Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T20:28:38.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAN ABDUCTION RESEARCH ENHANCE UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN PROCESSES ACCOUNTED FOR BY C-K THEORY?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Ehud Kroll  and
Lauri Koskela
Ehud Kroll*
Affiliation:
Braude College of Engineering
Lauri Koskela
Affiliation:
University of Huddersfield
*
Kroll, Ehud, Braude College of Engineering, Israel, kroll@braude.ac.il

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Design process descriptions in the literature in general and those using C-K theory in particular lack some useful cognitive information that may affect the credibility of the process. Notions from abduction research are presented and proposed for enhancing such descriptions. Specifically, it is important to distinguish between design activities that are intuitive and those that result from deliberation; a topic that has long been discussed by philosophers of science and design scholars. The focus of the paper is on the ubiquitous design moves of proposing an idea and selecting among ideas, and on their execution by expert and novice designers.

Keywords

AbductionDesign cognitionC-K theoryDesign processDesign theory
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 817 - 826
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Agogué, M., Kazakçi, A., Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., Poirel, N. and Cassotti, M. (2014), “The impact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and stimulation effects”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Eris, O. (2014), “A theoretical approach to intuition in design: Does design methodology need to account for unconscious processes?”, In: Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Eds.), An anthology of theories and models of design, Springer, London, ch. 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_17Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”, Design Studies, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1968), Erkenntnis und interesse, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt-am-Main (English translation: Knowledge and human interests, Heinemann, London, 1978, 2nd edition).Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B., (2003), “A new approach of innovative Design: An introduction to C-K theory”, The 14th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED03), Stockholm, Sweden, August 19-21, pp. 109–124.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2009), “C-K design theory: An advanced formulation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannengiesser, U. and Gero, J. (2019), “Design thinking, fast and slow: A framework for Kahneman's dual-system theory in design”, Design Science, Vol. 5, E10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskela, L., Paavola, S. and Kroll, E. (2018), “The role of abduction in production of new ideas in design”, In: Vermaas, P. and Vial, S. (Eds.) Advancements in the philosophy of design, Springer, Cham, ch. 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73302-9_8Google Scholar
Kroll, E. and Koskela, L. (2016), “Explicating concepts in reasoning from function to form by two-step innovative abductions”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM), Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 125–137. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0890060416000020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, E. and Koskela, L. (2017), “Studying design abduction in the context of novelty”, The 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, Vancouver, Canada, August 21-25, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
Kroll, E., Le Masson, P. and Weil, B. (2022), “Abduction and design theory: Disentangling the two notions to unbound generativity in science”, In: Magnani, L. (Ed.), Handbook of abductive cognition, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68436-5Google Scholar
Lawson, B. and Dorst, K. (2009), Design expertise, Architectural Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315072043Google Scholar
Le Masson, P., Weil, B. and Hatchuel, A. (2017). Design theory: Methods and organization for innovation, Springer, Cham, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50277-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, L. (1976). “The logic of design and the question of value”, In: March, L. (Ed.), The architecture of form, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–15Google Scholar
McAuliffe, W.H.B. (2015), “How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation?”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadian, M. (2019a), “Beyond the instinct-inference dichotomy: A unified interpretation of Peirce's theory of abduction”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 138–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadian, M. (2019b), “Abduction − the context of discovery + underdetermination = inference to the best explanation, Synthese, Vol. 198, pp. 4205–4228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02337-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C.S. [CP (volume.paragraph, year] (1931-1958) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. 1-6, Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P. (Eds.), Vols. 7-8, Burks, A.W. (Ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Pugh, S. (1991), Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. (1993), “On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design”, Design Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(05)80002-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product design: Fundamentals and methods, Wiley, Chichester, New York.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Simon, A.H. (1969), The sciences of the artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Taura, T. and Nagai, Y. (2017), “Creativity in innovation design: The roles of intuition, synthesis, and hypothesis”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 5, No. 3–4, pp. 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2017.1313132CrossRefGoogle Scholar