Sufrir

The multi-faceted nature of design has made it difficult for design researchers to find a framework in which to effectively describe design. As demonstrated in the above review of design research, to deal with the complex nature of design, researchers have considered the various facets of design in isolation. There is no one movement in design research that holistically studies design-as-practice that is both the formulation of the design as well as its execution.

Writers concerned with describing design practice, such as the above-mentioned authors, have tried to unpack design practice by analysing the design process. A large portion of descriptive research about design focuses exclusively on the design process, to develop more effective design methods (Lawson 2005:33; Dorst 2008:5).

Dorst (2008:5) and critiqued design research, stating that it places too much emphasis on the design process, and neglects other areas of the design activity that make up a designer’s practice. Design process is thus studied in isolation from the other facets of design.

The focus on design process in design research, has led to disparity between academia and practice; as designers focus on the outcome of a design project, whereas academia focuses on the process of design (Tan 2012: 37, Cross 2011:6).

According to Tan (2012:43), research concerning design has focused predominantly on design process models, overlooking all other facets of design and, in doing so, disengaged research from practicing designers. Press & Cooper (2003:127) further highlight that design research has distanced itself from the real-world practice of designers. This has impoverished the theoretical base of design, and distanced practicing designers from design theory (Press & Cooper 2003:127).

31 2.3.5. Dorst’s framework

2.3.5.1. Introduction

In his article Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen, Dorst (2008:5) suggests bridging the gap between theory and practice, by considering all the facets of design and their relationship with each other. These facets are identified by Dorst (2008:5) as being:

 The object, the design problem and its emerging solution;

 the design process, the structure and dynamics of the activity;

 the actor, the expertise of the designer or the design team; and

 the context, in which the activity takes place.

Tan (2012:25) strongly agrees with Dorst’s idea that all of the facets of design have to be considered to provide a more comprehensive description of design. Dorst (2008:7) states that “a deeper understanding of design activity can only be built when we start considering all aspects of the design activity”, the content, context and the designer.

A brief description of each facet of Dorst’s proposed framework for the study of design are given in 2.3.5.2 to 2.5.3.4. The descriptions are brief as they are not meant to be explanations of each facet, but rather an overview of the existing knowledge, framing each of Dorst’s facets. Through understanding each of these facets, it will be easier to identify a suitable framework that can be used to holistically study all of these facets.

2.3.5.2. The first facet of Dorst’s framework: The object

To describe design practice, each of the facets that form part of design has to be considered. The first facet is the object and objective of the design activity, namely the design problem and the design solution (Dorst 2008:5). Many designers have spoken of design as a problem-solving activity and design practices have been formed to deal with these complex problems, by effectively designing objects, systems or ideas that serve as solutions (Dorst 2011:522). Accordingly, design practices have developed in response to human needs; these needs are dealt with as problems that inform and motivate the design process (Dorst 2011:522).

32 According to Cross (2011:22), one of the most influential studies aimed at describing the professional practice of designers has been that of Donald Schön. Schön (cited by Cross 2011:22) concludes that designers interact with a design by exploring the implications of the design problem they are faced with, in order to investigate possible solutions. As such, design can thus be described as a process that develops solutions to match problem concepts (Cross 2011:11).

Buchanan (1998:12) states that designers are successful in solving everyday problems because they focus on the design objective, rather than the technocracy of scientific specialisations. Several design practices were developed in the twentieth century, in order to resolve the diverse fundamental problems faced by society (Buchanan 1998:13). By taking into consideration framing and problem-solving, the process of design activity has the ability to resolve many of these issues (Buchanan 1998:12).

COMMUNICATION

Signs & Words

CONSTRUCTION

Things

STRATEGIC PLANNING Action

SYSTEMIC INTEGRATION Thought

INVENTING Signs Symbols,

& Images

JUDGING Physical Objects

DECIDING Activities,

Services,

& Processes

EVALUATING Systems,

Environments, Ideas, & Values

Figure 2.1 Human abilities and design disciplines (Buchanan 1998:13).

Buchanan (1998:13) outlines the different categories of fundamental problems encountered by designers, or the “places of invention” that inform a designer’s thought process in the following four areas:

- First area: Signs, symbols and images.

- Second area: Physical objects.

33 - Third area: Activities, services and processes.

- Fourth area: Systems, environments, ideas and values.

Buchanan (1998:13) describes these as areas where “designers continue to focus and reinvent their professions to meet new opportunities and circumstances”, defining design practice as a problem-solving activity, motivated by specific human objectives.

Thus, different design disciplines were developed in an effort to resolve specific human problems (Buchanan 1998:13). Furthermore, Buchanan (1998:13) states that these problems are solved through the design abilities of humans, as all human beings possess natural design abilities, which he describes as invention, judgment, decision making and evaluation. It is, however, only through the different disciplines of design practice that these abilities become operative (Buchanan 1998:13). Buchanan’s (1998:13) matrix as shown in Figure 2.1 highlights the areas in which design thinking is used to resolve various areas of perceived human problems. The first facet of design practice is thus the objective or design problem that needs resolution.

2.3.5.3. The second facet of Dorst’s framework: The design process

A design process constitutes the actions or steps taken to complete a design project (Lawson & Dorst 2009:62). Thus, the structure and dynamics of the design activity can be defined as the ‘design process’ (Dorst 2008:5). According to Tina Bobbe, Christian Woelfel & Jens Kryzwinski (2016:1205), for as long as engineering and product design have been a part of academia, there have been efforts to formulate design process models. This section will briefly outline some of the literature relating to the many different design processes.

Since the early 1960s, design processes have been coded and categorised.

Subsequently, there are as many different design process models as there are design disciplines (Tan 2012:24). One of the earlier examples of a design process is that of Roozenburg & Ekels (cited by Ralph 2013:11), who developed a sequential product design process, consisting of analysis, synthesis, simulation, evaluation and decision-making. Jorge Frascara (2004:95-96) summarised the design process used by communication designers as:

 commission of the project;

 collection of information;

34

 second definition of the problem;

 definition of objectives;

 third definition of the problem;

 development of the design proposal;

 presentation to the client;

 organisation of production;

 supervision of implementation, and evaluation of performance.

Frascara’s summary identifies the phases in the design process as various stages of problem definition, research, presentation and execution (Frascara 2004: 95).

McKelvey & Munslow (2012:2) consider the fashion design process, by looking at the various elements involved in a designer’s decision-making process. These elements are identified as research, design, development, colour, texture, silhouette, proportion, construction, prototypes, embellishment and specialist areas. McKelvey & Munslow (2012:2) continue to analyse the fashion designer’s process and claim that this process starts with the design brief and continues through the various stages of research, design development, prototyping and solution development.

Design process models are not only followed in Academia but also in industry and practice. The Design Council developed the ‘double diamond design process’

constituent to the different modes of thinking followed by designers. This is based on a study of design processes used by leading global companies (Design Council 2007:[sa])¹⁰. According to Vikki Du Preez, Veronica Barnes & Rael Futerman (2013:6) the phases of the double diamond process can be summarised as:

 discovery: a period of discovery through inspiration-gathering and problem-identification;

 definition: a period of making sense of the discoveries, and using the possibilities identified in the discovery phase;

 development: a period of developing, refining and prototyping solutions;

 delivery: the finalisation and delivery of the resulting solution.

10The Design Council is an independent charity organisation based in London, which advises government on issues related to design (Design Council [sa])

35

DISCOVER DEFINE DEVELOP DELIVER

Figure 2.2 The Double Diamond Design Process model (Design Council 2007:[sa]).

Another example of design processes followed in industry are the mechanisms developed by IDEO¹¹. In their Design Thinking for Educators toolkit, IDEO presents their design process as discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation and evolution (IDEO 2017:13). In their field guide to human-centred design, their process is presented as inspiration, ideation and implementation (IDEO 2015:1). These design processes were developed by IDEO for use as practical implementation of design thinking, in the development of human-centred design solutions (IDEO [sa]).

It is clear from the above examples that there are many design process models, both in academia and practice. Lawson (2005:30) suggests that there might be as many different design processes as there are designers. Before 2000 the design process models were linear in their presentation, suggesting that a design process consists of a series of sequential steps (Bobbe et al 2016:1205). Process models were presented as maps, so as to chart the design process from beginning to end (Lawson 2005:23).

According to Lawson (2005:29) these maps are often both theoretical and prescriptive, and make broad assumptions about the practice of designers. Although some designers might prefer a more structured and strategic approach to design, the activities that make up designers’ process are often more fluid and varied than sequential (Lawson 2005:30).

11IDEO is a global design consulting firm that follows a human-centred methodology to inform their design process (IDEO [sa]).

36 Design researchers agree with the notion that design process models need to be more multi-dimensional and flexible (Bobbe et al 2016: 1206). Therefore, when considering design process as one of the facets in Dorst’s model for studying design practice, mapping the individual designer’s activities would not be the most useful approach.

Instead, commonalities in the structure and dynamics of multiple designers’ activity should be identified and related to the other components of their activity. This should be done without sequentially mapping the structure of the activity.

2.3.5.4. The third facet of Dorst’s framework: The actor

Dorst (2008:10) suggests that designers − the actors in the design activity − can be described by consideration of their expertise. Dorst (2008:10) defines design expertise as the ways in which designers approach design projects. Waite & Hawker (2009:805) also consider the way in which designers approach design as their ‘role’, their position, or their responsibilities. Bruce (cited by Tan 2012:45) describes the position of the designer as a set of norms that governs the role of designers. Thus, to formulate a description of what it is that designers ‘do’ one has to consider their role in the design activity, as informed by their expertise.

Lawson and Dorst (2009:82) define design expertise as the “characteristics, skills and knowledge that distinguish experts from novices” in any field of design. Some of the skills and characteristics of a designer are identified by Press & Cooper (2003:7) as being a “craft maker, cultural intermediary and opportunistic entrepreneur”, as well as a researcher, communicator and active citizen. Considering the skills and characteristics of an individual designer is thus one way of identifying expertise.

Another way would be in taking into consideration the designer’s experience; a novice is someone who lacks experience and, therefore, does not yet have a sound understanding of design. Typically, a novice likes to follow strict rules in order to deal with a problem (Lawson & Dorst 2009:99). An expert, on the other hand, is someone who has developed expertise over time, through experience gained from study and practice (Lawson & Dorst 2009:82;99; Gulari 2015:2). An expert, therefore, has the knowledge and confidence to work more intuitively (Lawson & Dorst 2009:82;99).

37 Cross (2004:429) defines an expert as someone who has the ability to problem-solve.

In most disciplines, novices resolve problems by starting at the bottom and working their way up, whilst experts predominantly approach a problem from the top down, along with the scale of the issue (Cross 2004:429). Expert designers use problem-decomposing strategies, which the novice designer does not yet possess (Cross 2004:429). Designers who are defined as being experts are also recognised as being solution-focused, as opposed to being problem-focused (Cross 2004:439). Thus, expertise not only concerns the skills and knowledge of the designer, but also his or her ability to apply those skills and knowledge to problem solving.

Expertise is thus developed through experience, study, and practice and can be recognised by the designers’ ability to formulate, perceive, and solve problems (Lawson & Dorst 2009:82; Cross 2004:439; Gulari 2015:2). Furthermore, expertise does not often only lie with one individual, but rather with a team of people; a discipline or group of practitioners can share knowledge, skills and characteristics (Lawson &

Dorst 2009:82; Press & Cooper 2006:3). Therefore, Dorst’s model suggests that, when studying the practice of designers, design experts must be the subject of study, and their expertise or ways of doing, identified.

2.3.5.5. The fourth facet of Dorst’s framework: The context

The final facet of Dorst’s (2008:5) framework considers the context in which the activity takes place. One way in which design context can be understood is by looking at the type of artefacts designers create (Bauer, Newman & Kientz 2014:422). This categorisation can be unpacked even further, as these artefacts can also have their own contexts. A Fashion designer’s context, for example, is not only defined by the artefact they create – garments − but also by the market category for which the garments are produced. Faerm (2017:24-26) names these categories as Haute Couture, Designer, Bridge, Contemporary, Moderate, Tweens, or Juniors and Budget.

Context is also defined by the objective of an activity (Engeström 1999:31; Kuutti 1997:27). Thus, the proposed outcome of the design activity further determines the context. According to Buchanan (1998:13), different design practices in the twentieth century were developed to resolve the various fundamental human problems.

Buchanan (1998:13) outlined the different categories of problems encountered by

38 designers as signs, symbols and images, physical objects, activities, services and processes, as well as systems, environments, ideas and values. These problem categories also define the design context.

2.4. Activity Theory, as suitable framework for describing design

2.4.1. Introduction

Dorst (2008:5) highlights the need for a more inclusive and holistic approach to the study of design practice. According to Dorst (2008:5), design methods and processes have been studied, while neglecting other aspects of design practices, such as the problem, context, or the role of the expert designer (Dorst 2008:5). Therefore, Dorst (2008:5) expresses a need to develop a framework that could be used to describe a

“complex creative human endeavour like design”. Dorst continues by proposing that such a framework would need to describe the object of the activity, the actor, the context, as well as the complex activities of the design process (Dorst (2008:5).

In an overview of design research, Kuutti (2011:1) identifies what he refers to as a

“gaping hole”. According to Kuutti (2011:1), neither artefacts nor design practice are a topic of study in design research. The only instances in which design practice and artefacts are studied are in ethnographic studies of design (Kuutti 2011:1). According to Kuutti (2011:4), an approach is needed, allowing for the study of design practice, whilst also considering the artefact, or the object of the design practice.

In response to Dorst’s and his own observations, Kuutti (2011:5) identifies Activity Theory as being one of a few theories that provides a theoretical framework within which to study the complex practice of design. Activity Theory is a theory concerned with describing human practice, whilst considering the interaction and relationships between the human, the artefact, and the social environment (Kuutti 2011:5).

Originally utilised in psychological studies, it has been expanded into a more general, multi-disciplinary approach, and has already gained a foothold in design research (Kuutti 2011:5). Kuutti (2011:5) proposes that Activity Theory, as a theoretical framework, addresses the gaps in design research identified by himself and Dorst.

39 2.4.2. Activity Theory as framework

Activity Theory, as a theoretical framework, allows for a more holistic and inclusive approach to studying and describing the practice of designers, as Activity Theory is interested in describing “purposeful human actions”, within the context of the activity (Kuutti 2011:5). Activity Theory postulates that an activity has a subject completing the activity, with a specific object or objective in mind, and this action is mediated through material and intellectual tools (Kuutti 2011:5). An activity also includes rules, community, and the division of labour (Engeström 1999:31). Activity Theory is thus a suitable framework for describing design, as it places human-made artefacts (the objects) at the centre of the framework, whilst also considering the actions that created each object (Kuutti 2011:5). This approach allows for holistic study of the design activity, considering the object of the activity, the actor, the context, as well as the design process.

Figure 2.2 demonstrates the relationship between the components of a designer’s practice and Activity Theory. The components of the activity system model can be applied to the components of a designer’s activity, in order to describe their practice.

Figure 2.3 Design-as-practice, 2017 (Figure developed by author).

40 Figure 2.2 shows how all the components in Dorst’s framework have been linked to Activity Theory. The subject considers the role of the expert designer, and the object considers the design problem and the emerging solution. Dorst’s framework does not consider design methods. The act of designing is, however, difficult to conduct as a purely internal cognitive process. It is necessary for the designer to interact with an external representation of his/her design ideas or thinking (Cross 2011:12). For this reason, the tool(s) or method(s) of working are also integral to a designer’s practice (Bürdek 2005:13, Cross 2011:12). The type of design problem, the rules, stakeholders, and division of labour all provide the context for the design activity. All of these facets culminate to make up the structure and dynamics of the activity, ‘the design process’. Activity Theory as a theoretical framework to describe design-as-practice will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.

2.5. Conclusion

Fashion design-as-practice is highlighted as a neglected topic in fashion theory.

Studies pertaining to dress originated with a need to understand why humans began wearing clothing (Kawamura 2011:3). This curiosity led to historians tracking the social changes and motives that influenced the development of costume (Kawamura 2011:3). Studies around fashion further developed in the twentieth century, taking into account people, and society’s relationships with fashion, specifically in terms of the social and economic motivations informing fashion trends (Jenss 2016:4). By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the study of fashion had evolved into a complex and inter-disciplinary field, taking into consideration fashion as a material, historical, cultural, psychological and sociological phenomenon (McNeil 2010:105; Breward 2016:xviii). This created an in-depth understanding of society’s relationship with fashion, yet neglecting fashion design-as-practice. This lack of theory concerning fashion practitioners, creates a gap between fashion theory and practice, and our understanding of design from the fashion designer’s point of view.

To describe the practice of fashion designers, it is necessary to look at the activity of design within the broader design discourse. To situate fashion design-as-practice

To describe the practice of fashion designers, it is necessary to look at the activity of design within the broader design discourse. To situate fashion design-as-practice

In document Ciencias de la Salud (página 132-137)