CumInCAD is a Cumulative Index about publications in Computer Aided Architectural Design
supported by the sibling associations ACADIA, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SIGraDi, ASCAAD and CAAD futures

PDF papers
References

Hits 1 to 2 of 2

_id 46d4
id 46d4
authors Fischer, Thomas
year 2008
title Designing (tools (for designing (tools for ...))))
source RMIT University, Melbourne
summary Outcomes of innovative designing are frequently described as enabling us in achieving more desirable futures. How can we design and innovate so as to enable future processes of design and innovation? To investigate this question, this thesis probes the conditions, possibilities and limitations of toolmaking for novelty and knowledge generation, or in other words, it examines designing for designing. The focus of this thesis is on the development of digital design tools that support the reconciliation of conflicting criteria centred on architectural geometry. Of particular interest are the roles of methodological approaches and of biological analogies as guides in toolmaking for design, as well as the possibility of generalising design tools beyond the contexts from which they originate. The presented investigation consists of an applied toolmaking study and a subsequent reflective analysis using second- order cybernetics as a theoretical framework. Observations made during the toolmaking study suggest that biological analogies can, in informal ways, inspire designing, including the designing of design tools. Design tools seem to enable the generation of novelty and knowledge beyond the contexts in and for which they are developed only if their users apply them in ways unanticipated by the toolmaker. Abstract The reflective analysis offers theoretical explanations for these observations based on aspects of second-order cybernetics. These aspects include the modelling of designing as a conversation, different relationships between observers (such as designers) and systems (such as designers engaged in their projects), the distinction between coded and uncoded knowledge, as well as processes underlying the production and the restriction of meaning. Initially aimed at the development of generally applicable, prescriptive digital tools for designing, the presented work results in a personal descriptive model of novelty and knowledge generation in science and design. This shift indicates a perspective change from a positivist to a relativist outlook on designing, which was accomplished over the course of the study. Investigating theory and practice of designing and of science, this study establishes an epistemological model of designing that accommodates and extends a number of theoretical concepts others have previously proposed. According to this model, both design and science generate and encode new knowledge through conversational processes, in which open-minded perception appears to be of greater innovative power than efforts to exercise control. The presented work substantiates and exemplifies radical constructivist theory of knowledge and novelty production, establishes correspondences between systems theory and design research theory and implies that mainstream scientific theories and practices are insufficient to account for and to guide innovation.
keywords Digital design tools, geometry rationalisation, second-order cybernetics, knowledge generation
series thesis:PhD
type normal paper
email
more http://adt.lib.rmit.edu.au/adt/public/adt-VIT20080424.160537/index.html
last changed 2008/05/10 08:31

_id caadria2008_34_session4a_278
id caadria2008_34_session4a_278
authors Fischer, Thomas
year 2008
title Obstructed Magic: On the Myths of Observing Designing and of Sharing Design Observations
doi https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2008.278
source CAADRIA 2008 [Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia] Chiang Mai (Thailand) 9-12 April 2008, pp. 278-284
summary Much design research, including much research in the computer-aided architectural design field, is based on the assumption that the process of designing is observable and that what happens in designing can be known, explicitly described and shared. In this paper I examine this assumption from my subjective viewpoint and conclude that designing occurs behind a blind spot. It can be concluded that existing design process models used in the “science of design” are based on invention rather than on empirical evidence, which in turn suggests that science should be studied as a form of design instead of studying designing scientifically.
keywords Design research, observation, design process, language
series CAADRIA
email
last changed 2022/06/07 07:51

No more hits.

HOMELOGIN (you are user _anon_714305 from group guest) CUMINCAD Papers Powered by SciX Open Publishing Services 1.002