Kinds of designing and their functions in analyzing

Article

Abstract

In this paper, I mine the scholarly work of longtime MIT professor Donald Schön for a set of tactics which, having originated in his studies of the architectural design studio, are shown to be relevant to the architectural analysis of existing buildings. In this way, a specific and hitherto untapped potential of Schön’s work is developed, but more critically, I use the discussion to support a strategy of designerly analysis which suggests an expansion of studio pedagogy as a field for learning.

Keywords

Schon Pedagogy Architecture Studio 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Student work in this paper was produced by Brett Barry and Lindsay Beukhof students in the M. Arch. degree program at North Dakota State University.

References

  1. Akin, O. (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Design Studies, 23(4), 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balfour, A. (Ed.). (1981). Architecture education study. New York: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Bamberger, J., & Schön, D. A. (1983). Learning as a reflective conversation with materials: Notes from work in progress. Art Education, 36(2), 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedikt, M. (1991). Deconstructing the Kimbell: An essay on meaning and architecture. New York, NY: Sites Books.Google Scholar
  5. Borden, G. P. (2010). Material precedent: The typology of modern tectonics. Hoboken, NJ.: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice: A special report. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  7. Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, 23(3), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christenson, M. (2007). Architectural knowledge and iterative mediating artifacts. In Flux: Design education in a changing world (Proceedings of the 5th international DEFSA Conference). Retrieved from http://www.defsa.org.za/papers/architectural-knowledge-and.
  10. Christenson, M. (2010). Digitally cultivating the accident in urban analysis. In E. M. Hemingway & A. Warren (Eds.), Architecture in the age of digital reproduction (Proceedings of the 2008 West Central ACSA conference). [CD-ROM] Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  11. Christenson, M. (2011). Parametric variation revealing architectural untranslatability. In J. Cheon, S. Hardy, & T. Hemsath (Eds.), Parametricism (SPC): Proceedings of the 2011 ACADIA Regional Conference (pp. 267–273). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/arch_facultyschol/21/.
  12. Christenson, M. (2012). Mixing algorithms in urban analysis and transformation. In Cities in transformation: Research and design (Proceedings of the EAAE/ARCC International Conference on Architectural Research) (pp. 578–581). Retrieved from http://www.arcc-arch.org/past-conferences/.
  13. Clark, R. H., & Pause, M. (1985). Precedents in architecture. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  14. Corbusier, Le, Jeanneret, P., & Boesiger, W. (1946). OEuvre complète, 1938–1946. Erlenbach-Zurich: Éditions d’architecture.Google Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cross, N. (2007a). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, N. (2007b). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de la Harpe, B., Peterson, J. F., Frankham, N., Zehner, R., Neale, D., Musgrave, E., & McDermott, R. (2009). Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design? International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Do, E. Y.-L., Gross, M. D., Neiman, B., & Zimring, C. (2000). Intentions in and relations among design drawings. Design Studies, 21(5), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eckert, C. M., Blackwell, A. F., Stacey, M. K., & Earl, C. F. (2004). Sketching across design domains. In J. S. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Knight (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design III (pp. 79–101). Sydney: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenman, P. (2008). Ten canonical buildings: 1950–2000. New York, NY: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  22. Gomez de Silva Garza, A., & Maher, M. L. (2001). Using evolutionary methods for design case adaptation. In W. Jabi (Ed.), Reinventing the discourse: How digital tools help bridge and transform research, education and practice in architecture (proceedings, 21st ACADIA conference) (pp. 180–191). Buffalo, NY: Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
  23. Graves, M. (1977). The necessity for drawing: Tangible speculation. Architectural Design, 47(6), 384–394.Google Scholar
  24. Haymaker, J., Keel, P., Ackermann, E., & Porter, W. (2000). Filter mediated design: Generating coherence in collaborative design. Design Studies, 21(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herdeg, K. (1990a). Formal structure in Indian architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  26. Herdeg, K. (1990b). Formal structure in Islamic architecture of Iran and Turkistan. New York, NY: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T. S. (1977a). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, T. S. (1977b). Second thoughts on paradigms. In F. Suppe (Ed.), The structure of scientific theories (pp. 459–482). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lackney, J. A. (1999). A history of the studio-based learning model. Retrieved from http://edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_based_learning.pdf.
  30. Ordanova, I., Tidafi, T., & De Paoli, G. (2007). Is a digital model worth a thousand pictures? In A. A. Dong, A. E. Vande Moere, & J. S. Gero (Eds.), Computer-aided architectural design futures 2007: Proceedings of the 12th international CAAD futures conference (pp. 85–98). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oxman, R. (1990). Prior knowledge in design: A dynamic knowledge-based model of design and creativity. Design Studies, 11(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peng, C. (1994). Exploring communication in collaborative design. Design Studies, 15(1), 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piotrowski, A. (2001). On the practices of representing and knowing architecture. In A. Piotrowski & J. Robinson (Eds.), The discipline of architecture (pp. 40–60). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  34. Porter, W. L. (2004). Designers’ objects. In G. Goldschmidt & W. L. Porter (Eds.), Design representation (pp. 63–79). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schön, D. A. (1981). Learning a language, learning to design. In A. Balfour (Ed.), Architecture education study (pp. 339–471). New York: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  40. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Schön, D. A. (1988a). Toward a marriage of artistry and applied science in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(4), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schön, D. A. (1988b). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simmonds, R. P. (1978). Learning to learn and design: The development of effective strategies in a graduate school of architecture (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations