as "wicked" problems, not amenable to scientific techniques. Despite this, design methodology continued to develop, especially in engineering and industrial design. The 1980s saw the emergence of new journals dedicated to design research, theory, and methodology. The paper also discusses three interpretations of the design-science relationship: scientific design, design science, and a science of design. Scientific design refers to modern, industrialized design based on scientific knowledge. Design science is a systematic approach to design, aiming to develop rules and laws of design. A science of design, on the other hand, is the study of design as a subject of scientific investigation. The paper also discusses design as a discipline, emphasizing the unique ways of knowing, thinking, and acting that are specific to design. It contrasts this with the positivist approach of the "design science" movement, advocating for a constructivist paradigm that values reflective practice and the expertise of designers. The paper concludes that design as a discipline has its own intellectual culture, distinct from the sciences and arts, and that it should be studied on its own terms.