Luke, I also have not studied linguistics, cognitive science or semiotics, but here are my attempts to engage with your questions and comments.
LF<If your goal was to understand what a computer CPU is and how it works, do you think you could if you studied its printer?>
A computer and its printer have been created by human thought, but I doubt that they represent very well the "mechanisms" of that thought. I think it’s very dubious to compare how the brain works to how a computer works, and to compare a printer output with human written or drawn output.
LF<If we want to understand design cognition, then we should study the “CPU” rather than the “printer” — externalisations in manual design practices or introspections on those practices.>
The “CPU” (I assume brain functioning) is in fact being studied more in design research recently, and being called design neuro-cognition (see references below). However, a printer output is like a writer’s or designer’s final output – the written paper or design drawing. For both, a lot of thinking goes on through other outputs prior to presentation of the final output. Writers’ rough working drafts and designers' rough working sketches do show something of what is going on in their processes of creation. Introspection and thinking aloud are imperfect means but they do also give some insights to the processes.
On language and design, and other animals and their use of tools, I recommend the work of Andy Dong (see references below). It seems to me that all forms of language enhance human intelligence and abilities – not just verbal but also written and pictorial languages. I know that writing (including writing this) helps me to consider and revise as well as express my thoughts, or "what I think". Something similar happens when I am drawing in designing. Both writing and drawing seem to be amplifiers of our abilities to think, create and communicate.
LF<If design cognition is domain-independent, then what is the point in having so many terms for research that answers art and design related questions? Design research, architectural research, artistic research, performance research, practice research,… why not just use “research” without a domain related modifier?>
I think that designing as a human skill or form of intelligence can be considered as domain independent, underlying different domain applications. Designers working within a particular domain (architecture, products, services) of course also develop knowledge and abilities specific to that domain. Design research encompasses all research across design domains, but some of it might be focussed within a specific domain. Perhaps some domain-centred researchers would like to claim that their “[domain] research” is somehow different from others or special to theirs – but I think that could be just pleading for different standards to be applied. But also I do think that art might be something else altogether – so "art and design" perhaps shouldn’t be so readily grouped together.
In my book "Design Thinking: Understanding how designers think and work" (new edition coming out in June!) I conclude:
A view of design thinking as a form of intelligence does not necessarily mean that some people ‘have it’ and some people do not. Design ability is something that everyone has, to some extent, because it is embedded in our brains as a natural cognitive function. Although everyone can design, like other forms of intelligence and ability design intelligence may be possessed, or may be manifested in performance, at higher levels by some people than by others. And like other forms of intelligence and ability, design intelligence is not simply a given ‘talent’ or ‘gift’, but can be trained and developed. Otherwise, what would be the point of having design schools?
Best wishes,
Nigel
References
•Andy Dong, Emma Collier-Baker & Thomas Suddendorf (2017) 'Building blocks of human design thinking in animals', International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5:1-2, 1-15, DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2015.1011700
•Andy Dong (2007) 'The enactment of design through language', Design Studies, 28:1, January 2007, 5-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.001
•Andy Dong (2009) The language of design – theory and computation, Springer, London.
•Stephanie Balters, Theresa Weinstein, Naama Mayseless, et al. (2023) 'Design science and neuroscience: A systematic review of the emergent field of design neurocognition', Design Studies, 84, 101148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2022.101148
•Julie Milovanovic, Mo Hu, Tripp Shealy, John Gero (2021) 'Characterization of concept generation for engineering design through temporal brain network analysis', Design Studies, 76, 101044, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101044
•John Gero and Julie Milovanovic (2020) 'A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers' minds, bodies and brains', Design Science, 6, DOI: 10.1017/dsj.2020.15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|