Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Micro View of Design Reasoning: Two-Way Shifts Between Embodiment and Rationale

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Creativity and Rationale

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS,volume 20))

Abstract

This chapter is based on the assumption that because designing (of tangible artifacts) is aimed at specifying configurations and properties of entities, designers must manipulate forms and shapes and they must resort to visual reasoning to do so. Visual reasoning in designing is seen as the interplay between two modes of reasoning: embodiment and rationale, such that the one supports and continues the other in order to arrive at a result that is novel and valid in terms of all the requirements it is to satisfy. We use protocol analysis to explore the bond between embodiment and rationale reasoning modes at two levels of cognitive operation – that of the design move and that of the argument that is its building block. We conclude that the two modes of reasoning are equi-present in designing; they describe a binary system characterized by high-frequency shifts between embodiment and rationale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Personal communication, Vienna, April 6, 1994.

  2. 2.

    Design in this chapter refers to physical design only, such as architectural, industrial, or graphic design.

  3. 3.

    Unless otherwise noted, codes are assigned by three coders; when at least two coders agree on the same coding, it is assigned.

  4. 4.

    In the segments analyzed here, team-members generated an argument every 2.8 s, whereas the individual took 6.9 s to produce an argument.

  5. 5.

    In these studies a single experimenter coded the arguments. As mentioned earlier, in the current study three coders determined the final assignment of codes.

  6. 6.

    We have reservations concerning the differentiation between these activities, but we report Akin and Lin’s study in the spirit in which it was undertaken.

  7. 7.

    The protocol in question was recorded by graduate students Eran Toch and Yael Yariv as part of a term paper in the course Cognitive aspects of the design process at the Technion, in March 2005.

References

  • Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1996). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 35–64). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argiris, C. (1981). Teaching and learning in design settings. In W. L. Porter & M. Kilbridge (Eds.), Architecture education study (pp. 551–660). New York: Consortium of East Coast Schools of Architecture/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, L., Lambell, N., Ormerod, T., Slavin, S., & Mariani, J. (2001). Representing design rationale to support innovative design reuse: A minimalist approach. Automation in Construction, 10, 663–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baya, V. (1996). Information handling behavior of designers during conceptual design: three experiments. PhD dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, N. (1981). Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modeling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30(4), 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). The designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analyzing design activity. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Do, E. Y.-L., & Gross, M. D. (2001). Thinking with diagrams in architectural design. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15, 135–149.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984/1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, J. (2004). Cognitive catalysis: Sketches for a time-lagged brain. In G. Goldschmidt & W. L. Porter (Eds.), Design representation (pp. 151–184). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23, 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganis, G., Thompson, W. L., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2004). Brain areas underlying visual mental imagery and visual perception: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 226–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S., & McNeill, T. (1998). Analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1), 21–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (1996). The designer as a team of one. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 65–91). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (1997). Capturing indeterminism: Representation in the design problem space. Design Studies, 18(4), 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues, 19(1), 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G., & Weil, M. (1998). Contents and structure in design reasoning. Design Issues, 14(3), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habraken, N. J. (1985). The appearance of the form. Cambridge, MA: Awater Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kan, J. W. T., & Gero, J. S. (2008). Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Design Studies, 29(4), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (1996). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linhares, A., Freitas, A. E. T. A., Mendes, A., & Silva, J. S. (2012). Entanglement of perception and reasoning in the combinatorial game of chess: Differential errors of strategic reconstruction. Cognitive Systems Research, 13, 72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldman, J., & Grote, K. H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, T., Gero, J. S., Edwards, H., & McNeill, T. (1996). The data in design protocols: The issue of data coding, data analysis in the development of models of the design process. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 225–252). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenman, M. A., & Gero, J. S. (1993). Creativity in design using a design prototype approach. In J. S. Gero & M.-L. Maher (Eds.), Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design (pp. 11–138). Hillsdal: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, J. (2000). Metaphor in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996). What architects see in their design sketches: implications for design tools. In Human factors in computing systems, in CHI’96 conference companion (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tye, M. (1991). The imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies, 21(5), 505–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury, R. F., & Burrow, A. L. (2006). Whither design space? AIEDAM, 20, 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this chapter was supported by a grant from the fund for the promotion of research at the Technion, hereby gratefully acknowledged. A preliminary version of this work was published under the title “Is a figure-concept binary argumentation patterns inherent in visual design reasoning?” in the proceedings of International Conference on Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design: Computational and Cognitive Approaches, Bellagio, 177–205, 2001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 32000, Israel

    Gabriela Goldschmidt

Authors
  1. Gabriela Goldschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Goldschmidt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Sciences and Tech, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 332, Pennsylvania, 16802, Pennsylvania, USA

    John M. Carroll

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goldschmidt, G. (2013). A Micro View of Design Reasoning: Two-Way Shifts Between Embodiment and Rationale. In: Carroll, J. (eds) Creativity and Rationale. Human–Computer Interaction Series, vol 20. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4110-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4111-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation