Design As … A Re-Reading of ‘Design’s’ Conceptual Metaphors

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

During the past 50 years design research theories have cast light on the concept of ‘design’. Since this is a complicated, abstract concept, it needs appropriate conceptual and methodological frameworks in order to clarify the multifaceted, complex aspects of this human act. Among more important contemporary epistemological theories is the ‘conceptual metaphor’ theory, which has also been welcome in design research circles. Scrutinising design research’s two main paradigms, namely, ‘rational problem solving’ and ‘reflection in action’, one can find the development extended theories thanks to ‘conceptual metaphor’. Whilst the two above paradigms have been undergoing revisions in the past 20 years, various complementary, explanatory metaphors have emerged on the concept of design. The present research focuses on the contents of two creditable early design research publications to select key conceptual metaphors for explaining design concept. Alongside the two above-mentioned paradigms, the most important metaphors include ‘bricolage’, ‘co-evolution’, ‘disclosure’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘play’. In the end a series of graphics illustrate each metaphor, and with them their implicit and explicit aspects of the concept of design in each metaphor. The paper concludes that hermeneutic metaphors i.e. ‘disclosure’, ‘dialogue’, and ‘play’ best suit the clarification of the concept of design, which is due to their proximity with design mechanisms. As such, they are among the most suitable design metaphors for design research.

Keywords

References

ارسطو، خطابه، ترجمة اسماعیل سعادت، نشر هرمس، 1396.
الکساندر، کریستوفر. یادداشت­هایی بر ترکیب فرم، ترجمة سعید زرین­مهر، تهران: روزنه، 1382.
داوودی، سمیه و سیدمحمدحسین آیت­اللهی. «استعاره چیست و چگونه در طرح­مایه اثر می­گذارد؟»، در صفه، ش 47 (پاییز و زمستان 1387)، ص 17-26.
شریعت راد، فرهاد و حمید ندیمی، «قاب­بندی مسئله: راه طراحانة رویارویی با مسئلة طراحی»، در صفه، ش 74 (پاییز 1395)، ص 5-24.
شمیسا، سیروس. بیان، تهران: فردوس، 1371.
قهرمانی، مریم، در استعاره­هاست که هستیم، تهران: نشر نویسه پارسی، 1395.
کوچش، زولتان. استعاره، مقدمه­ای کاربردی، ترجمة جهانشاه میرزابیگی، تهران: آگاه، 1396
گادامر، هانس گئورگ. آغاز فلسفه، ترجمة عزت­الله فولادوند، تهران: هرمس، 1382.
لاوسون، برایان. طراحان چه می­دانند، ترجمة حمید ندیمی و فرهاد شریعت راد و فرزانه باقی­زاده، انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1395.
لیکاف، جرج و مارک جانسون. استعاره­هایی که با آن­ها زندگی می­کنیم، ترجمة­ هاجر آقا ابراهیمی، تهران: نشر علم، 1395.
واینسهایمر، جوئل، هرمنوتیک فلسفی و نظریة ادبی، مروری بر آرای گادامر در گسترة هرمنوتیک، ترجمة مسعود علیا، تهران: ققنوس، ‍1381.
هاوکس، ترنس. استعاره، ترجمة فرزانه طاهری، تهران: نشر مرکز، 1377.
Bayazit, Nigan. “Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research”, in Design Issues, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2004), MIT Press, pp. 16-29.
Bousbaci, Rabah. “Models of Man: In design Thinking: the Bounded Rationality Episode”, in Design Issues, Vol. 24, No. 4 (2008), pp. 38- 52.
Casakin, H. “Assessing the Use of Mmetaphors in the Design Process”, in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(2) (2006), pp. 253-268.
________ . “Metaphorical Reasoning and Design Expertise: A Perspective for Design Education”, in Journal of Learning Design, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2011), pp. 29-38.
Cila, Nazli. Metaphor we Design by: The Use of Metaphor in Product Design, Turkey: Middle East Technical University, Geboren te Bursa, 2013.
Coyne, Richard & Adrian Snodgrass & David Martin. “Metaphors in the Design Studio”, in Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1994, pp. 113-125.
Coyne, R. “Calibrating Metaphors and Tuning Places”, in A. Gerber & B. Patterson (eds.), Metaphors in Architecture and Urbanism, Independent Academic Publishing, 2013, pp.178- 189.
Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science”, in Design Issues, Vol. 17, No. 3 (2001), pp. 49-55
________ . Designerly Ways of Knowing, London: Springer, 2006.
Dorst, Kees & Judith Dijkhuis. “Comparing Paradigms for Describing Design Activity”, in Design Studies, 16 (1995), pp. 261-274.
Dorst, Kees & Lamber Royakkers.“The Design Analogy: A Model for Moral Problem Solving”, in Design Studies, 27 (2006), pp. 633-656.
Dorst, Kees & Nigel Cross. “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-evolution of Problem-solution”, in Design Studies, 22 (2001), pp. 425-437.
Dorst, Kees. “On the Problem of Design Problems, Problem Solving and Design Expertise”, in The Journal of Design Research, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2004).
Gadamer, Hans Georg. Truth and Method, London: Continuum, 2004.
Gerber, Andri. “Introduction”, in A. Gerber & B. Patterson (eds.), Metaphors in Architecture and Urbanism, Independent Academic Publishing, 2013.
Gibbs, Raymond W. & J.M. Kushner & W.R. Mills. “Authorial Intentions and Metaphor Comprehension”, in Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(1) (1991), pp. 11–30.
Gibbs, Raymond W. “Why do Some People Dislike Conceptual Metaphor Theory?”, in Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, Vol. 5, No. 1-2: Conceptual Metaphor Theory, 2013.
Goel, Vinod & Peter Pirolli, “The structure of Design Problem Spaces”, in Cognitive Science, 16 (1992), pp. 395-429.
Graesser, A. & D. Long & J. Mio. “What are the Cognitive and Conceptual Components of Humorous Texts?”, in Poetics, 18 (1989), pp. 143–164.
Hauser, Susanne. “Skins in Architecture, On Sensetive Shells and Interfaces”, in Gerber & Patterson (eds.), Metaphors in Architecture and Urbanism, 2013, pp. 105-123.
Hey, J. & J. Linsey & A.M. Agogni & K.L. Wood. “Analogies and Metaphors in Creative Design”, Int. J. Engng. Ed. Vol. 24, No. 2 (2008), pp. 283-294.
Jahnke, Markus. “Revisiting Design as a Hermeneutic Practice: An Investigation of Paul Ricoeur’s Critical Hermeneutics”, in Design Issues, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2012), pp. 30-40.
Latour, Bruno, “Clothing the Naked World”, in Lawson and Appignanesi (eds.), Dismantling Truth, 1989, pp. 101-126
Louridas, Panagiotis. “Design as Bricolage: Anthropology Meets Design Thinking”, in Design Studies, 20 (1999), pp. 517-535.
Maher, M.L. & J. Poon & S. Boulanger. “Formalizing Design Exploration as Co-evolution: A Combined Gene Approach”, in JS Gero and F Sudweeks (eds.), Advanced in Formal Design Methods for CAD, London, UK: Chapman And Hall, 1996.
Medway, P. & B. Clark. “Imagining the Building: Architectural Design as Semiotic Construction”, in Design Studies, 24 (2003), pp. 255-273.
Newton, Sydney, “Designing as Disclosure”, in Design Studies, 25 (2004), pp. 93-109.
Ortony, A. “The Role of Similarity in Similes and Metaphor”, in A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
And Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 342–356.
Perez-Gomez, Alberto. “Hermeneutics as Discourse in Design”, in Design Issues, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1999), pp.71-79.
Roediger, Henry L. “The Effectiveness of Four Mnemonics in Ordering Recall”, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, Vol. 6, No. 5 (1980), pp. 558-567.
Roozenburg, N.M. & K. Dorst. “Describing Design as a Reflective Practice: Observations on Schön’s Theory of Practice”, in E. Frankenberger, H. Birkhofer & P. BadkeSchaub (Eds.), Designers, Springer London, 1998, pp. 29-41.
Shone, Donald. “The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action”, New York: Basic Book, 1983.
Shone, Donald. “Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Poblem-setting in Social Policy”, in MA. Ortony (Ed), Metaphor and Thought, second ed, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 137-163.
Simon, H.A. “The Structure of Ill-structured Problems”, in Artificial Intelligence, 4 (1973), pp.181-201.
Snodgrass, Adrian & Richard Coyne. “Is Designing Hermeneutical?”, in Architectural Theory Review, Vol. 1, No.1 (1997), pp. 65-97.
Snodgrass, Adrian & Richard Coyne. “Is Designing Mysterious? Challenging the Dual Kowledge Thesis”, in Design Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 3 (1991), pp. 124-131.
Snodgrass, Adrian & Richard Coyne. “Models, Metaphors and the Hermeneutics of Designing”, in Design Issues, Vol. 9, No.1 (1992), pp. 56-74.
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 17 March 2019
  • Revise Date: 27 January 2021
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics