Fuerzas económicas y financieras (E)

The use of digital tools was an area of considerable interest, and had had a

considerable effect on teaching and learning: “when asked to describe the ‘ideal studio’, it

was very interesting to see how the use of the computer has influenced attitudes towards the provision of facilities for students,” (Schenk 2005, p198). Demirkan (2016), believed their

ubiquity had altered the concept of the traditional ‘studio’ towards “a technology

enhanced active learning space,” (p28). Their benefits to the design process were clear,

providing “limitless space, easy editing… and the digital artefact is simple to store and

transfer,” (Plimmer & Apperley 2002, p10), and are “a medium of considerable promise for the manipulation and storage of visual imagery,” (Fish & Scrivener 1990, p117). They “combine the concreteness of drawings with a light-footedness,” (Arnheim 1993, p16). Schenk

62

(2005) observed that, “certain types of software can help express and even resolve ideas when

limited drawing ability might be problematic… (enabling) good concepts through visually- convincing images that they could not have produced otherwise,” (p195). As a result,

“students no longer have to learn to use drawing to support the erstwhile essential and difficult skills of detailed resolution and rendering,” (Schenk 2005, p200).

Jonson (2005) bemoaned a lack of research into such tools: “the role of sketching may not

have been sufficiently examined or challenged in the digital age, including the view that… CAD is an inappropriate means for conceptualisation,” (p613). Stones & Cassidy (2010) also

described a “tension in the fundamental visual qualities of marks,” (p444) made by manual and digital tools. The sketch “celebrates ambiguity, the computer’s mark, by default…

appears decisive… ambiguity is to be highly valued and thus there is a strong case for

suggesting that paper-based working can aid the reinterpretation of ambiguous marks,” (ibid).

Kavakli et al. (1998) refer to the sketch offering “vagary, inconsistency, and ambiguity…

these characteristics are the anathema of algorithms, they are the essence of design,” (p487).

The problematics of digital tools were evident. Fish & Scrivener (1990) described the

“predictability of many computer sketching functions (that) inhibits… the serendipity that may accompany the vagaries of conventional media,” (p117): “The precision and realism of the image generated by such systems may inhibit the formation of the percept-image hybrids so important in the early stages of problem solving,”(Coyne et al. 2002, p125). Stones &

Cassidy (2010) identified a further issue: “rather than seeing new opportunities, marks are

being compared against the accuracy of a mental image,” this being “more prevalent when working digitally than when working on paper,” (p456).

Leblanc (2015), described student perception of digital tools as “more gratifying” and believed they circumscribed the ideation process to its detriment, “less time is committed

to imagining, exploring or developing ideas and more time to visually enhancing or

embellishing them,” (p-). Eckert et al. (2012) observed this during their Across Design

workshops: “younger members of the various design professions turn to computers too early

63 “frustrated at their inability to develop forms through quick sketches, students turn to 3D CAD modelling too early in the design process, applying time consuming detail before a variety of ideas have been tried and more fundamental issues have been

resolved, like whether it will work or not, i.e. before they have thought it through,” (p5).

Leblanc (2015) suggested that digital tools made it difficult to follow the progress of many students concurrently: “learning from one another and measuring one’s own

performance by comparing it with others are important to education,” (p-). Additionally, she

cautioned, “if tools embellish irrelevant ideas, camouflage problems and give students a false

sense of accomplishment—or worse, are mistaken for ‘good design’—then they may need to be called into question,” (p-).

The digital aesthetic was an issue. Leblanc (2015) believed computers could, “transform

rudimentary visions into something polished, giving the false impression of a ‘finished’ design,”

(p-). Arnheim (1993), had voiced the same concern much earlier: “computers can… be

accused of a seductive irresponsibility, that allows them to ignore the tangible conditions of materials as well as perceptual experience,” (p16). Stones & Cassidy (2010) suggested that

“digital marks have a finished appearance, such as a rendered typeface or a shape selected from a

menu… the digital mark, when used in the early stages of design could… prove destructive and restrictive, unless it is deliberately subverted,” (p442). Coyne et al. (2002) noted that digital

tools, “introduce a language of hygiene… a very clean world compared with the manual

world,” (p272), and suggested, “this property seems to inhibit the use of the computer for sketching,” (ibid). Schenk (2007b) concurred with this: “while computer-aided systems can provide a viable substitute for many of the skill-based drawings associated with the resolution, presentation and production of design solutions, they do not support early ideation,” (p5).

With digital sketching, as opposed to traditional CAD systems, it would appear that ideation could be more easily achievable using this type of platform. However, despite the simplicity of the sketch, Fish & Scrivener (1990) described the problems of creating such a tool: “the suggestive indeterminacies of sketches, so useful for mental processing, thus

constitute one of the hardest denotation systems to manipulate in the typical raster graphics paint box system,” (p224), thus requiring “the study of the invisible mental processes that

64 result in the visible activity of sketching,” (p117). More recently, Plimmer & Apperley

(2002) observed, “the requirements for a sketching medium are simple, yet few existing

computer interfaces facilitate true sketching… providing a sketching interface that is more useable than the more formal alternatives has been technically difficult from both a hardware and software perspective,” (p9).

The effect of digital tools use upon students was evidenced. According to Stones & Cassidy (2010),“students judged their work using a different set of criteria when designing

with the computer and that a finished appearance forms part of that judgement,” (p442). They

warned that students, “mesmerised by the magical powers of computers are losing the ability

to improvise,” (p458) and compared this with what appeared to be a healthier approach

to manual tools: “the sketch was expected to be rough and purely indicative of form,” (p456). Schenk's (2013) study revealed that although digital technology had brought

considerable advantages to the design process, all participants had expressed concern about the lack of drawing skill among students, traditional drawing dropped in favour of adoption of such tools at an early stage in their education. Her research suggested,

“increasing reliance on this technology undermines the acquisition of fundamental drawing abilities for students, with consequences for their creative potential,” (p-). She believed that, “without experience of the ‘physical’ world of paper-based drawing, students will struggle to understand many of the tasks that the digital media have been developed to perform,” (Schenk

2005, p8).

Although the literature pointed to benefits of digital tools at specific points during the design process, the evidence suggested exercising caution in their use during ideation. Indeed, comparison of the two approaches led some to suggest that digital tools may be wholly inappropriate for ideation. Scrivener (1997) referred to his survey of

architectural practices where a variety of ideation tools were available for use – despite this, he noted that most conceptualisation was conducted through the use of manual sketching. Stones & Cassidy (2010) referred to Goel’s (1995) comparative work, noting that notwithstanding the use of digital ideation tools, reinterpretation levels (and

65

thereby, creativity), were much greater during the use of sketching. Similarly, Bilda and Demirkan’s (2003) protocol experiments demonstrated that analogue media offered an advantage over digital tools in enabling identification of visuo-spatial cues during ideation. Designer behaviour during ideation was noted by Lim (2003) as “fast

and ambiguous yet creative, and most of the designers are still relying on the conventional media – pen-and-paper” (p616). Ironically, Landay (1996) noted that despite the ubiquity

of digital tools, “designers admit that they trace over their computer output with pen to

present a first draft to clients,” (p10) – possibly supporting the notion of the sketch

providing ambiguity and a less finalised aesthetic more appropriate to that stage of the design process.

Despite their clear benefits, Schenk (2005) offered advice as to the use of digital tools during ideation: “student designers still need to improve their drawing abilities,” (2007b, p13). They “must still achieve clarity in their imagining and ideation before moving into the

digital domain and that gaining experience of traditional drawing methods (is) the best way to achieve this,” (p201), “the best ‘software’ they have access to is always in their heads and the best interface with this software is through their use of drawing,” (2007a, p9).

Phase II findings: Sketch Inhibition

_{- Objective 4}

2.4.4.

To establish the extent of sketch inhibition as a phenomenon and whether this is problematic to the design process.

The literature provided no quantifiable data relating to the extent of inhibition within higher education. However, a useful taxonomy was provided by Booth et al. (2015) that identified several specific forms of sketch inhibition. Individual inhibition, (that pertaining to the sufferer alone), could be caused by a lack of awareness of the benefits of the activity, (an intellectual inhibition). Skill set inhibition was another form, caused

2 _{to prevent confusion with Turnitin, it must again be pointed out that much of the literature considered} within this section has previously been published in Thurlow & Ford (2017), Thurlow & Ford (2018a), Thurlow & Ford (2018b) and Thurlow, Ford & Hudson (2018).

66

through lack of exposure and experience with sketching. Additionally, personal inhibition embodied the lack of flow caused by not being in the mood to sketch (situational inhibition), or the need for perfection in output.

Social inhibition was also identified by Booth et al. (2015); the fear of judgement by others and the comparisons made between output of individuals causing anxiety. Farzaneh et al. (2012), (from Diehl & Stroebe 1987), referred to social loafing – an issue in group situations (and a common phenomenon in HE studios), a lack of participation and input on the part of weaker or inhibited individuals fuelled by either fear of criticism or laziness. Technological inhibition was also cited by Booth et al. (2015), describing the preference for individuals to defer their activity towards, more often than not, digital tools.