I have been doing extensive research on the writings of Nigel Cross, Kees Dorst and N Roozenburg, who indicate that abductive reasoning is at the core of the creative design process.
Diego Fullaondo also supports this assertion in his Deakin University Lecture "Elementary Dr Watson"
How can abudctive reasoning be practically applied in the design process?
I am not sure where your question is heading...
Roozenburg, Dorst and Cross identify abductive reasoning as the primary reasoning mode of designers. Which means they apply it in the practices of their design processes. Is your question how abductive reasoning can be taught? Or embedded in methods? Or...
In general I would say the idea of abduction covers most of the spectrum between 'inductive' and 'deductive' thinking processes, And should be seen on this continuum, rather than a completely different form. So starting with those 'ideal' forms and establishing how to strike the balance may be a way forward?
One can easily get over prescriptive when discussing these types of thinking in relation to design. Kees and the others are certainly wise to assert that abduction plays an important part in design thinking. However we must be careful not to assume induction and deduction are either not used or not important. I suggest that good designers have a very flexible thought strategy and can flip between these types of thinking often without even being aware of what we observers might think a crucial difference.
as for examples of abduction in design I think there are two important categories. My one time research student jane Darke famously described the phenomenon of the primary generator in design. This is a sort of glorified guess about the form of solution that might be helpful. They then learn about the problem by exploring this.
Kees and I have stressed in our book design expertise that design education understandably concentrates on developing a knowledge of design solutions. It's a kind of reverse engineering process in which problems are explored through solutions.
one can also see the idea of frames as pioneered by schon and his followers as a kind of abduction. If we frame the situation this way maybe it will be helpful.
this is a good question Rod in the sense that one could easily write a whole book on the subject. Perhaps you should have a go!
Thank you Koen, Kilian and Bryan for your answers.
I am trying to work out a question for a Masters (architecture) thesis, and I am in the process of distilling a question.
You are all right that in design abduction is part of a logical continuum. I was just focusing on abduction in particular with this question in an effort to find my way. Given the feedback I have decided that this question is too narrow in focus. I will post a new question shortly which I think encompasses where I want to go with my research.
Bryan, your positive feedback gives me some assurance that I am going in the right direction.
Kilian, thank you for the references. I will follow them up.
Thank you all once again for you feedback.
BTW Bryan, love your books. I am reading Design Expertise at the moment. Extremely helpful. And yes, I should write my own one day on the topic. ;)
Kind regards
Rod Sutcliffe.
Hi Kilian
I am not surprised that the opportunistic style outperforms a design method. However, I am interested in approaching this from a novices perspective. I imagine that once a novice gains a certain amount of skill, then the need for a rigorous method may no longer be necessary. Bryan Lawson alluded to this in "How Designers Think" with how a person learning the flute needs to very conscious of their lips and fingers, which then becomes subconscious after they develop the skill.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics