Abstract
This paper reports findings from the first systematic review of protocol studies focusing specifically on conceptual design cognition, aiming to answer the following research question: What is our current understanding of the cognitive processes involved in conceptual design tasks carried out by individual designers? We reviewed 47 studies on architectural design, engineering design and product design engineering. This paper reports 24 cognitive processes investigated in a subset of 33 studies aligning with two viewpoints on the nature of designing: (V1) design as search (10 processes, 41.7%); and (V2) design as exploration (14 processes, 58.3%). Studies on search focused on solution search and problem structuring, involving: long-term memory retrieval; working memory; operators and reasoning processes. Studies on exploration investigated: co-evolutionary design; visual reasoning; cognitive actions; and unexpected discovery and situated requirements invention. Overall, considerable conceptual and terminological differences were observed among the studies. Nonetheless, a common focus on memory, semantic, associative, visual perceptual and mental imagery processes was observed to an extent. We suggest three challenges for future research to advance the field: (i) developing general models/theories; (ii) testing protocol study findings using objective methods conducive to larger samples and (iii) developing a shared ontology of cognitive processes in design.
Highlights
In his work on the principles of engineering design, Hubka (1982, p. 3) notes that designing ‘is a very personal activity, and can probably only be performed by one person as an internal and somewhat subjective process’
This paper reports findings from the first systematic review of protocol studies focusing on conceptual design cognition, aiming to answer the following research question: What is our current understanding of the cognitive processes involved in conceptual design tasks carried out by individual designers? Protocol analysis involves interpreting subjective verbal reports of a designer’s cognitive processing provided during or after completion of a design task (Ericsson & Simon 1984; van Someren, Barnard & Sandberg 1994; Gero & Tang 2001), along with other aspects such as sketches and motor actions (Suwa, Purcell & Gero 1998a; Park & Kim 2007)
Our review forms part of a broader effort to provide a more unified view of the field, and the remaining cognitive processes will be reported in a future paper on this theme
Summary
In his work on the principles of engineering design, Hubka (1982, p. 3) notes that designing ‘is a very personal activity, and can probably only be performed by one person as an internal and somewhat subjective process’. In his work on the principles of engineering design, Hubka 3) notes that designing ‘is a very personal activity, and can probably only be performed by one person as an internal and somewhat subjective process’. The nature of design as an internal cognitive activity has been a focus of design research for a number of decades, with Cross 79) citing studies by Charles Eastman in the late 1960s as the starting point for much of the enquiry in this area. There has been a proliferation of empirical studies on design cognition (Dinar et al 2015). The cognitive processes and information used by designers whilst designing (Visser 2004). Dinar et al (2015) reviewed empirical design cognition In spite of the considerable body of empirical work, several authors highlight that the nature of the cognitive processes involved in conceptual design remains unclear (e.g. Dorst & Cross 2001; Jin & Benami 2010; Kim & Ryu 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
