Design Talk: Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations

Fleming, David H.

doi:10.2307/1511850

Cited by 40 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The benefit of this notion of how the individual designer ''integrates'' into the team structure, is that it retains the individual as a cognizing subject, while explaining how the ''frames'' of the experiential learning theory may be integrated into a social system without being separated from the individual. It is also supportive of other empirical findings, which suggests that designers make extensive use of persuasion in their relationship with the group, and indeed that design often proceeds through discursive moves between team members rather than solely or even primarily through the manipulation of images or other visual medias (Brereton, Cannon, Mabogunje, & Leifer, 1996;Fleming, 1998;Trousse & Christiaans, 1996).…”

Section: Theoretical Overviewsupporting

confidence: 74%

The individual vs. the group? Individualization and collectivity among students in collaborative design

Hellström¹

2006

Int J Technol Des Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The various modes in which individuals relate to the collectivity of a group have been fruitfully explored in research on group dynamics. The present paper applies a phenomenological interview approach to understand how this dynamic relationship plays out among design students in a collaborative design situation. Through deep-interviews with the members of a temporary design group, a number of dimensions for this relationship were uncovered. These individual-group characteristics related to instrumentality of engagement, experience of ambivalence and threat and finally to the process of individualization in which the group enabled an individual ''design self''. After having presented the theoretical underpinnings and the empirical results of this study, the paper ends with suggesting a synthesis perspective of the individual-group relation in collaborative design.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Overviewsupporting

confidence: 74%

The individual vs. the group? Individualization and collectivity among students in collaborative design

Hellström¹

2006

Int J Technol Des Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, this paper relates to work done on design's relationship to interaction (e.g. Cross and Clayburn Cross 1995;Fleming 1998;Lloyd and Busby 2001;Luck 2007;Oak 2000Oak , 2001Oak , 2006Stumpf and McDonnell 2002;and, in this special issue Glock, Luck, Mathews and McDonnell).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performing architecture: Talking ‘architect’ and ‘client’ into being

Oak

2009

CoDesign

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores how the roles or social categories 'architect' and 'client' are performed by participants as they meet to talk about the design of a crematorium. The analytic framework through which the interaction is studied is Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA). By attending to the participants' talk through the perspectives of MCA, we can see how questions and answers, attributions of building ownership, and assessments of the building are enacted in ways that enable the participants to competently perform as 'architect' and 'client'. Thus, as well as the participants' interaction helping to shape the actual form of the building, it also helps to shape and perpetuate ideas concerning what it is to 'do' architecture.

show abstract

“…Instead tutors supported students by ''cruising'' the studios, responding to requests for assistance and sitting down to discuss individual work. These discussions were ''deictic'' in nature-that is, tied to context and highly referential (Fleming, 1998;Mazijoglou et al, 1996)-the topic being the student's particular design or ideas for designs. They usually resembled an informal chat, although slightly more formal ''one-to-ones'' were also organized to ensure that tutors saw all students on a regular basis; these took place in the course offices and seminar room that were partitioned off in one corner of the first year studio.…”

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been enlightening discussions of the ''deictic''-that is, context-tied and highly referential-language used by designers (Mazijoglou, Scrivener, & Clark, 1996) and of the functional uses to which this is put in design classrooms (Fleming, 1998). Other commentators have considered how individual design domains develop their own means of communication.…”

Section: The Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum

Logan

2007

Int J Technol Des Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the ways in which the long-established tradition of the design 'practicum' continues to structure teaching and learning in undergraduate programmes. It draws on an in-depth empirical study of one degree course in graphic design and accompanying research in a small number of professional graphic design studios; this dual focus enables identification of shared practices and discourses across the two contexts. Examination of its distinctive modes of teaching and learning indicates the effectiveness of practicum pedagogy in promoting design understanding and the professional preparation of students. The study's insights into the design classroom are illuminated by situated theories of learning, particularly the idea that knowing equates to participation in the specialist knowledge community of graphic design. A key feature of the learning situation is identified as the practicum discourse shared by tutors and learners, which is characterized as metaphor-based rather than analytical and abstract. The strengths and limitations of this practiceoriented discourse are discussed in the light of the recognized difficulties in articulating art and design knowledge, and its consequent problematic status in the academy. The paper's focus on metaphorical discourse offers a different view of design pedagogy, and suggests a means of researching it that may also be relevant to other practice-oriented domains.

show abstract

Design Talk: Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations

Cited by 40 publications

References 0 publications

The individual vs. the group? Individualization and collectivity among students in collaborative design

The individual vs. the group? Individualization and collectivity among students in collaborative design

Performing architecture: Talking ‘architect’ and ‘client’ into being

Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About