To develop a model for design protocol in the research-based design process in architecture education

Shahab Abbaszadeh; Behrooz Khosrowjerdi; Zohreh Sadat Seyedmoradi

doi:10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2057

To develop a model for design protocol in the research-based design process in architecture education

Authors

Shahab Abbaszadeh Short Bio Hakim Sabzevari University

Shahab Abbaszadeh, I graduated in 2003 with an M.A. in architecture. Then I participated in the design competition at Herat University, and in 2004, I designed two faculties of economics and law at that university. Consequently, I joined the University Putra Malaysia to complete my Ph.D. I was awarded for selecting my Ph.D. thesis as the best thesis in architecture in South Pacific Asia by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in 2008. After getting my Ph.D., I was a permanent university lecturer at the Architecture Department of Hakim Sabzevari University in May 2010. After 11 years of working as a university lecturer, designer, and researcher, I got many valuable achievements, such as; “Supervised more than 50 postgraduate research theses in architectural studies, Published more than 70 journal and conference papers & four books, Received letters of appreciation for my high marks in teaching in several semesters, Awarded as a well-known professor in teaching Design Process, Research Methodology, Conceptual Design, and Design Studio courses, Nominated as the top professor in my faculty for more than six years, Assigned as the reviewer in several top-ranked journals relevant to my research fields, such as the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Supervised eight practical and applicable research–design projects for different state and private organizations in various cities and provinces such as the municipalities of Sabzevar, Kashmar, Shirvan, Tabas, and City Council of Razavieh towards solving architectural and urbanism challenges and issues (I conducted five research - design projects and contributed to two research projects), Leading some university campus projects., I acquired the rank of associate professor in 2017, which introduced me to the youngest associate professor at the university. Shortlisted for the final stage in the category of sea-level rise and nominated as one of the best projects in international competition, the Jacques Rougerie Foundation international architectural competition, in 2021 in French.
Behrooz Khosrowjerdi Short Bio Hakim Sabzevari University

This is Behrooz Khosrowjerdi, a graduate of the field of architecture at the master's level, a researcher, and an architect designer. I started my studies in architecture in 2009 at the undergraduate level, and in this regard, I focused my analysis on the spatial qualities of children; as a result, I completed my thesis on the topic of designing quality-oriented spaces for children. After that, I started my master's degree in 2014 at Hakim Sabzevari University, where I limited my studies to quantifying architectural factors and the effects of digital spaces in environmental psychology. In this regard, I chose my topic on the quantification of factors affecting the design process, which led to the publication of an international and a national article. Currently, I am continuing my studies in the field of artificial intelligence application in the research-based design process.
Zohreh Sadat Seyedmoradi Short Bio Hakim Sabzevari University

This is Zohre Sadat Seyedmoradi. I started my bachelor's degree in architectural engineering in 2010 at Hakim Sabzevari University and finished it in 2014. I immediately studied for a master's degree, and in 2016 I graduated with a master's degree from Hakim Sabzevari University. In my master's, I did research work and completed my thesis titled "Designing the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning with a research-based design approach." During my thesis, I wrote some articles titled "To Development an Analytical Model for the Formation of a Design." "Scenario" in the Research-based Design Process in Architecture" has been published in an international journal. Currently, I am also doing research in the field of the research-based design process.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2057

Keywords:

research-based design process, design protocol, design problem, scheme, spatial-physical program, architecture

Abstract

Despite a great deal of effort has been made to present systematic models of design process, in practice, a lot of designs still proceed through unsystematic methods. It seems that the reason for this is too much emphasizing on describing the final design (product) and little attention to the design process; such that, there is no clear method so as to research-based design. This led to illustrate a distinct pattern from configuration of "design protocol" in terms of research-based design process. The aim of this study is to develop a model that can be used in the architecture educational system. So at first step, the readers of this research are architecture students, and designers can also benefit from it in the next steps. So that all the readers of this research using this model, in a logical process, can recognize the right information for design and ultimately achieve an optimal architectural design. In this research, our preferred context is architecture, and the focus is on research-oriented design; therefore, any given example would be in the field of architecture. In this paper, the proposed process is the result of experience gained from five years teaching architectural design (2) in master's degree that includes three milestones as follows: 1) Statement of problem 2) The scheme and 3) Design protocol. "Statement of design problem" is obtained from people's concerns about "design subject" integrated in its "bed". The scheme, itself, constitutes the expectations, goals and mission representing two sets of information (cognitive and distinction) about design that finally leads to establish a "spatial-body program" of the project. As proceeding from the onset of diagram into the end, we passed from "analyze" into "synthesize" phase. In fact, in «analyze» phase, designer decides to collect and analyze information; however, as the process goes forward, he/she combines the information from the previous phase in order to achieve novel findings. Finally, we hope that by taking advantage of the proposed process, designers can find the best way to accomplish their design projects within a defined framework.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Akin, Ö. (1994). Creativity in design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 9–21.
Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies, 16(2), 211–236.
Al-Sayed, K., Dalton, R. C., & Hölscher, C. (2010). Discursive design thinking: The role of explicit knowledge in creative architectural design reasoning. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(02), 211–230.
Alhusban, A. A. (2012). What Does the Architectural Creative Leap Look Like Through a Conceptual Design Phase in the Undergraduate Architectural Design Studio?
Ann, T. W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., & Hunter, K. (2007). An empirical study of the variables affecting construction project briefing/architectural programming. International Journal of Project Management, 25(2), 198–212.
Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution (Vol. 31). US Institute of Peace Press.
Blosiu, J. O. (1999). Use of synectics as an idea seeding technique to enhance design creativity. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1999. IEEE SMC’99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference On, 3, 1001–1006.
Bogers, T., van Meel, J. J., & van der Voordt, T. J. M. (2008). Architects about briefing: Recommendations to improve communication between clients and architects. Facilities, 26(3/4), 109–116.
Cardoso, C., Badke-Schaub, P., & Eris, O. (2016). Inflection moments in design discourse: How questions drive problem framing during idea generation. Design Studies, 46, 59–78.
Casakin, H. (2008). Factors of Design Problem-Solving and Their Contribution To Creativity. Open House International, 33(1).
Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153–175.
Casakin, H. P. (2007). Metaphors in design problem solving: Implications for creativity. International Journal of Design, 1(2).
Cherry, E. (1999). Programming for design: From theory to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Chiu, S.-H. (2010). Students knowledge sources and knowledge sharing in the design studio an exploratory study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 27–42.
Christiaans, H. H. C. M. (1992). Creativity in design: the role of domain knowledge in designing. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
Christiansson, P., Svidt, K., Sørensen, K. B., & Dybro, U. (2011). User participation in the building process. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 16, 309–334.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143–170.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New Yprk: Harper Collins.
Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem--solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
Duerk, D. P. (1993). Architectural programming: Information management for design. Wiley.
Dykstra, L. D. (2009). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication, and Politeness Theory 2nd ed. edited by SPENCER--OATEY, HELEN. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 646–648.
El Reifi, M. H., Emmitt, S., & Ruikar, K. (2013). Developing a conceptual lean briefing process model for lean design management.
Firrdhaus, M., & Sahabuddin, M. (2011). How Important Is Context in Contemporary Architectural Design.
Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function--behaviour--structure framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373–391.
Gero, J. S., & Mc Neill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1), 21–61.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. 1995. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Goldschmidt, G., & Weil, M. (1998). Contents and structure in design reasoning. Design Issues, 14(3), 85–100.
Haapasalo, H. (2000). Creative computer aided architectural design an internal approach to the design process.
Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2007). What is a problem statement? Library & Information Science Research, 29(3), 307–309.
Hershberger, R. (2015). Architectural programming and predesign manager. Routledge.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hybs, I., & Gero, J. S. (1992). An evolutionary process model of design. Design Studies, 13(3), 273–290.
Imrie, R., & Street, E. (2011). Architectural design and regulation. John Wiley & Sons.
Kokotovich, V., & Purcell, T. (2000). Mental synthesis and creativity in design: an experimental examination. Design Studies, 21(5), 437–449.
Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Bianchi, G., & De Paiva, V. T. (2010). Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 453–476.
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Routledge.
Liu, Y.-T., & Group, A. (1996). Is designing one search or two? A model of design thinking involving symbolism and connectionism. Design Studies, 17(4), 435–449.
Maher, M. Lou, & Poon, J. (1996). Modeling design exploration as co-evolution. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(3), 195–209.
Maher, M., & Tang, H.-H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47–64.
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2016). Culture and psychology. Nelson Education.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts (Bradford Books).
Newell, A. (1966). On the analysis of human problem-solving protocols.
Ogot, M., & Okudan, G. E. (2007). Systematic creativity methods in engineering education: a learning styles perspective. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 566.
Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63–91.
Palmer, M. A. (1981). The architect’s guide to facility programming. Institute.
Parsaee, M., Motealleh, P., & Parva, M. (2015). Interactive architectural approach (interactive architecture): An effective and adaptive process for architectural design. HBRC Journal.
Pena, W. M., & Parshall, S. A. (2012). Problem seeking: An architectural programming primer. John Wiley & Sons.
Pinch, S., Sunley, P., & Macmillen, J. (2010). Cognitive mapping of creative practice: A case study of three English design agencies. Geoforum, 41(3), 377–387.
Poon, J., & Maher, M. Lou. (1997). Co-evolution and emergence in design. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 11(3), 319–327.
Rittel, H. J. W., & Webber, M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems" in N Cross (ed) Developments in Design Methodology New York, John Wiley.
Ruan, X. (2010). What can be taught in architectural design? parti, poch{é}, and felt qualities. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 4(4), 450–455.
Takala, T. (1993). A neuropsychologically based approach to creativity. Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design, 91–108.
Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2013). A systematized theory of creative concept generation in design: first order and high-order concept generation. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 185–199.
Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can traditional divergent thinking tests be trusted in measuring and predicting real-world creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 24–3

Downloads

PDF

353

312

Published

2022-08-31

How to Cite

Abbaszadeh, S., Khosrowjerdi , B., & Seyedmoradi, Z. S. (2022). To develop a model for design protocol in the research-based design process in architecture education. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2022.v3i2057