Gabriela Goldschmidt

The dialectics of sketching

Abstract: The generation of architectural form is by definition a creative activity. As a rule, architects engage in intensive, fast, freehand sketching when they first tackle a design task. This study investigated the process of sketching and revealed that by sketching, the designer does not represent images held in the mind, as is often the case in lay sketching, but creates visual displays which help induce images of the entity that is being designed. Sketching partakes in design reasoning and it does so through a special kind of visual imagery. A pattern of pictorial reasoning is revealed which displays regular shifts between two modalities of arguments, pertaining to both figural and nonfigural aspects of candidate forms at the time they are being generated, as part of the design search. The dialectics of sketching is the oscillation of arguments which brings about gradual transformation of images, ending when the designer judges that sufficient coherence has been achieved.

On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture

Designers invariably use imagery to generate new form combinations which they represent through sketching. But they also do the reverse: they sketch to generate images of forms in their minds. Common belief regards such activity as non-rational. In contrast, we assert that interactive imagery through sketching is a rational mode of reasoning, characterized by systematic exchanges between conceptual and figural arguments. Cognitive science, strongly dominated by a linguistic paradigm, has yet to recognize the paramount role of visual reasoning in many instances of problem solving; and in design tool-making, computational and otherwise, we must learn to optimize rather than bypass intuitive visuality.

Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education

Abstract A challenge of design education is the question of how to help designers develop skills in design problem-solving. How can designers be taught to use relevant prior knowledge to solve new design problems? To answer this question we must know more about differences between experts and novices regarding the use of prior knowledge to solve ill-defined problems. In design, visual analogy is used as a powerful problem-solving strategy; the evidence, however, is hitherto mostly anecdotal. In this study our objective is to determine empirically whether, and how, the use of visual analogy can improve design problem-solving by both novice and expert designers. Our results indicate that the use of visual analogy improves the quality of design across the board, but is particularly significant in the case of novice designers. These findings lead to conclusions regarding design training and education.

Sketching and creative discovery

Abstract In the search for helpful computer tools for sketching in the early phases of design, the approach was taken to experimentally study sketching behaviour. In two series of experiments two mental processes revealed themselves as essential in the creative process: Restructuring and Combining. These two processes are in turn influenced by expertise in sketching and individual creativity. In this article each of the factors: Combining, Restructuring, Expertise and Creativity, will be separately highlighted with respect to their impact on sketching behavior. Finally, on the basis of these results conclusions are drawn for computerized sketching aids.

Capturing indeterminism: representation in the design problem space

Abstract Models of problem solving hinge on the idea of the problem space. Current models of the problem space do not account for indeterministic processes, e.g. those which exist in the solving of design problems, which are inherently ill-structured. While maintaining the concept of the problem space, this paper proposes a modified description of representations in the design problem space, with the purpose of getting a handle on indeterministic processes that are typical of the front edge of designing.

The designer as a team o f one

Abstract Who does better in design, loners or teams? Different traditions, different tastes and different beliefs are in disagreement on this question. Theories that deal with this subject, to the extent that they exist, are based mostly on ad hoc observations. In this study the productivity of the design processes of an individual and a team, who reach equally satisfactory results working on the same preliminary design task, are compared. A quantitative assessment system of parameters of design productivity is introduced and applied to protocols of the two processes. Detailed analysis leads to the conclusion that there are almost no differences between the individual and the team in the way they bring their work to fruition.

Visual Analogy—a Strategy for Design Reasoning and Learning

Publisher Summary This chapter proposes that the use of visual analogy in problem solving is an example of similarity-based reasoning, cognitively facilitated by imagistic operations. It is shown that in designing, which is an example of ill-structured problem solving, this type of reasoning is most valuable. Evidence proves that novices, in particular, benefit from guidance to use analogy, which helps them to better understand abstract concepts and to fully exploit their capacity to retrieve and implement previously acquired knowledge. People can be trained to maximize the processing resources they are endowed with. Novices can be shown how the use of a certain cognitive strategy, analogic reasoning in this case, can be beneficial to them. At the same time, repeated use can help stabilize domain-knowledge in their memory, such that in subsequent cases it might require less effort, i.e., a lower-level processing mechanism, to retrieve and activate that knowledge. Novices who exercise analogical reasoning eventually appropriate the abstractions, implicitly or explicitly, thereby gaining in knowledge and in the ability to apply it. The use of analogy therefore brings similarity-based and rule-based reasoning very close together, and enables them to interact successfully in problem solving. In this interaction reasoning by similarity is typically helpful as a triggering device in the early phases of a search for ideas, whereas reasoning by rules follows suite in subsequent phases of development, refinement, and evaluation.

Reasoning by Visual Analogy in Design Problem-Solving: The Role of Guidance

The use of analogy, including visual analogy, is a powerful problem-solving strategy that can help explain new problems in terms of familiar ones. There is evidence that problem-solvers have difficulty in making spontaneous use of this strategy, despite its proven effectiveness. However, guidance to use it greatly increases accessibility to analogy in problem-solving. In the design domain, evidence of the use of analogy has hitherto been mostly anecdotal. Our goal in this paper is to show through empirical data that analogy can be effective in facilitating design problem-solving, especially when explicit instructions for its use are given.

Serial sketching: visual problem solving in designing

Architectural designing is seen as a process of small-step transformations of partial images of a still nonexisting entity. A design problem is solved when a satisfactory visual representation of a design concept is produced. To deal with pictorial properties of the design concept, the designer utilizes visual thinking, which is represented through sketching. In serial sketching the designer systematically transforms images of the entity that is being designed: each sketch provides feedback that informs the generation of subsequent representations. The process is seen as an exemplar of information processing in problem solving and is investigated through cases from on-line experiments as well as examples from the architectural literature.

How Does Cognitive Conflict in Design Teams Support the Development of Creative Ideas

Is cognitive conflict detrimental to the development of innovative ideas in design teams, or is it a precondition for innovative performance? Assuming that there is a relationship between cognitive conflict and innovation, what kind of strategies do teams use in situations of cognitive conflict and what are the consequences for creativity? This paper reports on a study analysing how design teams cope with cognitive conflict during idea generation in an experiment. The design process was captured in protocols that were generated from video recordings. We report the results of the analysis of verbal protocols according to the five styles of (cognitive) conflict behaviour: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. Out of six teams, the results of the two highest and two lowest scoring teams are compared as regards innovation and functionality, which we see as the two components of creative outcomes. We show that design teams, even in a laboratory environment, encounter a considerable amount of cognitive conflict. A statistical comparison between the groups with the highest and the lowest innovative/functional design concept scores reveals significant differences in their conflict behaviour styles. The high innovation and high functionality groups used a more competing and a more compromising style, whereas groups rated low on the same parameters used a more collaborating style. The high rating groups on both creativity components used a more associating and rejecting behaviour style; the high innovation groups also generated more new ideas than the low innovation groups. The low rating groups on both innovation and functionality tended to repeat ideas more frequently. The main finding is that, in contrast with reports in previous research, the groups with higher innovation and functionality scores collaborated less than their peers in the low rating groups on these parameters. We interpret these results as signifying that creative performance in teams is not achieved mainly by agreement but needs cognitive confrontation.