Advertisement

Conversation and Critique Within the Architectural Design Process: A Linkograph Analysis

  • Pieter Pauwels
  • Tiemen Strobbe
  • Jeroen Derboven
  • Ronald De Meyer
Conference paper

Abstract

Conversation and critique are central to architectural design practice as they function as tools for probing and further improving design ideas. We study the kind of design activities that take place in such conversation and critique within the architectural design process. We use linkographs to characterise the design process taking place during conversation. More precisely, we study conversations between design teachers and design students. In this article, an example design process is considered that takes place via a traditional face-to-face meeting. Using the resulting linkograph, we are able to assess the kind of design activity taking place during such sessions of conversation and critique.

Keywords

Design Process Architectural Design Design Team Entropy Measure Design Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Pauwels P, De Meyer R, Van Campenhout J (2013) Design thinking support: information systems vs. reasoning. Des Issues 29(2):42–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilda Z, Gero J (2008) Idea development can occur using imagery only. In: Gero JS, Goel AK (eds) Design computing and cognition’08, Springer (pp. 303–320).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lymer G, Lindwall O, Ivarsson J (2011) Space and discource interleaved: intertextuality and interpretation in the education of architects. Soc Semiot 21:197–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldschmidt G (1990) Linkography: assessing design productivity. In: Trappl R (ed) Cybernetics and systems’90. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 291–298Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gero J (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag 11:26–36Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ericsson K, Simon H (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: Eastman C, McCracken W, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Someren M, Barnard Y, Sandberg J (1994) The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ennis C, Gyeszly S (1991) Protocol analysis of the engineering systems design process. Res Eng Des 3:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kavakli M, Gero J (2002) The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study of novice and expert designers. Des Stud 23:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldschmidt G (1995) The designer as a team of one. Des Issues 16:189–209Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldschmidt G (1997) Capturing indeterminism: representation in the design problem space. Des Stud 18:441–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldschmidt G (2003) The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Des Issues 19:72–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van der Lugt R (2003) Relating the quality of the idea generation process to the quality of the resulting design ideas. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (pp. 19–21).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kvan T, Gao S (2005) Examining learning in multiple settings. In: Martens B, Brown A (eds) Learning from the past – a foundation for the future. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 187–196Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kan JWT, Gero JS (2005) Can entropy indicate the richness of idea generation in team designing? In Proceedings of the CAADRIA05 Conference (pp. 451–457).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kan JWT, Bilda Z, Gero JS (2006) Comparing entropy measures of idea links in design protocols. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition’06, Springer (pp. 265–284).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kan JWT, Gero JS, Tang H (2011) Measuring cognitive design activity changes during an industry team brainstorming session. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition’10, Springer (pp. 621–640).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kan JWT, Gero JS (2008) Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Des Stud 29:315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldschmidt G (1992) Criteria for design evaluation: a process-oriented paradigm. In: Kalay Y (ed) Evaluating and predicting design performance. Wiley, New York, pp 67–79Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:397–423CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pourmohamadi M, Gero JS. (2011) LINKOgrapher: an analysis tool to study design protocols based on FBS coding scheme. In International Conference on Engineering DesignGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gero JS, Kan JWT, Pourmohamadi M (2011) Analysing design protocols: development of methods and tools. In International Conference on Research into Design.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pauwels P, Strobbe T, Verboven J, De Meyer R (2014) Additional Data DCC2014 Article. http://users.ugent.be/~pipauwel/DCC2014_additional-data.html.
  25. 25.
    Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Pauwels
    • 1
  • Tiemen Strobbe
    • 1
  • Jeroen Derboven
    • 1
  • Ronald De Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations