Thank you Stephanie,
Your comments about references to abductive thinking in the design literature underline the notion that abduction is useful as a default explanation rather than a systematic method for design or research. It has been my experience that correlation naturally motivates abductive thinking such as interpreting, adapting, and editing in situations where things are mapped but not matched and where similarities, appropriateness, and goodness of fit are emphasized (as in designing). Recall must necessarily deconstruct or “penetrate” large, coherent networks to selectively access relevant sub-nets in memory. Said otherwise, one must seek the trees in the forest that serve an objective, as good metaphors do.
Regarding correlation: As you will realize from reading the Re-cognizing…paper, the first decisions concerned the outlines to be correlated and their scope (7 items) with the objective of finding commonalities in kinds of information without knowing what would result. The kinds of information that emerged implied the different modes of thought needed to process them. The modes are easily recognized and used in creative design thinking as well as (purposeful thought) as examples in the paper illustrate.
While you note that "a strict application of this framework may result in linear objectives” you miss the idea that conscious thought is sequential as it can express only one thing at a time (See Dehaene, 2014, Consciousness and the Brain) Subconscious thought uses the same cognitive devices, rapidly, in parallel, with broader scope. Creative ideas are usually developed subconsciously before they can be consciously expressed and communicated through language, behavior, media, etc. Intuition, Recognition, imagination and insight … mark such transitions from subconscious to conscious thought.
I hope this short response makes sense. Thanks again for your help,
Chuck
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Stefanie di russo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Charles,
>
> Abductive thinking is well documented as part of the repertoire of design
> thinking. However, when you write "systematic design or research methods"
> do you mean to say that there is little discussion focusing on abductive
> reasoning as a conscious and deliberate research/design method?
>
> If so, I do not believe there has been much documented evidence that
> displays abduction as a deliberate design method that is consciously
> applied during design activity. Most references discuss abduction as an
> emergent and descriptive quality behind design thinking, and often from the
> viewpoint of the observer than 'reflective practitioner'. I have not read
> an article that provides evidence of an individual designer explicitly
> stating their use of abductive thinking when designing. However, there are
> many examples of designers utilising abductive reasoning through
> expressions such as "i guess that../ i feel that this is../ my assumption
> is..". For me, the question is whether consciously articulating abductive
> reasoning is going to improve the process of designing for complex problems
> or not.
>
> In your paper you apply the seven modes of thought to the design thinking
> process. I believe that this is a good framework to allow people to
> understand the intent and usefulness behind each phase of the design
> process. But due to the iterative and sometimes messy format of design
> thinking, a strict application of this framework may result in linear
> objectives.
>
> This is a useful tool to provide common ground/reference for design
> practitioners and researchers to discuss and explain the nature of design
> thinking. However, I feel that i may not have interpreted your viewpoint on
> correlation correctly so clarification would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Until then, the following papers provide a comprehensive discussion on
> abductive thinking in design practice:
>
> Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: the drivers of design
> synthesis. *Design Issues*, *26*(1), 15-28.
> Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. *Proceedings of the design
> thinking research symposium 8*, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW
> Dorst, K. (2011). The core of 'design thinking' and its application. *Design
> Studies*, 32(6), 521-532
> Goel, V. (1988). Complicating the 'logic of design'. *Design Studies*,
> 9(4), 229-234.
> Vergant, R & Oberg, A. (2013). Interpreting and envisioning - A hermeneutic
> framework to look at radical innovation of meanings. *Industrial Marketing
> Management*, 42(1), 86-95.
> Vianna, M., Vianna, Y., Adler, I. Lucena, B. & Russo, B. (2013). Design
> thinking. MJV Press, Brazil.
>
> Best,
> --
> *Stefanie Di Russo*
>
> PhD Student
> Faculty of Design
> Swinburne University
> *linkedin: public *profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burnette
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|