No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Visualised Frames: How Sketching Influences Framing Behaviour in Design Teams
Part of:
Design Creativity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
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.
Framing is a crucial skill for connecting problem and solution spaces in the creative design process, both for individuals and teams. Frames are implicit in individuals’ cognitive thinking, but the creation of shared frames plays a vital role in collaborative design. Many studies have attempted to describe the framing process, but little is still known about how to support designers in framing, specifically in teams. This paper addresses this gap, by exploring the connection between sketching and framing within interdisciplinary teams. Following a qualitative and explorative approach, we have investigated the process and outcome of five interdisciplinary teams. We identified that sketching assists in the creation and elaboration of frames. Furthermore, in tandem with discussion and reflection, sketching helps increase the chance of a frame to survive within the design process. Our findings have practical and educational implications for improving the creative design process in interdisciplinary teams.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 419 - 428
- Creative Commons
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
Akin, O. (1978), “How do architects design?”, in Latombe, J.C. (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition in Computer Aided Design. North Holland Publishing Company, New York, (pp. 65–103).Google Scholar
Borah, P. (2011), “Conceptual issues in framing theory: a systematic examination of a decade's literature”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 246–263.Google Scholar
Cash, P., Hicks, B. and Culley, S. (2015), “Activity Theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice”. Design Studies, Vol. 38 No. (May), pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Cash, P. and Gonçalves, M. (2017), “Information-triggered Co-evolution: A Combined Process Perspective”. In Christensen, B.T., Ball, L.J. and Halskov, K. (Eds.), Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation. CRC Press. (pp. 501–520).Google Scholar
Crilly, N. and Cardoso, C. (2017), “Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in design?”, Design Studies, Vol. 50, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Cross, N. and Cross, A.C. (1998), “Expert Designers”. In: Frankenberger, E., Birkhofer, H., Badke-Schaub, P. (eds) Designers. Springer, London.Google Scholar
Christiaans, H. (1992), Creativity in design: the role of domain knowledge in designing. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. (pp. 145–150).Google Scholar
Dong, A., Kleinsmann, M. and Deken, F. (2015), “Investigating design cognition in the construction and enactment of team mental models”. Design Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (1997), Describing Design, a Comparison of Paradigms. Ph.D. thesis. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”. Design studies, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 425–437.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”. Design Studies, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 521–532.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), “Frame creation and design in the expanded field”. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 22–33.Google Scholar
Fish, J. and Scrivener, S. (1990), “Amplifying the mind's eye: sketching and visual cognition”. Leonardo, pp. 117–126.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2007), “To see eye to eye: the role of visual representations in building shared mental models in design teams”, CoDesign, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
Hey, J.H., Joyce, C.K. and Beckman, S.L. (2007), “Framing innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases”. Journal of Design Research, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 79–99.Google Scholar
Hybs, I. and Gero, J. (1992), “An evolutionary process model of design”. Design Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 273–290.Google Scholar
Jiang, H. and Yen, C.C. (2009), “Protocol Analysis in Design Research: a review”. In Design | Rigor & Relevance”, International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) 2009, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., Deken, F., Dong, A. and Lauche, K. (2012), “Development of design collaboration skills”. Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 485–506.Google Scholar
Lane, D.M. and Jensen, D.G. (1993), “Einstellung: Knowledge of the Phenomenon Facilitates Problem Solving”. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 37, No. 18, pp. 1277–1280.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., Poon, J. and Boulanger, S. (1996), “Formalising design exploration as co-evolution”. In Advances in formal design methods for CAD. Springer, Boston, MA. (pp. 3–30).Google Scholar
Paton, B. and Dorst, K. (2011), “Briefing and reframing: A situated practice”. Design Studies, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 573–587.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. (2002), “Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective”. Qualitative social work, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 261–283.Google Scholar
Pee, M., Dorst, K. and van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2015), “Understanding Problem Framing through research into Metaphors”. In IASDR 2015 Conference.Google Scholar
Purcell, A. and Gero, J.S. (1998), “Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology”. Design studies, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 389–430.Google Scholar
Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 155–169Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (Vol. 1). Basic Books, NY.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. and Rein, M. (1994), Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Self, J. and Pei, E. (2014), “Reflecting on Design Sketching: Implications for Problem-Framing and Solution focused Conceptual Ideation”. Archives of Design Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 65–87.Google Scholar
Self, J.A. (2016), “Problem or solution focused? Ill-defined design problems and the influence of design ability”. In DS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F. and Henze, L. (2016), “Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams”. Design Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
Suwa, M., Purcell, T. and Gero, J. (1998), “Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions”. Design studies, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 455–483.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R. (2000), The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams. Ph.D. thesis. Delft University of Technology. Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R. and Dorst, K. (1998), “The reflective practice of design teams”. Design studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 249–271.Google Scholar
Van der Lugt, R. (2005), “How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings”. Design studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 101–122.Google Scholar
Wegner, D.M. (1987), “Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind”. In Mullen, B. and Goethals, G. (eds)., Theories of group behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 185–208.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access