Advertisement

Designer stories: a commentary on the community of design practice

  • A. A. Mc Glashan
Article

Abstract

This research explores the design practice of three prominent New Zealand designers. It seeks to identify the key elements and methodologies they employ and to answer the research question: How do designers design? The need to gain understanding on how designers work, gave me occasion to visit and speak with designers about their approach to design. To look inside a designer’s practice has left me with an overriding impression that these designers know and trust their own way of working, they do not map their thoughts onto a pre-existing process; rather, each new work dictates its own direction. Their understanding has come about through a wealth of design experiences, a way of seeing, and perceptive reflection-in-action.

Keywords

Design Design processing Community of practice Heuristic Creativity Innovative Environment Collaboration Risk-taking Immersion Internal dialogue Anxiety and discomfort Conceptualisation Tacit knowledge Serendipitous connections 

References

  1. Findeli, A. (1995). Moholy-Nagy’s design pedagogy in Chicago (1937-46). In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The idea of design (pp. 29–43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gregory, S. A. (1966). The design method. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  4. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Ings, W. (2003). Interface: Creative thinking in technology education and its relationship with tertiary design courses. ICTE/TENZ Conference proceedings, 1–7 Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  6. Johnsey, R. (1998). Exploring primary design and technology. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  7. Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  8. Kleining, G. & Witt, H. (2000). The qualitative heuristic approach: A methodology for discovery in psychology and the social sciences: Rediscovering the method of introspection as an example. For Qualitative Sozialforschung [Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, Article 1. [19 paragraphs]. Retrieved July 7, 2005, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00kleiningwitt-e.htm.
  9. Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (completely rev) (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mawson, B. (2001, December). Beyond design: A new paradigm for technology education. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle, WA, Australia. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/maw01574.htm.
  11. Miller, J. (1993). The holistic teacher. OISE Press: Toronto.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, J. P., Bruce Cassie, J. R., & Drake, S. M. (1990). Holistic learning: A teacher’s guide to integrated studies. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. http://www.tki.org.nz/e/community/technology/ Te Kete Ipurangi:—The Online Learning Centre. Ministry of Education.
  14. Moffitt, J. (1971). To look at any thing. In J. Mecklenberger & G. Simmons (Eds.), Since feeling is first. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. p. 149.Google Scholar
  15. Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research: Design, methodology, and applications. California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Newbury, D. (2001). Diaries and fieldnotes in the research process. Research issues in Art Design and Media, 1, [17 pages]. Retrieved March 30, 2004, from Ariel intariel@aut.ac.nz and July 12, 2005, from http://www.biad.uce.ac.uk/research/rti/riadm/issue1/riadmIssue1.pdf.
  17. Prats, M., Lim, S., Jowers, I., Garner, S. W., & Chase, S. (2009). Transforming shape in design: Observations from studies of sketching. Design Studies, 30, 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Scrivener, S. (2000). Reflection in and on action and practice in creative- production doctoral projects in art and design: The foundations of practice-based research. Working Papers in Art and Design: An International Refereed Journal for Research in Art and Design, 1, [14 pages]. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol1/scrivener2.html.
  21. Visocky O’Grady, J., & Visocky O’Grady, K. (2006). A designer’s research manual: Succeed in design by knowing your clients and what they really need. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Wolpert, L. (1997). In praise of science. In R. Levinson & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science today: Problem or crisis? (pp. 9–21). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Wood, J. (1998). The culture of academic rigour: Does design research really need it? [First published in The Design Journal, 3, 44–57.] Retrieved February 9, 2004, from http://www.futures.gold.ac.uk/rigour/rigour2K.html.
  24. Woolf, V. (1928). A room of one’s own. London, England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Science, Mathematics and Technology, Faculty of EducationUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations