Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:38:36.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Design Activity of Academics and Practitioners Using the FBS Ontology: A Case Study

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Ada Hurst ,
Oscar G. Nespoli ,
Sarah Abdellahi  and
John S. Gero
Ada Hurst*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo;
Oscar G. Nespoli
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo;
Sarah Abdellahi
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
John S. Gero
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
*
Contact: Hurst, Ada, University of Waterloo, Management Sciences, Canada, [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.

Academics teach engineering design based on design theory and best practices, practitioners teach design based on their experience. Is there a difference between them? There appears to be little prior work in comparing the design processes of design academics and practitioners. This paper presents a case study in which the design activity of a team of academics was compared to that of a team of practitioners. The participants’ verbalizations during team discussions were coded using the Function- Behaviour-Structure (FBS) ontology. A qualitative comparison reveals that the team of practitioners constructs the design space earlier and generally spends more time in the solution space than the team of academics. Further, the team of practitioners has a significant number of direct transitions from function (F) to structure (S), while no such transitions are observed for the team of academics. Given that this is a single case study, the results cannot be used as the basis for any generalizations on how academics and practitioners compare. This is a successful proof of methodologies that lay the foundation for a series of hypotheses to be tested in a future study.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign practiceDesign processDesign theoryOntologies
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1323 - 1332
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) 2019

References

Anandarajan, M. and Lippert, S.K. (2006), “Competing Mistresses? Academic Vs. Practitioner Perceptions of Systems Analysis”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2006.11645929Google Scholar
Bartunek, J.M. and Rynes, S.L. (2014), “Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike: The Paradoxes of Academic-Practitioner Relationships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314529160Google Scholar
Belli, G. (2010), “Bridging the Researcher-Practitioner Gap: Views from Different Fields”, In: Reading, C. (Ed.), Data and context in statistics education: Towards an evidence-based society. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS8), Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Bott, M.J. and Mesmer, B. (2019), “Determination of function-behavior-structure model transition probabilities from real-world data”, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, CA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-1030Google Scholar
Christiaans, H. and Venselaar, K. (2005), “Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education., Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-004-1904-4Google Scholar
Chung, A.Z.Q. and Shorrock, S.T. (2011), “The research-practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors - surveying and bridging the gap”, Ergonomics, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.568636Google Scholar
Chung, A.Z.Q., Williamson, A. and Shorrock, S.T. (2014), “What do human factors and ergonomics professionals value in research publications? Re-examining the research-practice gap”, Ergonomics, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.894582Google Scholar
Colusso, L., Bennett, C.L., Hsieh, G. and Munson, S.A. (2007), “Translational Resources: Reducing the Gap Between Academic Research and HCI Practice”, DIS, June 10–14, 2017. http://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064667Google Scholar
Fraser, K., Tseng, T-L.B. and Deng, X. (2018), “The ongoing education of engineering practitioners: how do they perceive the usefulness of academic research?”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 860–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1450847Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990), “Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v11i4.854Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2014), “The Function-Behaviour-Structure ontology of design”, In: Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L. (eds), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, Springer, pp. 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_13Google Scholar
Goos, M. (2014), “Researcher-teacher relationships and models for teaching development in mathematics education”, ZDM Mathematics Education, Vol. 46, pp. 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0556-9Google Scholar
Kan, J.W.T. and Gero, J.S. (2017), Quantitative Methods for the Analysis of Design Protocols, Springer.Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero, J.S. (2017), “Can Pahl and Beitz’ systematic approach be a predictive model of designing?”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. 24, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.24Google Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero, J.S. (2018a), “Design thinking, fast and slow: A Framework for Kahneman's dual-system theory in design”, available at http://mason.gmu.edu/∼jgero//publications/Progress/18KannengiesserGero-DesignThinkingFast&Slow.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero, J.S. (2018b), “Empirical evidence for Kahneman's System 1 and System 2 thinking in design”, available at http://mason.gmu.edu/∼jgero//publications/Progress/18KannengiesserGero-ICED.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lilienfeld, S.O., Ritschel, L.A., Lynn, S.J., Brown, A.P., Cautin, R.L. and Latzman, R.D. (2013), “The Research-Practice Gap: Bridging the Schism Between Eating Disorder Researchers and Practitioners”, International Journal of Eating Disorders, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22090Google Scholar
Lippert, S.K. and Anandarajan, M. (2004), “Academic vs. Practitioner Systems Planning and Analysis”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/1015864.1015869Google Scholar
MacDonald, T., Chan, W., Walsh, C. and Nespoli, O. (2015), “Glass Carving Assistive Device”, Waterloo Cases in Design Engineering, WCDE 00070-01.Google Scholar
Milovanovic, J. and Gero, J. S. (2018), “Exploration of Cognitive Design Behaviour during Design Critiques”, DS92: Proceedings of the DESING 2018 15th International Design Conference, Vol. 12, Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0547Google Scholar
Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B. and Mohrman, A. M. Jr. (2001), “Doing Research That Is Useful to Practice: A Model and Empirical Exploration”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 357–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069461Google Scholar
Nespoli, O.G. and Isaksson, O. “Tackling Tough Challenges Together”, D112 Workshop, DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, Vol. 12, Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (July/August 2010), “The Research-Practice Gap: The Need for Translational Developers”, Interactions, Vol. 17 No. 4, ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806491.1806494Google Scholar
Parsons, S., Charman, T., Faulkner, R., Ragan, J., Wallace, S. and Wittenmeyer, K. (2013), “Commentary - bridging the research and practice gap in autism: The importance of creating research partnerships with schools”, Autism, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361312472068Google Scholar
Pourmohamadi, M. and Gero, J.S. (2011), “LINKOgrapher: An Analysis Tool to Study Design Protocols Based on FBS Coding Scheme.” DS 68-2: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 2: Design Theory and Research Methodology, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, August 15–19, 2011.Google Scholar
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. and Daft, R.L. (2001), “Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 340–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069460Google Scholar