Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T13:37:12.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SITUATEDNESS OF DESIGN CONCEPTS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM DESIGN TEAMS IN ENGINEERING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

John Gero  and
Julie Milovanovic
John Gero
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Julie Milovanovic*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
*
Milovanovic, Julie, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States of America, jmilovan@uncc.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Situatedness in design suggest that designing is situated within the design process or the cognitive actions taken by the designer, the designer's expertise and know-how, the designer's experience generally and the interactions in the specific design task being undertaken as well as the interactions with the design artefact generated. In this paper, we analyzed the situatedness of design concepts generated by teams of professional engineers during a design task. The method combines protocol analysis, Natural Language Processing and network theory to provide a representation and a measurement of design situatedness overtime. Providing empirical evidence of the situatedness of concepts has been overlooked in design research. The method and results presented in this paper outlines the foundation to empirically explore design situatedness.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign theoryDesign processSituatednessNetworks
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3503 - 3512
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bucciarelli, L.L., 2001. Design knowing & learning: a socially mediated activity, in: Eastman, C., McCracken, M., Newstetter, W. (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. Elvesier, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Stanković, T., Štorga, M., 2014. Using visual information analysis to explore complex patterns in the activity of designers. Design Studies 35, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancey, W.J., 1997. Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, N., 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies 3, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K., 2011. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies 32, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., Simon, A.H., 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.), 1998. WordNet: an electronic lexical database, Language, speech, and communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruchterman, T.M.J., Reingold, E.M., 1991. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw: Pract. Exper. 21, 1129–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380211102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J., 1998. Toward a model of designing which includes its situatedness, in: Grabowski, H., Rude, S., Grein, G. (Eds.), Universal Design Theory. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, pp. 47–55.Google Scholar
Gero, J., Milovanovic, J., 2022. Creation and characterization of design spaces. Presented at the DRS2022: Bilbao. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., Kan, J.T., 2016. Empirical results from measuring design creativity: use of an augmented coding scheme in protocol analysis. Presented at the The Fourthe International Conference on Design Creativity, Altanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
Goel, V., Pirolli, P., 1992. The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science 16, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, E., Kim, K., 2015. Cognitive styles in design problem solving: Insights from network-based cognitive maps. Design Studies 40, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perisic, M.M., Štorga, M., Gero, J.S., 2021. Computational study on design space expansion during teamwork. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D., 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design 3, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple Smith, London.Google Scholar
Simon, A.H., 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Dunod.Google Scholar
Sosa, R., Gero, J.S., 2013. The creative value of bad ideas – A computational model of creative ideation. In Stouffs, R., Janssen, P., Roudavski, S. and Tuncer, B. (eds), Open Systems: CAADRIA2013, National University of Singapore, Singapore, pp. 853–862. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2013.853Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R., Dorst, K., 1998. The reflective practice of design teams. Design studies 19, 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W., 2009. Design: one, but in different forms. Design Studies 30, 187–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W., 2006. The cognitive artifacts of designing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar