Thinking while drawing and drawing to think [video presentation]

Reference: Wallace, N. (2020) Thinking while drawing and drawing to think: Exploring the critical reflective practice of 'reflective doodling'. Design Research Society Conference 2020 Synergy DRS2020, Vol. 1, 204-222. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.187

Video presentation: https://youtu.be/14B7Dp3XebY 

Abstract: This paper attempts to articulate what is typically taci within the process of 'reflective doodling'. By dissecting different types of artefacts created during reflective doodling, the paper demonstrates how this critical reflective practice creates a synergy between design research and design practice. The nuances of reflective doodling are unpacked and its relevance to complex problems is explored through the emergent practice of 'design for transitions'. Discussion reveals the importance of external inputs into the process and explores how the layers of thinking and action embedded in its processes expand the dynamic interplay between research and practice.

My notes: I really enjoyed this paper for the following reasons: it combines a seemingly simple and playful everyday activity that some people tend to dismiss as childish with quite deep and important ideas related to advanced design practices. It's always interesting to see how 'designerly' methods/activities are used to process sophisticated conceptual ideas. I also enjoyed the explicit linkages between practice and research, a topic that deserves more attention to examine 'practice research' more closely as we work to consolidate appropriate methodologies for design research beyond just borrowing from other fields including artistic research, social studies, the humanities, and the sciences. Another reason why I appreciated this paper is that I will be able to use these ideas to rethink one of the assessment items in a course I teach where students have been asked to produce a written essay and a visual essay. This has always puzzled students and the results have been quite mixed. It makes a lot of sense to refine the brief to more specifically guide students in the connection between these essays using reflective doodling.

Sadly, it seems that Niki's PhD thesis is under embargo until 2022:
https://find.library.unisa.edu.au/permalink/f/ihon54/UNISA_ALMA11197619480001831

You can follow her on Twitter: @nikiwallace

Tools to think: writing, sketching, programming, dialogue

Reference: Davis, M. (2013). Research Writing in Design. Design and Culture, 5(1), 7-12.

My notes: Many controversies bubble around the topic of writing and design. It is ironic of course that this brief paper from 2013 by a respected professor in the field has a total of 2 (two) citations until 2020. Some opposition to (academic) writing (and reading) in design comes from a certain resistance to the written text dominating other types of outputs including images, sound, video, etc. To me, this is a straw-man fallacy since it presents an either/or argument. In my own experience, writing has been instrumental from a young age as a tool for thinking. Likewise drawing (not the artistic variety), programming (not the engineering variety), and over the years I have also realised how fundamental is holding a rich dialogue to help me think. In that spirit, I fully agree with Meredith here, we should all read and write more and we should all be teaching more writing including academic writing to design students. But not "just" academic writing as it is taught across academic programmes, we need to work on "designerly" ways of teaching writing.

A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations

Paper: "A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers" by Pei, Campbell and Evans. The Design Journal, 14(1), 2011

Abstract: In the context of new product development (NPD), research has shown that not having a common understanding of visual design representations (VDRs) has affected collaboration between industrial designers and engineering designers. The aim of the research presented in this paper was two-fold. Firstly, to identify the representations employed by industrial designers and engineering designers during NPD from a literature survey. Secondly, to define and categorize these representations in the form of a taxonomy that is a systematic organization of VDRs that are presently dispersed in the literature. For the development of the taxonomy, four measures encompassing orthogonality, spanning, completeness and usability were employed. It resulted in four groups consisting of sketches, drawings, models and prototypes. Validation was undertaken by means of an interview survey and further, presenting the taxonomy at an international conference. The results showed that no issues were raised by the respondents concerning the structure of the taxonomy or its components.

Notes: This is the most useful and complete classification that I've seen of sketches, drawings, models and prototypes used in the design process. I'm surprised that -according to Google Scholar- it has only been referenced once since its publication in 2011. I reallly hope that more design researchers refer to this work, since we really need to build consensus on such fundamental concepts and techniques. I'm using this for teaching and also plan to use it as a key reference for future research papers.