A Methodological Comparison of the Processes of Product Design and Architectural Design

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Prof. faculty of design. Tabriz Islamic Art University. Tabriz, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof. faculty of Architecture and Urban Engineering. Tabriz Islamic Art University. Tabriz, Iran.

3 MA in Industrial Design from Faculty of Design. Tabriz Islamic Art University. Tabriz, Iran.

Abstract

Problem Statement: In design methodology studies, it has been assumed that designing is a unique cognitive action that is used in various professional fields. The generality of this matter is not rejected, but after nearly seventy years of design methodology studies and relying on common general knowledge of design, we can now address the question: What are the differences in design methods in various fields? And what is the reason for these differences?
Research Question: More specifically, this research has limited the research problem to comparing the design method used in product design and architectural design and raised the following question: “What are the differences in design method in the fields of product design and architectural design?” To find the answer, this preliminary question had to be answered: What is the design method in product design and architectural design?
Research Objective: To find the methodological differences between the process of product design and architectural design.
Research Method: According to the criticism that was accomplished in the literature review regarding the problem and experiment method of similar research, this research method is a qualitative case study, and in terms of method, it is an experimental-descriptive one. Experiments and unstructured interviews were conducted to collect information, and the grounded theory method (GTM) was used to refine and classify the information. The theoretical framework of this research is design methodology with the approach of “design cognition”.
Conclusion: After collecting the data through testing and categorizing it, there have been discussions on the findings that showed seventeen general cases. In conclusion, it can be said that the method in product design is similar to the method in architectural design in some dimensions, but in others, these two groups have evidently different behaviors. In the common aspects, the inherent dimensions and nature of the design can be seen, but in the different aspects, the role of the environment and education is evident.

Keywords

References

Asefi, M & Barani, M. (2014). A PROPOSAL FOR AN INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN APPROACH INSPIRED BY INDUSTRIAL DESIGN. Ciena e Tecnica, (29), 72-87.
Boden, M. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. London: Routledge.
Crilly, N. (2019). Methodological diversity and theoretical integration: Research in design fixation as an example of fixation in research design?. Design Studies, (65), 78-106.
Daalhuizen, J. & Cash, Ph. (2021). Method content theory: Towards a new understanding of methods in design. Design Studies, (75), 1-34.
Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1 (1), 36-44.
Dean, L. & Loy, J. (2020). Generative Product Design Futures. The Design Journal, 23 (3), 331-349.
Dorst, K. & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22 (5), 425-437.
Farell, R. & Hooker, C. (2013). Design, science and wicked problems. Design Studies, 34 (6), 681-705.
Ferrari, T. G. (2017). Design and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Dangers and opportunities for a mutating discipline. The Design Journal, 20 (1), S2625-S2633.
Kruger, C. & Cross, N. (2006). Solution-driven versus problem-driven design: strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27 (5), 527-548.
Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25 (5), 443-457.
Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. New York: Routledge.
Luck, R. (2019). Design research, architectural research, architectural design research: An argument on disciplinarity and identity. Design Studies, (65), 152-166.
Maher, M. L., Poon, J. & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalising design exploration as co-evolution: a combined gene approach. In Advances in formal design methods for CAD, In J.S. Gero, and F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD.  London: Chapman and Hall.
March, L. (1984). The Logic of Design. In Developments in design methodology. by Nigel Cross, 265-276. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Price , R. & Straker, K. (2017). The design movement: Two case studies from the edge of the discipline. The Design Journal, 20 (1), 4565-4574.
Rittel, W. J. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155-169.
Tondi, A. & Amrai, B. (2018). Rethinking Design Theory as a System: Content Analysis of Contemporary Design Methodology Studies. Quarterly Journal of theoretical foundations of visual arts. No. 7 (Spring and Summer), 141-154.
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, Invention and the Arts. New Jersy: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar
Volume 20, Issue 120
June 2023
Pages 17-28

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics