Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:49:17.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE HIERARCHICAL LEVELS OF DESIGN KNOWLEDGE

Part of: Design Theory and Research Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Kolarić ,
J. Beck  and
E. Stolterman
S. Kolarić*
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology, United States of America
J. Beck
Affiliation:
Milwaukee School of Engineering, United States of America
E. Stolterman
Affiliation:
Indiana University, United States of America
*
*[email protected]

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.

Hierarchies of knowledge represent a popular formalism for conceptualizing beliefs, justifications, and truth statements. To capitalize on the opportunity for formulating effective maps of design knowledge, this article introduces the hierarchical context–design development–high-level (CDH) model that stratifies different bodies of design-specific knowledge into ranked levels. We compare it with existing hierarchical models of knowledge, and describe its unique uses and benefits for both design research and design practice.

Keywords

design theorydesign knowledgedesign modelsepistemology of design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 51 - 60
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ackoff, R.L. (1989), “From data to wisdom: Presidential address to ISGSR”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R. and Bloom, B.S. (2000), A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Pearson.Google Scholar
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977), A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahy, M. et al. (1987), A New Theory of Urban Design, Vol. 6, Center for Environmental Structures.Google Scholar
Barlas, I., Ginart, A. and Dorrity, J.L. (2005), “Self-evolution in knowledge bases”, Proceedings of the IEEE Autotestcon 2005 Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, IEEE, pp. 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, B.S. et al. (1956), Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Education Goals, Longman.Google Scholar
Brachman, R.J. (1979), “On the epistemological status of semantic networks”, Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, pp. 3–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-256380-5.50007-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braha, D. and Reich, Y. (2003), “Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-003-0035-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Design Council (2007), Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. [online] Design Council. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/11-lessons-managing-design-global-brands (accessed: February 14, 2020)Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M. (2003), HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1984), Developments in Design Methodology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1999), “Design research: A disciplined conversation”, Design Issues, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 5–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511837Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daase, C. and Kessler, O. (2007), “Knowns and unknowns in the war on terror: Uncertainty and the political construction of danger”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010607084994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallman, D. and Stolterman, E. (2010), “Establishing criteria of rigour and relevance in interaction design research”, Digital Creativity, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2010.548869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitts, P.M. (1954), “The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 6, p. 381. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frayling, C. (1993), “Research in art and design”, Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Gardien, P. et al. (2014), “Changing your hammer: The implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 8, p. 2.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990), “Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 26.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function-behaviour-structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1976), “The theory of affordances and the design of the environment”, Symposium on Perception in Architecture, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Green, W. and Jordan, P.W. (1999), Human Factors in Product Design: Current Practice and Future Trends, CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498702096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guindon, R. (1990), “Knowledge exploited by experts during software system design”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(05)80120-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003), “A New Approach of Innovative Design: An Introduction to C-K theory”, In Folkeson, A., Gralen, K., Norell, M. and Sellgren, U. (Eds.), DS 31: Proceedings of ICED’03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Design Society, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2009), “C-K design theory: An advanced formulation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A. et al. (2017), “Design theory: a foundation of a new paradigm for design science and engineering”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0275-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hevner, A. and Chatterjee, S. (2010), “Design science research in information systems”, Design Research in Information Systems, Vol. 22, pp. 9–22. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höök, K. and Löwgren, J. (2012), “Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 23:1-23:18. https://doi.org/10.1145/2362364.2362371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazakçi, A.O. and Tsoukias, A. (2005), “Extending the C-K design theory: A theoretical background for personal design assistants”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500131300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolarić, S. (2016), Interacting with Design Alternatives, [PhD thesis], School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/16743Google Scholar
Kolarić, S., Erhan, H. and Woodbury, R. (2017), “CAMBRIA: Interacting with Multiple CAD Alternatives”, In Çağdaş, G., Özka, M., Gül, L.F. and Gürer, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th CAAD (Computer-Aided Architectural Design) Futures Conference (CAADFutures’17), pp. 81–99. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5197-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolarić, S., Woodbury, R. and Erhan, H. (2014), “CAMBRIA: a tool for managing multiple design alternatives”, DIS Companion ’14: Proceedings of the 2014 companion publication on Designing interactive systems, pp. 81–84. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598784.2602788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolko, J. (2010), “Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis”, Design Issues, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (2012), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1980), Mathematics, Science and Epistemology: Volume 2, Philosophical Papers, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Le Masson, P., Dorst, K. and Subrahamanian, E. (2013), “Special Issue on Design Theory: History, State of the Art and Advancement”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 212–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-013-0154-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Masson, P. and Weil, B. (2013), “Design theories as languages of the unknown: insights from the German roots of systematic design (1840-1960)”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0140-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, C. et al. (2009), “Concepts, structures, and goals: Redefining ill-definedness”, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 253–266.Google Scholar
Marcus, C.C. et al. (1986), “Housing as if people mattered: Site design guidelines for medium-density family housing”, Vol. 4, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Mariage, C., Vanderdonckt, J. and Pribeanu, C. (2005), “State of the art of web usability guidelines”, In: Proctor, R. W. and Vu, K.-Ph.L. (Eds.), The Handbook of Human Factors in Web Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 688–700.Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1982), “The knowledge level”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(82)90012-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd Edition), Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parent, A. (1992), “Analyzing design-oriented dialogues: A case study in conceptual data modelling”, Design Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00017-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rams, D. (2019), The Power of Good Design: Dieter Rams's Ideology, Engrained Within Vitsœ (Ten Principles for Good Design. [online] Vitsœ. Available at: https://www.vitsoe.com/us/about/good-design (accessed: February 14, 2020)Google Scholar
Razzaghi, M., Ramirez, M. and Zehner, R. (2009), “Cultural patterns in product design ideas: Comparisons between Australian and Iranian student concepts”, Design Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 438–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rzevski, G. (1981), “On the design of a design methodology”, In: Design: Science: Method, Westbury House, UK, pp. 6–17.Google Scholar
Schnerch, D. et al. (2007), “Proposed design guidelines for strengthening of steel bridges with FRP materials”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1001–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedlmair, M., Meyer, M. and Munzner, T. (2012), “Design study methodology: Reflections from the trenches and the stacks”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 2431–2440. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shedroff, N. (1999), “Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design”, Information Design, pp. 267–292.Google Scholar
Shneiderman, B. and Plaisant, C. (2010), Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (5th Edition), Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Stolterman, E. and Wiberg, M. (2010), “Concept-driven interaction design research”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020903586696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taura, T. and Nagai, Y. (2013), “A systematized theory of creative concept generation in design: first-order and high-order concept generation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-013-0152-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E.C. (1948), “Cognitive maps in rats and men”, Psychological Review, Vol. 55 No. 4, p. 189. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlissides, J. et al. (1995), Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Weick, E.K. (1989), “Theory construction as disciplined imagination”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 516–531 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodehouse, A.J. and Ion, W.J. (2010), “Information use in conceptual design: Existing taxonomies and new approaches”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 4, pp. 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880903393100Google Scholar
Woodbury, R. et al. (2013), “Exploring for Designs: Five Basic Elements”, In: Armstrong, R. and Ferracina, S. (Eds), Unconventional Computing: Design Methods for Adaptive Architecture, Riverside Architectural Press and ABC Art Books Canada.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, H. (1981), “General design theory and a CAD system”, In: Sata, T. and Warman, E. (Eds.), IFIP WG 5.2-5.3 Working Conference, North-Holland, Tokyo, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, H. (1980), “OSI reference model - The ISO model of architecture for open systems interconnection”, IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOM.1980.1094702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, J., Evenson, S. and Forlizzi, J. (2004), “Discovering and extracting knowledge in the design project”, Proceedings of Future Ground’ 04 (Conference of the Design Research Society), Melbourne, Australia, The Design Research Society.Google Scholar