Assessing the use of metaphors in the design ... - Semantic Scholar

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2006, volume 33, pages 253 ^ 268

DOI:10.1068/b3196

Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process

Hernan P Casakin

Department of Architecture, The College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel, Israel; ESLab (Environmental Simulation Laboratory), Department of Geography and the Human Environment, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel e-mail: [email protected] Received 10 August 2004; in revised form 17 May 2005

Abstract. Metaphors enable the understanding of a concept in terms of another concept which is generally not associated with it. In problem-solving tasks, reasoning by metaphors has a significant influence in the development of innovative ideas. In the design domain metaphors help to structure thinking, and represent situations from a new viewpoint. Despite the frequent use of metaphors in design practice, no empirical work has studied in depth the role played by metaphors during the whole design process. In this research the aid and complexity of the use of metaphors are explored in the different phases of the design process. These phases deal with the definition of design concepts and framing of design situations, the generation of goals and constraints, and the mapping and application of structural relationships to the design problem.

1 Introduction Metaphors are considered to be powerful problem-solving tools for dealing with design tasks. They enable structural alignments to be established between the design problem and other remote domains, and help to project a system of deep relations that can help to deal with the problem at hand (Gentner et al, 2001). The architectural-design literature offers a collection of anecdotal stories and some examples of buildings designed by metaphorical reasoning. However, empirical evidence concerned with the success of metaphorical reasoning in design problem-solving is yet to be provided. This research explores the use of metaphors in different stages of the design process. An experiment is conducted in order to investigate metaphors in the stages concerned with the creation of design concepts and the framing of design situations, the definition of goals and constraints, and the mapping and application of structural relationships to the design problem. First, a brief literature review regarding metaphorical reasoning as a tool for creating new concepts is presented. The use of metaphors in problem-solving, and in design problem-solving in particular, is then analyzed. Examples of the use of metaphors in architectural design are illustrated. In a second part, an empirical research project is carried out in a design studio. Qualitative and quantitative results obtained from the use of metaphors by students during the design process are evaluated. A summary and main conclusions concerning the aid and complexity of applying metaphorical reasoning in design are finally presented. 1.1 Metaphorical reasoning and the creation of new concepts

Concepts are frequently applied in a variety of ways. For example, a concept can be considered to define and characterize a specific situation. The judgment we have regarding a situation will depend on our experiences and expectations of it. A common difficulty of using concepts in problem-solving situations is the inability to refer to a concept independently of the situation to which it is linked. According to Scho«n (1966), abstracting a concept from a particular situation enables generalizations, and allows the concept to be applied in more than a single situation. Rather than viewing a

254

H P Casakin

situation as something immutable, a basic condition for the creation of new concepts is to understand them from a number of different viewpoints. The process of abstraction is what allows a distinction to be made between a concept and the particular situations in which it is embedded. Concepts can be understood as the base of expectations on which we structure our experiences (see, for example, Lakoff, 1987). These concepts furnish the theory that people may have about the world. Likewise, the way a person represents a problem depends on the theory, expectations, and propositions that allow him or her to deal with that problem (see, for example, Wittgenstein, 1953). These aspects are intimately related to the materialization of new concepts, which can be featured according to different degrees of novelty. Scho«n (1966) referred to the structuring of a situation in terms of concepts that are unfamiliar for that situation as a `displacement of concepts'. In this process concepts are transformed and are subsequently displaced to situations remote from their usual use. Displaced concepts are thus extensions of old concepts that embrace new theories, and new views of a specific situation. For example, seeing an airport as a kind of labyrinth means that the traditional concept of àirport' has been changed. The displacement of a concept can be considered as a result of a process of metaphorical reasoning. The Greek word metaphora means transfer. Transferring one concept to another enables us to see one thing as another thing. In other words, a metaphor makes it possible to comprehend a concept in terms of another concept that is usually not associated to the first one (Lakoff, 1987; Ortony, 1991). A metaphor can be considered as a juxtaposition of two things which share certain characteristics in common but which differ in others. For example, to say that à house is a small city' (Karmi, 2001) implies a transference from concepts connected to the city to the concept of a house. Although, literally speaking, a house is not a small city, what is meant here is that a metaphor in itself can be seen as an act of interpretation that breaks away from the boundaries of logical inference (Snodgrass and Coyne, 1992). At first sight a metaphor can seem to lack any sense, but in a second thought it can bring to mind new ways of considering things. In the example illustrated above, the metaphor is not restricted to a simple linguistic game, but endows the concept of house with totally new meanings to be deciphered. Scho«n (1966) argued that a metaphor is more than a grammatical device: it is a cognitive structure which plays a significant role in the transference of concepts between two complex conceptual systems, either words or images. A similar view is shared by the contemporary theory of metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and by Lakoff (1987; 1993), which conceives a metaphor as structuring the human conceptual system. According to this theory, a metaphor influences the way people think, perceive, and categorize experiences and concepts in their minds. To put it in Scho«n's (1993) terms, a metaphor can change our conceptual system, and can radically modify our perception of a particular situation. 1.2 Metaphors in problem solving

Metaphors play a paramount role in problem-solving, in which they can aid to define, restructure, and solve problems. The use of metaphors in problem-solving can be characterized by the following steps: (1) the retrieval and interpretation of a conceptö once a concept has been retrieved from a metaphorical source, it is interpreted and represented according to a number of characteristics that may embrace abstract solution principles (Coyne and Snodgrass, 1995); (2) the mapping and transference of new relationshipsöafter a concept has been represented and reinterpreted, it is possible to establish a system of new relationships with the problem at hand; mapping and transferring a system of new relationships enables a fresh understanding at the problem at hand (see, for example, Antoniades, 1992; Johnson, 1987); (3) the application of new relationshipsöin


255

this stage the system of relationships retrieved from the metaphorical source is applied to the problem, and the new concept is developed through the problem solution. 1.2.1 Metaphors and analogies Research on analogy provides a set of psychologically tested processes that can aid understanding of how metaphors are processed in problem-solving. People use metaphors and analogies to enhance their comprehension of less-familiar domains. An example is the analogy established between flowing water and electricity that enables us to understand how electricity works (Gentner and Gentner, 1983). Metaphors can be perceived as a kind of analogy, because the basic processes of analogical reasoning, such as structural alignment between source and target, progressive abstraction, and rerepresentation, are used in the processing of metaphor. Gentner et al (2001) presented an approach that unifies metaphor with processes of analogy. For example, the metaphor `my job is a jail' can be processed as an analogy because this comparison shares `primary' or `deep relational' information. According to the structure-mapping theory proposed by Gentner (1983; 1988), these relational metaphors ``convey that a system of relations holding among the base object also holds among the target object, regardless of whether or not the objects themselves are intrinsically similar'' (Gentner et al, 2001, page 200). The structure-mapping theory offers a framework in which metaphorical and analogical comparisons can be understood within a single mechanism. The theory views analogical and metaphorical mapping as a process of establishing a higher-order or structural alignment between two different situations, and then projecting inferences through a mapping of relationships. More specifically, the mapping assumes the existence of an explicit set of correspondences that embrace structured representations of objects and their properties, relations between objects, and higher order relations between relations. Therefore, the structure-mapping theory suggests that metaphors can be processed as structural alignments, based on initial relational commonalities. Subsequently, as Lakoff (1993) noted, additional alignments are projected from the base, and new knowledge is created in the target. The importance of the relations established between a problem and a remote source during metaphorical reasoning was observed in a number of investigations (for example, Gentner and Clement, 1988; Gick and Holyoak, 1983; Tourangeau and Rips, 1991). From this it follows that when metaphors are processed like analogies they create new meaning. In this case metaphors are used in an unconventional way. But, as metaphors become increasingly conventional, a shift from comparison to categorization takes place. This is in line with recent studies which proposed that, though the interpretation of innovative metaphors embraces some degree of creativity, the interpretation of conventional metaphors involves only storage and retrieval processes (see, for example, Blank, 1988; Turner and Katz, 1997). Whereas conventional metaphors often relate to language, innovative metaphors relate to analogies. Although commonalities between metaphors and analogies have been presented above, differences between them also exist. Metaphors can be more structurally variable than analogiesömatching relations, but also matching common object attributes (Gentner et al, 2001). For example, in the metaphor `his eyes were burning coals' no higher order relations are established between source and target, but rather an alignment of properties. However, Clement and Gentner (1991) provide evidence that people naturally interpret analogies and metaphors by establishing mappings between a highorder system of relationships, instead of independent features. Structure mapping provides a mechanism for best capturing how extended domain mappings are processed. Another difference between metaphors and analogies is related to language. Gentner (1982) suggested that analogies are used for explanatory ^ predictive purposes,

256

H P Casakin

whereas metaphors can be used in either explanatory ^ predictive or expressive ^ affective contexts. Furthermore, individual metaphors convey a system of relations from base to target that, in contrast to analogies, are nonreversible. That is, they cannot be applied in the inverse direction without drastically changing meaning (Ortony, 1979). Gentner et al (2001) illustrate this by comparing the metaphor `the acrobat is a hippopotamus', which suggests a clumsy acrobat, with its reverse metaphor `the hippopotamus is an acrobat', which refers to a graceful hippopotamus. The use of analogies in creative design was investigated by Casakin and Goldschmidt (1999; 2000) and Verstijnen et al (1999). In the current research the influence that metaphors have as guides to new ideas in design problem-solving will be studied. As a cognitive strategy, metaphors can play a fundamental part in dealing with problems associated with creativity, such as design. 2 The use of metaphors in design problem-solving A characteristic of design problems is that they are ill defined (also called wicked problems). In contrast to well-defined and routine design problems, ill-defined design problems cannot be clearly defined because they have no clear initial conditions, no completely formulated goals, and no defined algorithms to deal with (Goel, 1995; Lawson, 1990; Rittel and Melving, 1984). These features make them singular, complex, and inaccurate problems. Another aspect is that they generally demand the generation of innovative and unpredictable solutions (Suwa et al, 1999). As design problems may be ambiguous and unclear, it is not possible to anticipate what algorithm may fit initial design goals. For this reason design problems are considered to be nonroutine. When trying to solve design problems, designers employ basic concepts and heuristics, such as compositional principles, building typologies, models, organizational schemes, formal languages, and cognitive strategies, in order to constrain the problem space (Darke, 1984; Rowe, 1987). To some extent these help to clarify, structure, and frame ill-defined design situations. On the other hand, they help to reduce the number of possible solutions to be handled during the design process. Among such design aids the use of metaphors might be considered as a useful heuristic for dealing with ill-defined design problems. A main reason is that metaphors provide the designer with a starting point in the earlier stages of the design process, in which initial decisions are often difficult to take. The ambiguous nature of metaphors enables us to perceive a design problem from different points of view simultaneously. These points of view contribute to the redefinition and reframing of a design situation (Scho«n, 1983), and reorganize experiences. An advantage of the metaphorical vision over a design problem is that it provisionally puts aside the issue of whether problems can be defined independently of our knowledge of a domain, or whether an objective problem exists (Coyne, 1995). The shifting from one metaphor to another plays a crucial role in the way designers represent a design situation. Different metaphors can potentially lead to a large number of problem redefinitions. This new way of interpreting and representing a problem contributes to a broadening of the exploration and development of innovative design solutions. 2.1 Metaphors in architectural design

Architectural designers usually do not tackle problems with fixed statements determined in advance. On the contrary, as Scho«n (1983; 1984) observed, it is during the design process that the architect undertakes an exploration, and engages in a dialogue with the design situation. In this interactive process between the open-minded architect and the problem, suitable metaphors may possibly come into view. Instead of seeing the process in terms of design solutions from the outset, metaphorical thinking enables


257

the architect to reflect on the ill-defined nature of the architectural problem. By this means, an exploration of remote knowledge domains, not necessarily related to the architectural domain, is initiated. Antoniades (1992) makes a distinction between the use of tangible and intangible metaphors in architecture. Whereas intangible metaphors are characterized by ideas, concepts, and qualities, tangible metaphors are related to visual aspects. The latter are particularly useful in the architectural domain, in which visual materials are frequently used to generate new forms. It is through an interactive process with visual representations (see, for example, Goldschmidt, 1992; 1994; Portugali and Casakin, 2002) that metaphors may emerge. 2.1.1 Examples of the use of metaphors in architectural design In the design literature there are a vast number of buildings designed by architects using visual metaphors that have characterized some dominant architectural design movements. According to Rowe (1987, page 119) metaphors stressed by several of these movements have provided the force to emphasize certain design aspects over others. The result has been a clear influence over architects' actions in the direction of what is thought to be the appropriate way of designing. An illustrative example is the metaphor `form follows function' proposed by the modern movement. The physical outcome is the consequence of a system of relationships among structural and environmental systems and internal functions. This was evidenced in the expression of the organizational systems, construction methods, and standardized elements of the architectural design artifact. The metaphor strongly structured the design thinking of an

Figure 1. Example of the use of metaphors in design. The Heinz Galinski School as àn open book' by Zvi Hecker.

258

H P Casakin

entire generation of architects during the modern period. Other outstanding examples belonging to contemporary architecture are Mario Botta, Zvi Hecker, Santiago Calatrava, and Jorn Utzon. The metaphor àrchitecture as mass' is characteristic in the architecture of Botta (Musi, 1998). The architectural language is based on a wellcalibrated composition of thick walls perforated by a dominant central opening, and a series of repetitive minor openings organized along the facade. The massive wall of the fac°ade is emphasized to contain in-between spaces within its depth, which are manipulated to establish a precise relationship with the context. The Heinz Galinski School designed by Hecker (Feireiss, 1996), is another example to be cited. Based on the metaphor of àn open book', the building is characterized by a series of twisted wings organized under a sort of irregular radial system. As a result the design offers panoramic views over the city, and assures privacy to each of the rooms (see figure 1). In the Lyon Airport Railway by Calatrava (Tzonis, 1995), the bent form of the roof resembles the `free flight of an enormous bird', and the Sydney Opera House by Utzon (Drew, 1995), is a direct metaphorical reference to the `movement of a vessel in the sea'. Rowe (1987) considers the Sydney Opera House as an illustration of the use of an analogy. However, I maintain that this case can be only viewed as an individual and novel metaphor. A main reason is that no higher order relations are established between source and target, but only common object attributes, such as the movement and shape of the waves represented in the roof of the opera house. Despite the large number of examples illustrating the aid provided by metaphors in design, and in architectural design in particular, more basic research is needed in order to gain a deeper understanding in the use of metaphors during the design process. 3 Empirical research 3.1 Objectives

The objective of this study is to gain an insight into the application of metaphors in design problem-solving. In the first part of the empirical research, we will analyze the difficulties of bringing metaphorical reasoning into play while solving architectural design problems. A major focus will be placed on the use of metaphors by novice students during the design process. This can be characterized by a series of cyclical stages dealing with: (1) Concept definition and framing of a design situation. In dealing with ill-structured problems, the designer faces singular and fuzzy situations out of which a design problem is gradually molded. The designer retrieves a design concept from the metaphorical source, and frames the design problem, while describing, and reflecting on, the aspects that are considered within this frame. At this stage of the process frames are considered as `structures of confidence' that endow the designer with a particular view of the problem situation (see, for example, Schon, 1983; Stumpf and McDonnell, 2002). (2) Specification of goals and constraints. During the process, the designer can be guided by the goals and constraints laid on the problem. The imposition of constraints can be achieved with the aid of design principles and guidelines, design priorities, and with cognitive strategies such as metaphors (see, for example, Eckert et al, 1999; Gross, 1996). (3) Mapping and transference. After the particular design situation that the designer decides to face has been defined, new and unexpected relationships are established between the concept retrieved from the metaphorical source, and the design problem at hand (for example, Antoniades, 1992). (4) Application of the design concept to the design problem, and development of the design solution. A system of structural relationships derived from the metaphor is finally


259

applied to the problem at hand, and developed until a design solution is reached (see, for example, Coyne and Snodgrass, 1995). In the second part of the empirical research I will compare and analyze findings obtained in the current research with a previous study (Casakin, 2004) concerning the aid provided by metaphors during the design process. In that study it was found that reasoning by metaphor played a significant role in the definition of a concept and the framing of a design situation, as well as in the specification of goals. However, the use of metaphors in the mapping and application of structural relationships to the design target was not significant. These comparisons will enable us to evaluate possible correlations between the aid derived from the use of metaphors in design and the complexity involved in their use. 3.2 Participants

Fifty-eight students took part in the design task carried out in this research. The same students responded to questions belonging to the first and second parts of the current research. The students belonged to the first year of architectural design, and had been involved in a narrow number of design projects as part of their undergraduate work. All the subjects volunteered their time, and received neither payment nor course credit for their participation. 3.3 Design task

The brief called for the design of a 200 m pathway in an urban context. Participants were asked to develop their design project in a dense, mixed-use neighborhood located in a real city. A condition for the subjects was to describe the itinerary of the pathway, and to define and propose specific spatial relationships between the dwellings and the public urban spaces. The design problem was devised to be good enough to be tackled by designers with limited design experience. 3.4 Procedure

Students dealt with the design problem in a design studio for a period of sixteen sessions. The design task was carried out in two sessions per week for eight weeks. A total of sixtyfour hours were devoted to the design task, each session lasting four hours. The first four sessions were dedicated to the choosing of a metaphor, and to characterizing the aspects of the metaphor which the students would like to deal with. In order to represent a personal interpretation of the metaphor selected for the design task, subjects were requested to think in an abstract way (that is, design without scale, function, or geographical context). In the second part of the design task six meetings were devoted to the definition of major design goals, the identification of problem constraints, and to the mapping and transfer of the metaphorical concept to the problem. Thereafter, the subjects were asked to apply the metaphorical concept in order to design the walkway in a mixed-use neighborhood using a 1:200 mock-up. In the last six meetings of the design process, the subjects were requested to refine the design solution. A representative part of their proposal was selected and designed using a 1:100 mock-up. Five teachers assisted each student along the different stages of the design process. 3.5 Materials

The design studio used for the empirical tasks was a 12 m 50 m noise-isolated room. Each student used his or her own drawing desk and was allowed to use transparent sheets of paper (size A3) to produce their sketches. The 1:100 mock-ups were constructed using cardboard sheets.

260

H P Casakin

3.6 Survey

At the end of the design task subjects were presented a short questionnaire in which they were requested to assess how complex the use of metaphors was in the design process. In order to make this assessment they were requested to use an ordinal scale from 1 point (very easy) to 5 points (very difficult). (For an example of the questionnaire see the appendix.) The idea of the survey was to gain an insight into the use of metaphors in the following stages of the process: (S1) definition of a design concept and framing of a design situation under a new viewpoint; (S2) specification of design goals and constraints; (S3) mapping and transfer of a system of relationships between a design concept and the design problem; and (S4) application of a concept to the design problem, and development of unconventional design solutions. 3.7 Statistical analysis methods

The responses provided by the participants in the two parts of the study were submitted to a Spearman correlation test, and a paired t-test for statistical analyses. The Spearman correlation test was considered in order to examine if the association between two questions was significant. The paired t-test was used to validate the hypothesis that there were no statistical differences between each pair of compared questions. Table 1 shows statistical data from the survey carried out in the current research into the complexity of using metaphors in design problem-solving. Data from the previous study (Casakin, 2004) on the aid of using metaphors in design problem solving are illustrated in table 2. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and standard errors on the means with regard to the complexity of using metaphors in design problem-solving. See text for a description of S1 ^ S4. Survey 1

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error on the mean

S1 S2 S3 S4

3.58 3.57 3.77 4.05

0.7501 0.7057 0.7957 0.9809

0.314 0.314 0.314 0.314

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and standard errors on the means with regard to the aid provided by the use of metaphors in design problem-solving. See text for a description of S1 ^ S4. Survey 2

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error on the mean

S1 S2 S3 S4

3.70 3.31 3.26 2.38

1.161 1.088 0.9044 1.145

0.155 0.144 0.120 0.151

4 Results In this section I present qualitative and quantitative results obtained from the use of metaphors during the design process. 4.1 Qualitative results

First, I illustrate an example of the use of metaphors in design problem-solving. A debrief session by Thabit, a design student, who carried it out after the design task had ended, is presented below. The student started the session by claiming that the first step


261

of the process was to select a metaphor. After looking at a couple of possibilities, he selected `the fountain of a village' as a metaphorical source. At the outset the process of identifying a potential metaphor was fuzzy and discouraging. One of the main difficulties that the student faced was to clarify the aspects that he was trying to explore. He commented: `Ìn one of the design sessions, a teacher asked me a tricky question. He said: what is the fountain that you are looking for? So I pointed to the physical location of the fountain in the map of the village. And the teacher replied that this is not the kind of `fountain' that I should have in mind. What he meant is that the fountain as an object was not important at all, but rather what matters is a new interpretation about what it represents for me.'' Thereafter, Thabit started to analyze the meaning of this metaphor for the design problem. According to the subject's interpretation, the fountain represented the epicenter of the social and cultural life of the village in which he was born: ``The fountain was important not only for me but also for everyone living in the village. In this place people not only washed their clothes, or cooked to their families, but also met friends, run business, and even got married.'' The next step consisted in examining how the idea of `the fountain in the village' could be used in the design problem. The student started analyzing how to retrieve a suitable concept from this metaphorical source. In this stage of the process he produced a series of sketches with no precise scale and no geographical context (see figure 2, over). Making abstractions and focusing on a particular aspect of the selected metaphor was not easy. However, these processes helped Thabit to restructure the problem and to frame the design situation anew: `À walkway can be many things, so a major problem was to define what this means. The metaphor I focused on was very helpful to this end. For me the fountain was not a static element, but embraced ... a network of interrelated situations concerned with the daily existence of the village ... . I conceived the fountain as a hearth that spreads life in all possible directions. While developing the following sketches I began to experience the walkway as the development of these daily situations through a spatial vertical axis. This allowed me to realize that, instead of designing a horizontal and shallow walkway, I should think in a new kind of space and redefine the design problem anew in an original manner.'' Thereafter, he produced a new sketch in section (figure 3, over) in order to materialize the walkway in the existing physical context and at the same time he started dealing with the vertical organization of the spaces and their relationships with the natural light: ``The underlying idea was the generation of a pathway characterized by a sacred and mystical atmosphere. The concept of `vertical depth' retrieved from the `fountain' led to the definition of a series of layers organized through a major vertical axis ... some of them were closed, but others were quite open spaces ... . These included private areas where people would shut away, or mediate, as well as public areas characterized by fluent social and cultural interactions. The use of natural light helped me to materialize the concept of `vertical depth' into more concrete terms and stress the singular relationship between different zones of the walkway, the earth, and the sky.'' The student began to design the walkway in the selected area of the site, and managed to transfer and apply a suitable system of relationships from the metaphor to the design problem at hand. In this stage of the process, the subject made a switch from abstract concepts and ideas to the concrete design task:

262

H P Casakin

(a)

(b) Figure 2. (a) Conceptual free-hand sketches produced in section to analyze the metaphor `the walkway as a fountain in the village; (b) free-hand sketches exploring relationships of the walkway in plan and section.


263

`Ì understood that in order to stress the idea of vertical depth in the physical context, I needed to design a walkway characterized by a sequence of vertical elements along the itinerary containing the `core of life' of the village. The idea was to develop a series of vertical circulation systems open to the sky, where people would be able to circulate around `lanterns of natural light'. Therefore I designed a

Figure 3. Free-hand sketches assessing the walkway in the urban context, and the interaction between `vertical depth' and natural light.

Figure 4. Example of the final design solution in the urban context shown in a 1:100 mock-up. The walkway is characterized by a series of vertical elements representing sacral meeting points.

264

H P Casakin

sequence of elevated viewing points from which the intensity of light could be fully experienced.'' Thabit managed to apply the metaphorical concept of `vertical depth' derived from the metaphor of the walkway as a `fountain of light', and produced a successful design solution (see figure 4). The outcome was a walkway combined with a system of vertical elements which led from a sequence of intimate shaded spaces to intensively blanched public areas. 4.2 Quantitative results

This section is divided into two parts. In the first part the difficulty of applying metaphors in the design process is investigated. In the second part a comparison between the difficulty and the benefit of using metaphors in the design process is made. The relative difficulty of using metaphors in the different stages of the design process has been analyzed through consideration of the pairs S1 ^ S2, S1 ^ S3, S2 ^ S3, and S3 ^ S4. A significant correlation was found between the complexity of using metaphors to define a concept and frame a design situation (S1), and that of specifying design goals and constraints (S2) [correlation coefficient 0:294; s (2-tailed) 0:025; N 58]. Students who found no difficulties in elaborating a design concept and framing the design situation managed to define goals and requirements. Additional results showed that the use of metaphors was as difficult in S1 as in S2 [s (2-tailed) 0:890; degrees of freedom 57; t 0:139]. In another comparison of the complexity of metaphors, a strong correlation was observed between the definition and framing of a design situation (S1), and the mapping of a design concept (S3) [correlation coefficient 0:247; s (2-tailed) 0:062; N 58]. In addition, no significant differences were verified between S1 and S3 [s (2-tailed 0:132; degrees of freedom 57; t 1:528]. A significant correlation was verified between the complexity of constraining the design problem (S2), and the mapping and transfer phase (S3) [correlation coefficient 0:422; s (2-tailed) 0:001; N 58]. Students who claimed to have experienced problems defining design goals and requirements also found mapping and transfer to be a complex task. In addition, no significant differences were verified between S2 and S3 [s (2-tailed) 0:077; degrees of freedom 57; t 1:803]. In contrast to these results, no significant correlation was observed in the comparison between the complexity of mapping (S3) and the application of a metaphorical concept to the design problem (S4) [correlation coefficient 0:014; s (2-tailed) 0:916; N 58]. Additional findings showed no statistical differences in the difficulty of using metaphors in S3 and S4 [s (2-tailed 0:099; degrees of freedom 57; t 1:676]. In the second part of this research, another study was carried out in order to compare the aid provided and the complexity experienced, through the use of metaphors in the different stages of the design process. It should be noted that all the correlations found in this part of the study were negative correlations. A reason for this is that the aid provided by the use of metaphors contrasts with the complexity experienced during the design task. A significant correlation was found in the design stage, related to the definition of a concept and the framing of a design situation (S1) [correlation coefficient ÿ0:257; s (2-tailed) 0:054; N 57]. Findings revealed that students who benefited from metaphors found no difficulties in elaborating a design concept and framing a design situation. Furthermore, no statistical differences were seen between both aspects in this stage [s (2-tailed) 0:701; degrees of freedom 57; t 3:86]. However, no significant correlation was found between the aid and complexity of the use of metaphors in terms of defining design goals and constraining the problem (S2) [correlation coefficient ÿ0:094; s (2-tailed) 0:490;


265

N 56]. Similarly, no significant correlation was found in the mapping and transference stage (S3) [correlation coefficient ÿ0:085; s (2-tailed) 0:529; N 57]. However, a significant correlation was observed when a metaphorical concept was applied to the design problem (S4). [correlation coefficient ÿ0:310; s (2-tailed) 0:019; N 58]. Those students who found problems in the last stage of the design process did not manage to apply the metaphorical concept to the design target. In addition, statistical differences were seen between the aid and difficulty derived from using metaphors in S4 [s (2-tailed) 0:001; degrees of freedom 56; t ÿ7:383]. 5 Summary and conclusions In the present study I tried to shed light on the use of metaphors in the different stages of design problem-solving by novice students. In particular, an insight was gained with regard to the effect that this cognitive strategy has in the definition of design concepts, the framing of design situations, and the application of structural relationships to the design problem. Results showed no statistical differences in the difficulty of using metaphors through the different stages of the design process. Despite this, the use of metaphors was to some extent less complex in the initial stages of the process than at the end. On the other hand, significant correlations in the difficulty of using metaphors were found between (a) the definition of design concepts, and the mapping and transfer of the concept; (b) the definition of design concepts, and the generation of goals and constraints; and (c) the generation of goals and constraints, and the mapping and transfer phases. However, no correlation was found between the mapping and transfer of the design concept, and the application of structural relationships to the design problem. A possible explanation for this can be found in the second part of this study, in which results regarding the aid and complexity of using metaphors were found to be correlated in the stage corresponding to the application of structural principles to the design problem. In contrast, the aid and complexity of using metaphors were not correlated in the previous stages concerned with the generation of goals and constraints, and the mapping and transfer of the design concept. It can be inferred that students experienced strong difficulties applying structural relationships retrieved from the metaphorical concept to the design problem. As a result, the aid provided by metaphors, in terms of developing unconventional solutions, was probably less helpful than in previous stages. Although this study did not assess the role of expertise in design, it is suggested that the successful use of metaphors in the final stage may demand certain skills that most novice students may still be lacking. Other findings show that the aid and complexity of metaphor use are correlated in the stage concerned with the definition of design concepts and the framing of design situations. In the earlier phases of the design process, in which deep insight into the design situation is necessary in order to restructure the design problem, the use of metaphors appears to be more efficient than in the other stages. This explains why students who managed to use metaphors to enhance their comprehension of a less-familiar domain had less difficulty retrieving a concept and reframing the design problem. In summary, metaphors were found to be slightly more helpful and less difficult to use in the early stages of the design process, known as conceptual design. They were less helpful and more complex to use in the final stage of the design process. Furthermore, no significant correlation between complexity and aid was found in the intermediate stages, which represent a transition between the conceptual design stage and the refinement of a concrete design solution. The effect of using metaphors in this part of the process should be further explored öfor example, in relation to expertise, and to individual differences among students.

266

H P Casakin

It is suggested that training students in the use of metaphors can be considered particularly helpful in the design studio, currently dominated by traditional designeducation approaches such as the instructor self-experience, and other normative approaches, such as precedent-based learning (see, for example, Ak|n, 2002; Demirbas and Demirkan, 2003; Purcell and Gero, 1996). It is believed that, as an educational approach, metaphors will contribute to an enhancement of design thinking capabilities, will yield a better understanding of the design process, will lead to more innovation, and will improve critical design abilities. They will provide novice students with a framework within which to develop their own ideas and personal skills in design problem-solving. Acknowledgements. The author wishes to thank Erez Hatna and Michael Winograd for revising the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Arch. Edna Langenthal for proposing the design problem, and to Arch. Oded Galron, Arch. Rahm Fehr, and Arch. Marta Esterkin, who supervised and guided first-year design students. References Ak|n O, 2002, ``Case-based instruction strategies in architecture'' Design Studies 23 407 ^ 431 Antoniades A, 1992 Poetics of Architecture: Theory of Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York) Blank G D, 1988, ``Metaphors in the lexicon'' Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 3 21 ^ 26 Casakin H, 2004, ``Metaphors in the design studio: implications for education'', in The Changing Face of Design Education: 2nd International Engineering and Product Design Education Conference Delft, 2 ^ 3 September; copy available from the author Casakin H, Goldschmidt G, 1999, `Èxpertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education'' Design Studies 20 153 ^ 175 Casakin H, Goldschmidt G, 2000,``Reasoning by visual analogy in design problem-solving: the role of guidance'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 105 ^ 119 Clement C A, Gentner D, 1991, ``Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping'' Cognitive Science 15 89 ^ 132 Coyne R, 1995 Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Coyne R, Snodgrass A, 1995, ``Problem setting within prevalent metaphors of design'' Design Issues 11(2) 31 ^ 61 Darke J, 1984,``The primary generator and the design process'', in Developments in Design Methodology Ed. N Cross (John Wiley, New York) pp 175 ^ 188 Demirbas O, Demirkan H, 2003, ``Focus on architectural design process through learning styles'' Design Studies 24 437 ^ 456 Drew P, 1995 Sydney Opera House: Jorn Utzon (Phaidon Press, London) Eckert C, Stacey M, Wiley J, 1999, `Èxpertise and designer burnout'', paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design. ICED Munich; copy available from C Eckert, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Feireiss K, 1996 Zvi Hecker: The Heinz Galinski School in Berlin (Wasmuth, Tu«bingen) Gentner D, 1982, `Àre scientific analogies metaphors?'', in Metaphors: Problems and Perspectives Ed. D Miall (Harvester Press, Brighton, Sussex) pp 106 ^ 132 Gentner D, 1983, ``Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy'' Cognitive Science 7 155 ^ 170 Gentner D, 1988, ``Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift'' Child Development 59 47 ^ 59 Gentner D, Clement C A, 1988, `Èvidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor'', in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation Ed. G H Bower (Academic Press, New York) pp 307 ^ 358 Gentner D, Gentner D R, 1983,``Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity'', in Mental Models Eds D Gentner, A L Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 99 ^ 129 Gentner D, Bowdle B,Wolff P, Boronat C, 2001,``Metaphor is like analogy'', in The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science Eds D Gentner, K J Holyoak, B N Kokinov (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 199 ^ 253 Gick M L, Holyoak K J, 1983, ``Schema induction and analogical transfer'' Cognitive Psychology 15 1 ^ 38 Goel V, 1995 Sketches of Thought (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)


267

Goldschmidt G, 1992, ``Serial sketching: visual problem-solving in designing'' Cybernetics and Systems 23 191 ^ 219 Goldschmidt G, 1994, `Òn visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture'' Design Studies 15 158 ^ 174 Gross M, 1996, ``The electronic cocktail napkin öa computational environment for working with design diagrams'' Design Studies 17 53 ^ 69 Johnson M, 1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) Karmi R, 2001 Lyric Architecture (Ministry of Defense Press, Tel Aviv) Lakoff G, 1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) Lakoff G, 1993, ``The contemporary theory of metaphor'', in Metaphor and Thought Ed. A Ortony (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 202 ^ 251 Lakoff G, Johnson M, 1980 Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) Lawson B, 1990 How Designers Think:The Process Demystified (Butterworth Architecture, London) Musi P, 1998 Mario Botta: Public Buildings 1990 ^ 1998 (Thames and Hudson, London) Ortony A, 1979, ``Beyond literal similarity'' Psychological Review 86 161 ^ 180 Ortony A, 1991 Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Portugali J, Casakin H, 2002, ``SIRN (Synergetic Inter-Representation Networks): an approach to design'', in Common Ground: Design Research Society International Conference Eds D Durling, J Shackleton (Staffordshire University Press, Stoke on Trent, Staffs) pp 884 ^ 902; copy available from the author Purcell T, Gero J, 1996, ``Design and other types of fixation'' Design Studies 17 363 ^ 383 Rittel H, Melving W, 1984, ``Planning problems are wicked problems'', in Developments in Design Methodology Ed. N Cross (John Wiley, New York) pp 123 ^ 143 Rowe P, 1987 Design Thinking (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Scho«n D, 1966 Displacement of Concepts (Humanities Press, New York) Scho«n D, 1983 Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions (Temple Smith, London) Scho«n D, 1984, ``The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action'' Journal of Architectural Education 1 2 ^ 9 Scho«n D, 1993, ``Generative Metaphor: a perspective on problem-setting in social policy'', in Metaphor and Thought Ed. A Ortony (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 137 ^ 163 Snodgrass A, Coyne R, 1992, ``Models, metaphors and the hermeneutics of designing'' Design Issues 9 56 ^ 74 Stumpf S, McDonnell J, 2002, ``Talking about team framing: using argumentation to analyze and support experiential learning in early design episodes'' Design Studies 23 5 ^ 23 Suwa M, Gero J, Purcell T, 1999, `Ùnexpected discoveries and S-inventions of design requirements: a key to creative designs'', in Computational Models of Creative Design IV Eds J S Gero, M L Maher (University of Sydney, Sydney) pp 539 ^ 567 Tourangeau R, Rips L, 1991, `Ìnterpreting and evaluating metaphors'' Journal of Memory and Language 30 452 ^ 472 Turner N E, Katz A N, 1997, ``The availability of conventional and of literal meaning during the comprehension of proverbs'' Pragmatics and Cognition 5 199 ^ 223 Tzonis L, 1995 Movement, Structure and the Work of Santiago Calatrava (Birkha«user, Basel) Verstijnen I, Wagemans A, Heylighen A, Neuckermans H, 1999, ``Sketching, visual analogies and domain-expertise'', in Proceedings of 4th Design Thinking Research Symposium: Design Representation (MIT, Cambridge, MA) Wittgenstein L, 1953 Philosophical Investigations (Blackwell, Oxford)

268

H P Casakin

Appendix The purpose of this questionnaire is to learn about the use of metaphors in design. You are requested to evaluate the use of metaphors during the project of the `Walkway' that you carried out in the first semester of your studies. Your opinion is very important for us, so before answering you are requested to pay maximum attention to each question of the survey. Thank you very much for your participation! You are requested to assess each of the following statements, and give a mark from 1 (not complex at all) to 5 (very complex). . How complex was the use of metaphors to define the design concept, and frame the design situation anew? 1 (not complex at all) 2 3 4 5 (very complex). . How complex was the use of metaphors to specify design goals and constraints? 1 (not complex at all) 2 3 4 5 (very complex). . How complex was the use of metaphors to establish a system of relationships between the design concept and the design problem? 1 (not complex at all) 2 3 4 5 (very complex). . How complex was the use of metaphors in order to apply a concept to the design problem, and develop an unconventional design solution? 1 (not complex at all) 2 3 4 5 (very complex).

ß 2006 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.