Abstract
Problem framing is an essential element of the design process because it is an important design activity in solving design problems. It is the first part of a cyclical design process which involves “framing”, “moving”, and “reflecting”. Framing activities can be considered as a typical cognitive design process involving several levels. As an essential design activity, framing can be considered an indicator to trace whether digital media changes the way designers engage in their work. The results indicate that problem framing activities are significantly different in an online remote setting as compared to the two other settings. It appears that a chat line-based remote setting does not only facilitate a greater proportion of framing activities, particularly high level framing, but also shows more richly interlinked design activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Corona Martinez, A and Quantrill, M: 2003, The Architectural Project, Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Coyne, R: 2005, Wicked problems revisited, Design Studies 26(1): 5–17.
Cross, AC and Cross, N: 1995, Observations of teamwork and social processes in design, Design Studies 16(2): 143–170.
Cross, N: 2001, Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity, in WC Newstetter (ed), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Cuff, D: 1991, Architecture: The Story of Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Dorst, K: 1995, Analysing design activity: New directions in protocol analysis, Design Studies 16: 139–142.
Eastman, CM: 1968, Explorations of the cognitive processes in design, in Department of Computer Science Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Ericsson, KA and Simon, HA: 1993, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fish, JC: 1996, How Sketches Work: A Cognitive Theory for Improved System Design, the Loughborough University of Technology.
Gabriel, G and Maher, ML: 1999, Coding and modelling communication in architectural collaborative design, in J Bermudez (ed), ACADIA’99, pp. 152–166.
Gabriel, G and Maher, ML: 2000, Analysis of design communication with and without computer mediation, in A Woodcock (ed) Collaborative Design: Proceedings of Co-Designing 2000, Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 329–337.
Gero, JS and Mc Neill, T: 1998, An approach to the analysis of design protocols, Design Studies 19(1): 21–61.
Goldschmidt, G: 1990, Linkography: Assessing design productivity, in R Trappl (ed), Cybernetics and Systems ′90, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 291–298.
Goldschmidt, G: 1995, The designer as a team of one, Design Studies 16(2): 189–209.
Goldschmidt, G and Weil, M: 1998, Contents and structure in design reasoning, Design Issues 14(3): 16.
Jay, E. S. and Perkins, D. N.: 1997, Problem finding: The search for mechanism, in MA Runco (ed), Creativity Research Handbook, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 257–294.
Kvan, T: 2001, The pedagogy of virtual design studios, Automation in Construction 10(3): 345–353.
Kvan, T, Vera, A and West, R: 1997, Expert and situated actions in collaborative design, in JP Barthes (ed), Proceedings of Second International Workshop on CSCW in Design International Academic Publishers, Beijing, pp. 400–405.
Kvan, T, Yip, WH and Vera, A: 1999, Supporting design studio learning: An investigation into design communication in computer-supported collaboration, in CSCL′99 Stanford University, pp. 328–332.
Lawson, B: 1994, Design in Mind, Butterworth Architecture, Oxford England.
Oxman, R: 1995, Viewpoint Observing the observers: Research issues in analysing design activity, Design Studies 16(2): 275–283.
Reitman, WR: 1964, Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of illdefined problems, in GL Bryan (ed) Human Judgements and Optimality, John Wiley, New York.
Robbins, E and Cullinan, E: 1994, Why Architects Draw, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Schon, DA: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
Schon, DA: 1985, The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials, RIBA Publications, London.
Sellen, AJ and Harper, R: 2001, The Myth of the Paperless Office, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Simon, HA: 1984, The structure of ill-structured problem, in N Cross (ed), Developments in Design Methodology, John Wiley.
Wigley, M: 2001, Paper, scissors, blur, in M Wigley (ed), The Activist drawing: Retracing Situationist Architectures from Constant’s New Babylon to BeyondDrawing Center, MIT Press, New York, pp. 27–56.
Zeisel, J: 1984, Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this paper
Cite this paper
KVAN, T., GAO, S. (2006). A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PROBLEM FRAMING IN MULTIPLE SETTINGS. In: GERO, J.S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition ’06. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5131-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5131-9_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5130-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5131-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)