Drawing researchers, please find below a posting from another JISCmail list
(phd-design) that I received today. Since it reflects at length on
sketching I asked the author if I could re-post it on our drawing-research
list. The author, Chris Heape, has now joined 'drawing-research' so will be
able to see and respond to any questions or observations you may have.
It's a long posting. It opens with responses to emails which have appeared
on the phd-design list concerning design practice and design research.
Since these partly set the scene I have left them in but you may prefer to
scroll down directly to the sub-heading 'Design: Pre-development, sketching
and the negotiation of meaning' (about one third the way down).
Steve Garner.
08 10 02
Hello all,
I am a relatively new member to this list (phd-design) and have kept to the
sideline and listened to the diversity of opinion. So this is very much a
tentative "dipping of the toe in the water".
I was not at the Common Ground conference, but there have been several
comments in the past weeks which strike me as having some kind of
connection.
Introduction:
By way of introduction I would like to touch on Lorraine Justice's point:
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002
From: Lorraine Justice, Ph.D., FIDSA
Director, Industrial Design
"I am also concerned that many practicing designers may not feel so
comfortable on this list because of the types of discussion. Many
practicing designers who have been successful for years have not been
introduced to many of the topics we discuss, and it certainly was not a
part of their general education".
My background is essentially practice oriented, yet I am now fully involved
in design research, principally design teaching.
My way into industrial design was via a fine arts degree at art school in
England, cabinet making, graphic design and eventually an industrial design
degree here in Denmark.
So very hands on, very visual and very artifact oriented. Quite typical I
think of art and design trainings of the 70's
Thereafter I was principally a self employed designer, involved with
business to business solutions for large production companies in scandinavia
and europe - hard core high tech products and software interface design. My
approach has alway been user oriented, although the users in this case were
mostly technicians, installers and service personnel. Parallel to this, I
have been teaching design students.
With regard to design research, I found it very difficult to relate the
research to practice. Unfortunately, looking back, I see I had a very
prejudiced and narrow minded attitude to design research. If it wasn't
practically oriented, then it was of no use to me. I had a negative attitude
to, what I thought as, design academicism. Not very constructive!
It was not until I was employed on the design team at a large production
company in southern Denmark, that I met up with the practice of Action
Research. Here I found, albeit under protest at first, a means of
integrating design practice and research. This was very user oriented and
collaborative by nature, encouraging the involvement of the other team
players in the designing of the products. It involved the extensive use of
video and very "loosely defined" 3d sketches, or visual thinking tools, to
enable users and others to act out the way they either worked in an
industrial environment or could imagine the use of a future product.
Design research became, for me, the natural extension of a reflective design
practice.
An encouragement to write on my teaching techniques, coupled with my general
concern with the state of design teaching, as I see it, has led me to my
current position. I am principally involved in finding new ways of helping
the students to realise the full potential of their personal ressources and
help equip them to be able to engage those ressources in a collaborative
design environment.
Suffice it to say, I've left my former prejudice to design research on the
shelf. I enjoy the diversity of opinion and approach and just leave what I
can't relate to, on the side. But often as not, what I don't understand,
often leads to my investigating and discovering new areas of interest.
To the point:
Returning to remarks made on the list over the last weeks, I would like to
refer to:
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002
"...the majority of American schools of design as well as the reigning
attitude in some professional design practice, most of which can be traced
directly back to the art-based design education of the last fifty years or
so.
The so-called 'shop' is a good case in point. Most US and Canadian design
schools all have 'shops' of one kind or another, full of machinery of one
kind or another. And students retreat there to make 'models,' another
19th-century concept.
Jacques Giard, PhD
Professor and Director
School of Design
College of Architecture and Environmental Design
Arizona State University
---------------------------------------------
From: David Durling
Friday, 20 September 2002
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:51:45 +0100 Kristina Niedderer
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
"Glen raised an interesting issue with some parallels in information design
The role of 3D software is of nowadays of such crucial importance that it
cannot be stated highly enough.
The potential negative consequences of going straight to the computer are
there in 2D design as well. Sketching, a vital part of design thinking in
2D, is also disappearing, and there is some significant loss (I think).
Professor David Sless
BA MSc FRSA
Co-Chair Information Design Association
Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
---------------------------------------------
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:38:03 -0400
Subject: Concrete Issues Affecting Design
Designers - here and at many design studios I have visited or worked with,
have little in the way of drawing apparatus nowadays. Even 3D sketch models
are becoming rarer. It is often taken that a machined form or SLA
(stereolithograph) part will suffice.
Some designers do not even need to sketch before hitting the CAD tube -there
is effectively no pre-development. ....We are selecting from finished
designs, the design process has been fundamentally changed.
5. Creative Issue - The greater the knowledge of the software - the less
risks and creative moments are taken or 'seized'. Switching off the
terminal often produces the most imaginative design work.
---------------------------------------------
From: Ken Friedman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: fredag den 20 september 2002 16:40
"The knowledge creation cycle explicitly requires a series of exchanges in
which tacit knowledge is subject to articulate inquiry. This knowledge is
rendered explicit to the greatest degree possible. It is then embodied in
repeated practice to become tacit once again".
---------------------------------------------
From: Lubomir S. Popov [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: fredag den 20 september 2002 18:14
Charlotte Magnusson wrote:
>Another thing which I would be interested to find out more about is the
>way the amount of persons involved influence the design process. My
>feeling is that roughly speaking the process will be more rigid (and maybe
>more of a method) the more persons there are.....
"It is quite possible because when you have several people involved, there
should be communication among them. Communication and mutual understanding
are major issues in teamwork. Interpersonal communication requires that
concepts are defined as clearly as possible (in order to assure mutual
understanding)..."
Lubomir
---------------------------------------------
Charlotte Magnussen - Lund University
What I want to propose is to understand design generally as a creative
process of manipulation that is principally devoid of its own content. Its
content is the thing or idea to which it is applied. Two things arise from
this. Firstly, the nature of the process is what all design activity seems
to have in common.
---------------------------------------------
Trond Are Oritsland
A movement from the object, to interaction as the basis of designs
"artifact"
---------------------------------------------
A Connection:
There is a connection between the diversity of points made here.
Jacques Giard, PhD:
"And students retreat there to make 'models,' "
Glenn Johnson:
"Some designers do not even need to sketch before hitting the CAD tube
-there is effectively no pre-development."
David Durling:
"Sketching, a vital part of design thinking in
2D, is also disappearing, and there is some significant loss (I think)".
Trond Are Oritsland:
"A movement from the object, to interaction as the basis of design's
"artifact"
Ludomir S Papov
"Communication and mutual understanding are major issues in teamwork.
Interpersonal communication requires that concepts are defined as clearly as
possible (in order to assure mutual understanding)..."
Ken Friedman:
"The knowledge creation cycle explicitly requires a series of exchanges in
which tacit knowledge is subject to articulate inquiry".
Charlotte Magnussen - Lund University
"What I want to propose is to understand design generally as a creative
process of manipulation that is principally devoid of its own content. Its
content is the thing or idea to which it is applied".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Design: Pre-development, sketching and the negotiation of meaning.
When I use the term "sketch" I use it in it's broadest sense. I consider any
note, bookmarking of an idea or line, whether it is 2d, 3d, pencil on paper
or assemblage of found materials, steelwire or whatever, to be a sketch.
I encourage the students to jump in and start to visualise or materialise
even their first "fumblings" with a concept. They need to learn to live with
"half-articulations" at the outset and allow others to contribute.
I am mostly concerned with the enabling and structuring of thinking that
sketching can achieve in dialogue with the design task and the designer's
world of association. This, as opposed to retaining all potential ideas in
one's head and attempting to articulate everything there, before making a
"cool" visual.
So, why is it that students retreat to make models, or designers hit the
tube before sufficient pre-development? What is this "significant loss"?
What is it that students and designers think they achieve, by taking these
shortcuts? Is it because they've acquired a 19th century attitude or is it
because they can quickly get to what they "think" designing is all about? Or
is it just the reflection of a human trait "Stick to what you know and avoid
unnecessary questions that demand a rethink"?
My experience is that many design students and as you point out Glenn, some
practising designers as well, don't fully understand the need for
pre-development or what sketching is, what potential it has, or how it can
be incorporated into a collaborative design process. They don't understand
sketching's negotiating potential. Sketching is often considered a private
domain, only for the eyes of the designer!
Time and Money:
I can almost hear what many of my colleagues would say:
We don't have the time to talk too much, it cost's too much.
But at what cost?
"Time and money" is difficult to argue with, if one considers the only
product of a design task to be an artifact as designed object! What kind of
artifact is one talking about?
I am not disputing the fact that designed artifacts, products, are
essentially important, the lifeblood of a company. "If there's no product,
then what do we sell"?
I would like to propose that the concept of "artifact" can be expanded to
both the material and the immaterial, and with regard to the material
aspect, artifacts can be represented in a number of guises.
The concept of artifact, as only a designed object, can to my mind seriously
effect the quality of the resultant design process and shift focus away from
important issues that also have to be considered.
Design negotiation and current practice:
I fear that the exaggerated emphasis on time and money, in design and
development practice, can contribute to a lack of understanding of issues,
such as negotiation of meaning and ownership, points I will take up in a
moment. This lack of understanding can in turn contribute to missed
opportunities for designing optimal solutions, that companies can identify
with.
Why is it that users can't always relate to a given design solution or
companies find they are unable to identify with these solutions?
There is a need for design teams to be expanded to include both a larger
group of company players, than for example the R&D department and to include
users from outside the company. This team should be encouraged to identify
with both the ongoing design and development task as well as the final
shipped product.
This identification with the task is crucial for the succesful development
of a product and the continued life of that product within the company, as
well as on the market.
An acknowledgement of a more encompassing design negotiation process, rather
than a fixation on the designed artifact, could also allow for an
understanding that an immaterial product, of great value, also emerges from
the interaction between the various players in a design and development
team. This immaterial product or artifact - design process, knowledge and
experience - is also vital for the continued integration of design thinking
and reflection in the company and the consideration of design and designing
as positive assets.
What can help this negotiation process?
The design students:
Another problem, I find, is that this general attitude of time and money has
filtered into many design educations, where the students are often
considered as mini-designers in a context that should resemble a mini design
company. The emphasis is on the artifact as designed object, speed is up and
unfortunately creativity and experimentation are down. The students play
safe and try to produce results that resemble what "they think" a design
product should look like.
There is little encoragement of "off the loop" tasks, whereby the students
can try things out, experiment and acquire strategies that they can then
apply in various designing contexts. It's often the whole project, that the
students have to deal with, rather than an introduction to smaller chunks of
a process, that they can then put together.
Here I often use the term "toolbox". I am generally very reluctant to
stipulate prescriptive methods to the students. I find that given a method,
they often use it as a recipe. What seems to be more productive, is that
they are introduced to various approaches to and ways of thinking about the
design task, - the "tools" in the toolbox - and that it is up to them to
then find the best way of combining those tools. I've found that encouraging
the students to identify their own method, seems to be particularly
important in strengthening their sense of confidence. They still have to
cope with the complexity and array of demands that a design task requires,
but now in their own fashion, for which they have responsibility.
Methods always look neat and tidy after the event. In practice they are
generally very messy!
Charlotte, you wrote:
"I have noticed that myself I have since then started to talk about a
"toolbox" instead of methods - but maybe I am just shirking the issue;-).
I don't think so.
Design as the construction and negotiation of meaning:
Glenn you wrote:
"Creative Issue - The greater the knowledge of the software - the less
risks and creative moments are taken or 'seized'. Switching off the terminal
often produces the most imaginative design work".
I agree entirely, but could the issue also be, that by switching the
terminal off one can talk to others and maybe gain a greater understanding
of the issues involved in the current design task and thereby produce a more
qualified design solution?
Trond:
you "propose the movement from object to interaction as the basis of
design's artifact".
and Charlotte:
you "propose to understand design generally as a creative process of manipu-
lation that is principally devoid of its own content. Its content is the
thing or idea to which it is applied".
If one goes just a little way back to the Bauhaus period, for example, the
initial understanding of design and the attempt to tackle the first efforts
of incorporating design and industry could, as I see it, be described as the
manipulation of materials and artifacts. The artifact was modelled. A
philosophy that continues today.
Could it be, that with our greater awareness of the complex issues involved
in any design task, that we are in fact first and foremost modelling our
understanding of any given design task? That we do this both on a personal
and on a collaborative level.
Throughout the design task, we are negotiating an understanding on a
personal level, using various visual, written and verbal means and that this
personal understanding is then negotiated with others, both verbally and
using some kind of reification (artifact, in its broadest sense) in the open
forum of collaborative design. This collaborative negotiation provides the
means for generating a synthesis, which is then used in the ongoing
iterative process we call designing.
Here is maybe a clue as to how one could consider an overarching description
of design and designing, as something other than artifact as designed
object.
Design as the construction and negotiation of meaning?
The design students - learning to sketch and negotiate:
A non-linear approach.
I used to ask design students to consider the design process as a very
linear, structured method. I have now changed my mind.
I felt that a very linear method actually encouraged the students, to rush
through the initial research and sketching phases of a design task, to get
to what they thought design was really about, modelling the artifact.
The time given to involving others, particularly users and gaining an
in-depth understanding of the task was negligible.
Prospecting for gold:
I proposed instead, that the students consider the design process as an
exploration into a conceptual landscape, (design space) where they could
freely wander, meet and talk to others, investigate and make notes or mental
bookmarks (sketches). If they observed or visualised something for which
they maybe didn't, at the time, have an articulated understanding, they were
encouraged to set a marker (very loose sketch) and return to it, once they
had achieved a greater understanding of the task in hand. Often a new
meaning would emerge. They can even use these loosely articulated
understandings to allow others to engage in the task. A loosely articulated,
visual thinking tool, leaves room for others to manouveur and contribute
with their understanding or experience.
In other words, a very fluid, dynamic enterprise.
A design artifact can be anything you give significance:
I also introduced the concept that everything that turned up in that design
process could be considered an artifact - user interviews, protocol,
e.mails, postits, project descriptions, communication material, sketches,
models, posters, video clips etc.
"We're still designing":
Something very different happened. The students actually expressed relief
that it was now legitimate to spend time on something other than modelling
"design objects". They realised that they were still "designing", albeit
with different materials in their hands and using different methods.
Using found materials, they could explore the concept, the principles, and
they could explore form possibilities, apart from the concept. Using
untraditional sketching methods (video, postits etc) and materials they
allowed themselves to experiment, make mistakes, find explanations, before
trying to represent their ideas in a more formal fashion.
It seems that using untraditional sketching materials, enables the students
to legitimately think in different ways. They quickly learnt that it's ok to
be "inarticulate" or "uncertain" at some stages of the design process, as
long as they could reflect on why. What were they trying to achieve?
With the same task in hand, using pencil and paper or computer 3d, they
often went cold and cramped. I have no full explanation of this at present,
but I suspect it has something to do with the design students' expectations
of how they learn and what a design student is supposed to do. Sketches
should look "design sketchy"!!! And not reflect genuine curiosity or
uncertainty.
Representing thoughts:
The students became very adept at using these untraditional sketches to
negotiate and listen to each other's "story" of the design task in hand.
Two students could make different representations or experiments around a
similair concept, independent of each other. They would then make a
synthesis, a third solution, after appraising the qualities of each other's
"sketches" in relation to the concept or task.
As two students said, with the first initial "sketches" on the table:
" it's as if we're both represented on the table. We've got something to get
hold of. If we were just discussing ideas, we would probably go round in
circles".
It seemed that once they have a greater in-depth and focused understanding
of the task, and had shared that understanding with others, they were able
to make qualified choices throughout.
These artifacts were then be used as the "chips" that were put onto a
"larger collaborative table", to help the students and others to negotiate a
greater understanding of the task in hand. This philosophy is as useful in
design practice as it is for design students.
Some current industrial practice - sketching and negotiation:
Lubomir you wrote to Charlotte Magnusson:
"It is quite possible because when you have several people involved, there
should be communication among them. Communication and mutual understanding
are major issues in teamwork. Interpersonal communication requires that
concepts are defined as clearly as possible (in order to assure mutual
understanding)..."
I would like to differ with "that concepts are defined as clearly as
possible". I think that at some stages of the design process, it is actually
an advantage to accept a degree of uncertainty and lack of articulation. It
allows others to find a way in and contribute, it allows one to accept that
questions can hang in the air until a greater understanding of the issues
are achieved and it allows others, via their suggestions, to achieve a sense
of ownership.
I have, in my own design practice, sometimes deliberately left information
out or even made "mistakes", in a pre-development phase so as not to
articulate my understanding too clearly, in order to allow those others in a
company to "discover" the missing link themselves, achieve a sense of
ownership and thereby generate a sense of responsibility when navigating the
concept, product or design through a company's system.
Over articulation:
One of the greatest dangers of "just hitting the tube" in the design process
and producing SLA's (stereo-lithographs) that represent the 3d cad model, is
that with all the shiny rendering and modelling, one can indicate a level of
conceptual or product maturity, that is not the case.
Result?
"OK, we'll take it from here! That looks fine, no need to spend more time on
this aspect". The budget is maybe saved, briefly, but there is the increased
chances of an ill designed product hitting the market, with all the added
costs of reapairing the damage at a later date. There is also the extra
burden for a company to try and sell a product, with which they are not
truly affiliated.
Another problem is that mentally, any future development of alternative
design suggestions can be bedevilled by this former over articulation.
It's as if it demands an enormous effort to rid the mind of what has been
too well articulated or visualised. There are those of us who are trained to
turn a blind eye and seek alternative solutions, but for those who are
involved in a collaborative design process and who are not used to this way
of working, it can be very difficult.
The character of sketches, models and visualisations should reflect the
level of understanding, articulation and development that the project is at.
Motivation and the negotiation of meaning:
Finally, one other aspect of sketching and pre-development, that has caught
my imagination, in particular with regard to the students, is the question
of motivation.
Teresa Amibile has done a lot of research into the question of motivation
and the creative process. In her findings, there appears to be a conflict
between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic demands in the creative process.
Extrinsic demands can be counterproductive. I am often confronted with
students, certainly in the first years, who have great difficulty in
equating their notion of creativity and use of imagination, with the
concrete demands of a design task.
Extrinsic demands fill the daily life of any design practitioner or product
developer. So how can one align these two very essential areas of design
practice - intrinsic motivation and extrinsic demands?
Initially I asked the students to consider, that indeed it was difficult to
be highly imaginative and creative when confronted with a design task, but
that the extrinsic demands were actually a help in framing the task or
defining the design space. The task's demands meant they had to be even more
creative.
Generally this didn't help much.
I found eventually, that as much as it was important for team players in a
professional development context to be able to identify with a negotiated
concept or solution, so too was it important for design students to find a
way to identify themselves with the task.
If they were unable to find any kind of meaning in the task, it was
impossible for them to identify with what they were doing. I find that the
resulting disorientation in the students, often leads to generalised
solutions, and lack of focus.
What is most frustrating for the student, is that they lack the means to
make qualified choices and communicate their intentions or appraisal of
their work to either themselves or others. This basically halts any kind of
reflective practice on their part, cuts creativity and experimentation down
to an absolute minimum and the "playing safe" solution gives no real
satisfaction to the student. Motivation fades quickly.
Conclusion:
Ken:
You wrote to Charlotte Magnussen
(3) What we have learned about teaching design methods:
"The knowledge creation cycle explicitly requires a series of exchanges in
which tacit knowledge is subject to articulate inquiry. This knowledge is
rendered explicit to the greatest degree possible..."
I agree entirely and I feel is as applicable to design practice as to design
teaching.
Industry:
If all the players involved in a design and development team need time to
conduct inquiry, develop and articulate an understanding of the task in
hand, on both a personal and collaborative level and achieve the best
possible synthesis, then pre-development, of which sketching is just one
aspect, is crucial for optimal results to see the light of day.
The design students:
A full understanding of sketching, in any form and the whole concept of
pre-development in the design process is crucial for the students. They need
to understand that sketching is not just a vague stab at a visualisation of
a design object, but that it is an investigative and exploratory journey to
help define the conceptual design space, help them negotiate a personal
understanding of the design task, find a sense of meaning and identification
with the task, that will act as a driver for their imagination and will
serve them well when negotiating design solutions in a collaborative forum.
This is maybe part of the answer to what "that significant loss" is.
Chris Heape - 08 10 02 dk
References:
Books
Amabile, T.M. - Creativity in Context
Amabile, T.M. et al. - Creativity Under the Gun
- Harvard Business Review August 2002
Boden, M.A. - The Creative Mind
Bollas, C. - Free Association
Bruner, J. - Acts of Meaning
Bruner, J. - Making Stories
Chang Ghung-yuan - Creativity and Taoism
Cooper, R.G. - Winning at New Products
Damasio, A.R. - Descartes Error
De Bono, E. - Lateral Thinking
Denning, S. - The Springboard
Dewey, J. - How We Think
Gardner, H - Frames of Mind
Goel, V. - Sketches of Thought
Haskell, R. - Deep Listening
Koestler, A. - The Act of Creation
Lakhoff, G., Johnson, M. - Metaphors We Live By
Lave, J., Wenger E. - Situated Learning
Lerhdal Erik - Staging for Creative Collaboratorium in design teams
- Ph.D NTNU Trondheim
Moon, J.A. - Reflection in Learning and Professional Development
Samples, B. - The Metaphoric Mind
Schank, R.C. - Dynamic Memory Revisited
SchÜn, D.A. - Educating the Reflective Practitioner
SchÜn, D.A. - The Reflective Practitioner
Sternberg, R.J ed. - The Nature of Creativity
Sternberg, R.J ed. - Handbook of Creativity
Venema H. I. - Identifying Selfhood
Wenger, E. - Communities of Practice
Wick, R.K. - Teaching at the Bauhaus
Øritsland, T.O. - A Theory of Discursive Interaction Design
- Ph.D NTNU Trondheim
Ørskov, W. - Aflæsning af Objekter
Papers:
Binder, T. - Setting the Stage for Improvised Video Scenarios
Brandt, E. - How mock-ups support user collaboration
Bohm, D., Factor, D., Garrett, P. - Dialogue - a proposal
http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/bohm_dialogue.htm
Barrett, F.J., Cooperrider,D.L. - Generative Metaphor Intervention
http://www.stipes.com/aichap7.htm
Davies, A., Reid, A. - Uncovering problematics in design education -
learning and the design entity
Glaserfeld, E.von - Knowing Without Metaphysics - Aspects of Radical
Constructivism
http://www.DouglasHospital.qc.ca/fdg/kjf/17-TAGLA.htm
Grady, J.E. et al - Blending and Metaphor
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~mturn/WWW/blendaphor.html
Gudmundsdottir, S. - The Narrative Nature of Pedagogical Content
http://www.ipt.unit.no/~jsg/sigrun/publikasjoner/PCKNARR.html
Hacker, D.J, - Metacognition: Defenitions and Empirical Foundations
http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/meta.htm
Holliday, R. - Reconsidering Fundamentals of Learning and Teaching
http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/hol199651.htm
Iversen, O.S., Buur, J., Christiansen, E., KjSr ,A - Training the Bull in
the China Shop - or Outside
Pedersen, J. - Games and Movies - Towards Innovative Co-Design with Users
Petruzzi, A. - Hermeneutic Disclosure as Freedom:
John Dewey and Paulo Freire on the Non-Representational Nature of Education
http://www.wmc.edu/academics/library/pub/jcp/issueII-1/petruzzi.html
Smith, M.K. - Dialogue and Conversation
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-dialog.htm
Sperschneider, W., Bagger, K. - Ethnographic fieldwork under industrial
constraints
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
from:
Chris Heape
Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice
Mads Clausen Institute
University of Southern Denmark
Grundtvigsallé 150
6400
Sønderborg
Denmark
e.mail : [log in to unmask]
telephone : +45 6550 1671
http://www.mci.sdu.dk
--------------------------------------
home:
e.mail : [log in to unmask]
|
