Scientific research is the systematic investigation of scientific theories and hypotheses. A hypothesis is a single assertion, a proposed explanation of something based on available knowledge, for something yet to be explained. One that is subject to further experimentation.
Design Thinking is an iterative process in which we seek to understand the user, challenge assumptions, and redefine problems in an attempt to identify alternative strategies and solutions that might not be instantly apparent with our initial level of understanding. At the same time, Design Thinking provides a solution-based approach to solving problems. It is a way of thinking and working as well as a collection of hands-on methods.

When reading about both subjects I seem to end up with the idea of scientific research as a practice where the risk of working within existing boundaries of the mind is more present than the rather “new”, more innovative ways of problem solving like design thinking (but also system thinking as you mentioned in your letter).
But, when reading articles and having discussions about this matter with other people, these new ways of thinking are sometimes considered as a nouveauté, a novelty. Companies, governments, institutions take these new forms of thinking into account but sometimes end up with in-to-the-box solutions (despite the efforts and costs they made while hiring expensive consultants). The most obvious solutions are clearly the ones hardest to come by, often by self-imposed constraints we work within.
I have read some interesting ideas about storytelling to inspire thinking opportunities and solutions. Framing stories as witnesses of daily life, of events and not of general statements (as science sometimes dares to do) can provide us with details we might miss in more conform/classical ways of thinking.
If design thinking is defined as improving concepts by analyzing and understanding how agents interact with these concepts, I might state that this is the only way on how we should think in order to survive the future as a species. Science should embrace any form of thinking, even if it seems counterproductive at first sight. Taking the problem as a suggestion, rather than a finality will show better results at the end. The acceptance of having multiple potential solutions and then working towards a proposal seems, in most cases, the best …well… solution.
In terms of problem solving, I’m not sure if previous ways of research should be thrown away as such. Although our worldviews became more complex in the last decades, classic research will remain important. It takes some guts to direct the scientific view towards new ways of approach, such as considering design thinking as an extra working tool. The sometimes-subjective concepts like “needs”, “emotions”, “motivations”, etc. seem to be in big contrast with the scientific classical approach of understanding the process. However, I’m sure a more holistic problem-solving approach will be added to the research process, therefore a new definition of “Research” should be/will be created: a holistic user-centered perspective with rational and analytical research with the goal of creating innovative solutions (cfr Tim Brown).

When talking about subjective concepts like love and hate, compassion, generosity, etc the interaction of people within these emotions will be part of this “new” research. Where known characteristics are not sufficient anymore, new ways of including more ambiguous elements will show new parameters and new variables and therefore allow for new alternative strategies.
Human mankind as a species is often showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense, in general. As Clint Runge tweeted earlier: I try not to think out of the box anymore, but on its edge, its corner, its flap, and under its barcode. We really need to re-investigate our thinking. As we seem to experience our thinking as a linear process, non-linear thinking often seems to be a bridge too far for the general brain. Fake news is being consumed without any consideration and our brain seems to follow the flock without questioning. Initiatives like the School of Thinking, emphasizing on thinking as an existential value for mankind, gives us (“us”as in “mankind”) a better sense of the world we experience. I stated earlier during these courses that enjoying experiences together with others – will be a future challenge. Let’s hope there will be others to escape the flock with, to generate ground-breaking solutions in a disruptive and innovative way, desirable from a human point of view with what is technologically feasible and economically viable.