Hi Chris,
You argue for the importance of events that go on in building representations
during designing. I agree. There is a lot in how the making of models,
prototypes, theory constructions and other representations are important
in exploring a problem, context and possible designs for solutions. This
aligns with what Patrick says about the primary issues are what happens
inside human designers when they design.
When I dig into the situation it appears that making and creating representatio
ns in designing are important for lots of very different reasons. For
example: to increase the designers' cognitive capacity by acing as temporary
external memory stores; to enable the use of well established theory and
logic developments (e.g. engineering stress theories pointing to minimum
volume solutions etc); as assistance for the designer in putting elements
of the design problem and context into their own memory; as means of gaining
cognitive and affective feedback from aspects of the designer's human
cognitive-affective-motor systems that are normally only useable in 'real
'situations (e.g. computer simulated 'walk-ins' of buildings trigger
some of the same affective responses as walking into the real building);
the physical acts of sketching and other forms of making of representations
elicit thought responses by reverse cueing of thoughts from motor acts;
and the time taken to make the representations gives more time for the
designer's cognitive-affective-motor systems to 'remember' other associated
issues and bring them into consciousness. These are a few, I could go
on.
An underlying problem in talking and writing about this process of creating
and using representations is that the findings emerging from cognitive
neuroscience indicate that when we design we use many parallel neurological,
hormonal, visceral and skeletals systems that have multiple feedback loops
involving cognitive, affective and motor systems at the same time. The
actuality of human designing is nothing like the simple Kolbian learning
cycle model of concrete experience/reflection/theory abstraction/testing
or of the project management models of external design processes. If we
are going to understand more about how humans design then it implies that
theories about designing will have to build on these very complex physiological
models
It is here that the problem of using 'design knowledge' as a concept emerges.
Trying to develop an understanding of human designing through 'design
knowledge' defined in terms of the properties of objects doesn't seem
to be potentially fruitful because they are category different. Using
'design knowledge' in terms of human 'knowing' is also problematic because
much more clarity is available from an understanding of the physiological
processes. It is seriously problematic to try to define 'knowing' in terms
of these processes, and without this definition it is too loose a concept
to be helpful. The reality I suspect is that the concepts of 'knowing'
and 'knowledge' , once key ideas in trying to grasp an understanding of
human functioning by observing externals, are now in need of replacement
or at least retirement in this context.
Building design theories about the human internal and external aspects
of designing doesn't seem to be blocked. So far as I can tell, issues
previously described in terms of design 'knowledge' and 'knowing' can
be expressed in other ways without conceptual loss and in many cases with
increased clarity. For example, using 'information' or 'representation'
instead of 'knowledge' seems to clarify many situations.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. Dropping the knowledge word
seems a bit radical but I can't see a better way forward.
Best wishes from rainy Perth
Terry
<snip Chris Rust>
My understanding of making - of models, prototypes, drawings, simulations,
scenarios etc etc - is that they are the usual means by which a designer
advances their understanding and knowledge of a design problem and possible
solutions for it.
<snip>
|