Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition

ANONTOLOGYOFDONALDSCHÖN’SREFLECTIONINDESIGNINGJOHNSGEROANDUDOKANNENGIESSERKeyCentreofDesignComputingandCognitionUniversityofSydneyAbstract.ThispaperproposesanontologicalaccountofDonaldSchön’snotionofreflectioninthedomainofdesigning.Weaddresstwoviewsofthisnotion:afunctionalview,describingreflectionasthebasisofamodelofdesigningasaninteractiveprocess,andamechanisticview,modellingreflectionasaprecursorofchangesinthedesign.Weusethefunction-behaviour-structure(FBS)ontologytorepresentboththeseviews.1.TheNotionofReflectioninDesigningDonaldSchön’snotionof“reflection-in-action”(Schön1983;Schön1987)describeshowmostprofessionalpracticeisbasedontheinterconnectionofthinkingandaction.QuotingSchön(1987,p.xi),reflection-in-actionofpractitionersis“thethinkingwhattheyaredoingwhiletheyaredoingit”.Reflectionallowspractitionerstochangethewaytheygoaboutsolvingproblems;orasSchön(1987,p.26)putsit:“Inanaction-present–aperiodoftime,variablewiththecontext,duringwhichwecanstillmakeadifferencetothesituationathand–ourthinkingservestoreshapewhatwearedoingwhilewearedoingit.Ishallsay,incaseslikethis,thatwereflect-in-action.”DesigningisoneofthefieldstowhichSchönapplieshisnotionofreflection-in-action(orinshort:reflection).Hedescribesdesigningasa“reflectiveconversationwiththematerialsofadesignsituation”(Schön1992,p.3),inwhichdesignersinteractwiththeirintermediatedesignrepresentations.Specifically,designerschangetheirviewofthecurrentdesignasaresultofthemgeneratingandinterpretingrepresentationsofthedesign.SchönandWiggins(1992)illustratethisconceptusingthefollowingexcerptfromthedesignprotocolofaschooldesigntask,performedbyafirst-yeararchitecturestudenttheyrefertoasPetra:2J.S.GEROANDU.KANNENGIESSER“Ihadsixoftheseclassroomunitsbuttheyweretoosmalltodomuchwith.SoIchangedthemtothismoresignificantlayout(theL-shapes).Itrelatesgradeonetotwo,threetofour,andfivetosixgrades,whichismorewhatIwantedtodoeducationallyanyway.WhatIhavehereisaspacewhichismoreofahomebase.I’llhaveanoutside/insidewhichcanbeusedandanoutside/outsidewhichcanbeused–thenthatopensintoyourresourcelibrary/languagething.”Theexampleshowsthat“reflective”designingcanbeschematisedas“seeing-moving-seeing”(Schön1992,p.5):Thefirst“seeing”allowsPetratoobserveandevaluatehercurrentdesign,resultingintherecognitionthattheclassroomunitswere“toosmalltodomuchwith”.TheupperpartofFigure1,takenfromSchönandWiggins(1992),showsPetra’sinitialdrawing.Her“moving”,i.e.heractofdrawingamodifieddesignrepresentation(lowerpartofFigure1),aimstosolvethisproblem.Petra’srepeated“seeing”oftheresultsofthisdrawingfinallyincludesasecondjudgment,thattheinitialproblemhasnowbeensolved.Italsoincludestherecognitionofasetofunintended,desirableconsequencesofher“move”,namelythespatialgroupingofproximategrades,andthecreationofa“homebase”andoftwokindsofspaces(“outside/inside”and“outside/outside”).Figure1.Petra’sdrawingsofthelayoutofaclassroom(takenfromSchönandWiggins(1992))AccordingtoSchön’smodel,designconceptsaretheconsequences,intendedorunintended,ofthedesignermovingthroughthestatespaceofANONTOLOGYOFSCHÖN’SREFLECTIONINDESIGNING3possibledesigns.Everystepofthedesignerthroughthatspaceisseenasa“moveexperiment”,whichisthentakenasthebasisforbothevaluatingpreviousdesignconceptsandgeneratingnewdesignconcepts.Reflectionisacognitiveprocessthatisthedriverofthis“interactionofmakingandseeing”(SchönandWiggins1992,p.135).Schön’schoiceoftheterm“reflection-in-action”fitswellwithwhereweseethefocusofhiswork:ontherolethatreflectionplays“inaction”,i.e.itseffectonsubsequentdecisionsduringthedesignprocess.Wecallthisafunctionalviewofreflection,concentratingontheobservablephenomena,i.e.thedesigner’sinteractions,causedbyreflectiveactivitywithinthedesigner.Ontheotherhand,wedefineamechanisticviewofreflection,regardingreflectionasacognitiveprocesswithawell-definedsetofdistinctproperties.Littleworkhasbeendoneinidentifyingthesepropertiesandstudyingreflectionasanunderpinningmechanismratherthanadescriptorfortheinteractivenatureofdesigning.Inthispaper,wewillpresentanontologicalmodelofreflectionthataccountsforboththefunctionalandthemechanisticview.Section2adoptsthefunctionalview.Herewederiveanontologicalmodelofreflectivedesigningfromourearlierworkonthesituatedfunction-behaviour-structure(FBS)framework,whichweapplytotheabovedesignexample.Section3providesanontologicaldescriptionofreflectionfromthemechanisticpointofview.Weshowhowthisdescriptionallowsdelineatingreflectionfromotherprocessesindesigning.Section4concludesthispaperwithasummaryofthebenefitsofourapproach.2.AFunctionalViewofReflection2.1.AFRAMEWORKOFSITUATEDDESIGNINGSituatednessisaparadigmthatcanaccountforthecentralroleofSchön’sreflection-in-actionandrelatedphenomenareportedinempiricalstudiesofdesigners(Suwaetal.1999).Itprovidesaframeworkforunderstandinghowadesigner’sinteractionsaffectbothwhatisdesignedandthedesigner’sexperience(Gero1999),drawingonmodelsofsituatedcognition(Dewey1896;Bartlett1932;Clancey1997;Ziemke1999).GeroandKannengiesser(2004)havemodelledsituateddesigningastherecursiveinteractionbetweenthreedifferen