Abstract
Through the concept of design thinking the act of designing is presented as an intellectual activity, and the act of planning the design is elevated over the making process. However, the importance of materiality and the embodied sense-making that occurs in this context should not be forgotten. In this study, embodied cognition in design and craft practices was investigated through three case studies. The study takes on an enhanced tactile perspective as a methodological platform; thus, the cases involve 1) deafblind makers in ceramics, 2) a practice-led self-study report on tactile experiences while working with clay and 3) a study on design students’ use of their tactile sense during material exploration. The results show that the act of thinking design involves the body as a knowledge provider.
Highlights
While research in interaction design for some time has utilised the theory developed within embodied cognition in relation to tangible interfaces (Dourish, 2001; Hornecker & Buur, 2006; Höök, 2010; Hornecker, 2011; Trotto & Hummels, 2013; Hummels & Van Dijk, 2015; Wilde, Tomico, Lucero, Höök & Buur, 2015), this theoretical framework has only quite recently been touched on within general product design or craft research and has been slow to influence the concept of design thinking
What was traditionally understood as a study of the cognitive processes of the designer, Design Thinking is more popularly seen as a way to understand customer needs through the use of methods from design practice (Kimbell, 2011; Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla & Cetinkaya, 2013)
The results of this study suggest that the physical making and crafting of a design involves the embodied mind
Summary
While research in interaction design for some time has utilised the theory developed within embodied cognition in relation to tangible interfaces (Dourish, 2001; Hornecker & Buur, 2006; Höök, 2010; Hornecker, 2011; Trotto & Hummels, 2013; Hummels & Van Dijk, 2015; Wilde, Tomico, Lucero, Höök & Buur, 2015), this theoretical framework has only quite recently been touched on within general product design or craft research (for examples, see Poulsen & Thorgensen, 2010; Rompay & Ludden, 2013; Rompay, Hekkert & Muller, 2005; Fredriksen, 2011; Kangas, 2014; Ojala, 2013; Tin, 2013; Nimkulrat, 2009, 2012; RamdunyEllis, Dix, Evans, Hare & Gill, 2010) and has been slow to influence the concept of design thinking. Traditional research in design cognition (Cross, Christiaans, & Dorst, 1996; Cross, 1982, 1984, 2001, 2011; Dorst, 1995; Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995; Purcell & Gero, 1998; Akin, 1997; Akin & Lin, 1995; Rowe, 1987; Goldschmidt, 1995, 1997, 2001) has developed models around problem solving and strategies for framing the ‘wicked’ (Rittel & Weber, 1984; Buchanan 1992) or ill-defined (Goel & Pirolli, 1992) design problems (for an overview see Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al, 2016 in this special issue.) Designing is presented as a predominantly intellectual activity, in contrast to its practical nature This view, plausible in the way it portrays the designer as a thinker, separates designing and making into two entities, leaving making behind as merely part of the implementation phase. Making or crafting the design idea is situated at the end of the design process (Cross, 2011, p. 4), seemingly not requiring intellectual activity
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 callMore From: FormAkademisk - forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk
Disclaimer: 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.
