Explaining the role of metaphor and analogy techniques in the architectural design process: Problem-understanding and Problem-solving

Subject Areas : architecture

Maryam Nouri ¹ ( Ph.D student of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. )
Shadi Azizi ² ( Ph.D. in Architecture, Urban and Architecture Faculty, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. )
Mohammad Yaser Mousapour ³ ( P.hd. in Architecture, Shahid Beheshti university, Tehran, Iran )

Received: 2019-05-15 Accepted : 2020-08-02 Published : 2021-09-23

Keywords: problem-understanding, analogy, problem-solving, Metaphor, Design Process,

Abstract :

Researchers in the field of Design-Process have focused on effective techniques to enhance creativity in the design of many studies. This leads to a focus on the effects of two techniques: metaphor and analogy. This research has challenged us to take consideration about: "Is the effectiveness of these techniques in all the activities of the design process to the same extent? Whichever metaphor and analogy techniques play a more meaningful role in which part of the design process?Nowadays, skills in innovation and methods that improve the knowledge of the design-problem have emerged as main features for designers. Metaphor is frequently expressed as a key role for enhancing creative design. Few empirical researches have been performed on how junior designers can use it within their performances.A metaphor is a figure of speech for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify ambiguous similarities between two ideas. A metaphor also is containing an implied comparison and allows us to understand one concept in terms of another, enriching our mental imagery and imbuing concepts with meaningful attributes. Reasoning embraces the retrieval of a known concept and its application to an unfamiliar situation.The analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. This means that the analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, in which at least one of the premises, or the conclusion is general rather than particular nature. It can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy. As a result, two kinds of knowledge would be attained deep knowledge of the design problem, and deep knowledge of many other kinds of natural and artificial objects from/to which one may analogize.The purpose of this article is to study the research related to analogy and metaphor. Moreover, research related to the design process or its parts, in order to positioning each of these two techniques in teaching the design path. The methodology of this research is based on library studies and logical reasoning. In the first step, studies related to the design process, banner design training in Iran, and metaphor and analogy are collected and classified. This is followed by reviewing the content of these studies, the focus of each one on the different parts of the design process is identified and their final result reached with the same sensitivity. The most important result of this study is that metaphor and analogy are considered as effective techniques in creative design education. Metaphors in the stages of analysis and synthesis (understanding the design and concept production) and analogy in the stages of synthesis and evaluation (solving and promoting the problem or Concept Development) is more effective.

References:

1. بارسلونا، آنتونیو. (1390). استعاره و مجاز با رویکردی شناختی. (فرزان سجودی؛ لیلا صادقی؛ و تینا امراللهی، مترجم). چاپ اول. تهران: نقش‌جهان.
2. داوری اردکانی، رضا؛ نیلی‌پور، رضا؛ قائمی نیا، علیرضا؛ جی ان جاج، آنتونی؛ و یاراحمدی، لطف‌الله. (1393). زبان استعاری و استعاره‌های مفهومی. چاپ دوم. تهران: هرمس.
3. دباغ، حسین. (1393). مجاز در حقیقت: ورود استعاره‌ها در علم. تهران: هرمس.
4. دانشگر، گلرخ. (1388). فهم مسئله طراحی در آموزش معماری: بررسی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر مؤلفه‌های کافی از مسئله طراحی به‌عنوان آغازگاهی برای طراحان مبتدی، نشریه هنرهای زیبا. بهار. - (۳۷)، 68 - 59.
5. داودی، سمیه؛ و آیت‌اللهی، سید محمدحسین. (1387). استعاره چیست و چگونه در تولید طرح مایه اثر می‌گذارد؟. نشریه صفه. پاییز و زمستان. 17 (47)، 26-17.
6. اکو، اومبرتو؛ ردی، مایکل؛   لیکاف، جورج؛   تیلر، جان رابرت؛ واینسهایمر، جوئل؛ و مورن، ریچارد. (1389). استعاره مبنای تفکر و ابزار زیبایی‌آفرینی. (فرهاد ساسانی، مترجم). چاپ دوم. اسفند. تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و هنر اسلامی. سوره مهر.
7. شریعت راد، فرهاد؛ و ندیمی، حمید. (1391). منابع ایده پردازی معماری، جستاری در فرایند ایده پردازی چند معمار از جامعة حرفه‌ای کشور. نشریه هنرهای زیبا - معماری و شهرسازی. تابستان. 2 (17)، 14-5.
8. شریعت راد، فرهاد؛ و ندیمی، حمید.  (۱۳۹۵). قاببندی مسئله: راه طراحانه رویارویی با مسئله طراحی. نشریه صفه، ( 26)3. پاییز. ۲۴-۵.
9. فولکیه، پل.(1370). فلسفه عمومی یا مابعدالطبیعه. (دکتر یحیی مهدوی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
10. گرجی مهلبانی، یوسف.  (1389). تفکر طراحی و الگوهای فرایندی. نشریه صفه. (45)16، پاییز و زمستان. 124-106.
11. گروت، لیندا؛ و  وانگ، دیوید. (۱۳۹6). روش‌های تحقیق در معماری. (علیرضا عینی فر، مترجم). تهران: نشر دانشگاه.
12.  لاوسون، برایان. (1388). طراحان چگونه می‌اندیشند: ابهام‌زدایی از فرایند طراحی. (حمید ندیمی، مترجم). مرکز چاپ و انتشارات. تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
13. محمودی، امیر سعید. (1383). تفکر در طراحی، معرفی الگوی تفکر تعاملی در آموزش طراحی. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، شماره 20. 37-27.
14. مهدوی نژاد، محمدجواد. (1384). آموزش معماری امروز و چالش‌های آینده، نشریه فناوری آموزش.  (3) 4. بهار. 234-223.
15.    ندیمی، حمید. (1378)، جستاری در فرایند طراحی. نشریه صفه، پاییز و زمستان. (29) 9.

16. Ayiran, N. (2012). The role of metaphors in the formation of architectural identity. ITU A|Z. 9(2). Cyprus International University. Faculty of Fine Arts, Lefkoşa, TRNC. 1-21.
17. Aspelund, K. (2006). The design process. New York. NY. Fairchild.
18. Ball, L.;Ormerod, T.; & Morley, N. (2003). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. In Cross, N. & E. Edmonds (Eds). Expertise in design: Design thinking research symposium. Sydney: Aus‌tralia: Creativity & Cognition S‌tudio Press. 17-19.
19.  Barringten, B.F. (2010a). Teaching The Techniques Of 
Making Architectural Metaphors, Journal of King Abdul Aziz University Engg...Sciences. VOL. I. Jeddah: OCT.2, 1992 (.1421 H.) 12TH EDITION. 
20. Barringten, B. F. (2012a). Metaphor as an inference from sign. Published by the University of Syracuse (Dec2009). book published in 2012 by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
21. Barringten, B. F., & Hart, E (2012b). Architecture: The Making of Metaphors, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
22. Boroditsky, L.(2000). Metaphoric S‌tructuring: Unders‌tanding Time through Spatial Metaphors. Cognition, 75(1). 1-28.
23. Broadbent, G. (1973a). Methodology in delight of service. Proceedings of the 4th of Annual Conference of  Environmental Design. Research Association- EDRA. 314-318.
24. Broadbent, G. (1973b). Design in architecture: architecture and the human sciences. London; New York; Wiley.
25. Casakin, H. (2004a). Metaphors in the design s‌tudio: Implications for education. In Proceedings of the changing face of design education: 2nd international engineering and product design education conference. Delft. 265–273.
26. Casakin, H. (2004b). Visual analogy as a cognitive s‌trategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance. Journal of Design Research. 4 (3). Retrieved January 26. 2011. from http://research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/design/papers/22CasakinDTRS6.pdf
27. Casakin, H. P. (2007). Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity. The College of Judea & Samaria. Ariel. Israel . 1(2).
28. Casakin, H. (2011). Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education. Journal Of Learning Design. 4(2). 29-38.
29. Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design S‌tudies. 20(2). 153-175.
30. Casakin, H., & Timmeren, A (2014). Analogies as Creative 
Inspiration Sources in the Design S‌tudio: The Teamwork, 
Athens Journal of Architecture . 1(1).January. 51-63.
31. Chand ,I, & Runco, M.A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences. 14(1). 155-162.
32. Coyne, R. (1995). Designing Information Technology, From Method to Metaphor. MIT Press. Cambridge. Massachusetts.
33. Cross, N., & Cross, A.C. (1998). Experties in Engineering design. in research in engineering design. 10. 39-56.
34. Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. United Kingdom. chiches‌ter: John Willey & Sons. 24 Oct.
35. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Springer-Verlag London Limited.
36. Do, E. (2002). The Design Thinking Process. Design Theory course. Sebas‌tien BUND.
37. Fernandez, J., Blacking, J., Dundes, A., Edmonson, M. S., Etzkorn, K. P., Haydu, G. G., & Maltz, D. N. (1974). The Mission of Metaphor in Expressive Culture [and Comments and Reply]. Current anthropology, 15(2), 119-145.
38.    Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces. Diacritics, 16(1). 22-27.
39. Gick, ML., & Holyoak, KJ. (1983). Schema induction and analogical. transfer Cognitive Psychology. 15.  1–28.
40.    Heath T. ( 1984). Method in Architecture. Chiches‌ter. John Wiley & Sons.
41. Hey, H. G. J. (2002). Effective Framing in design. a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of Phiosophy in Mechanical Engineering. University of the California. Berkeley.
42. Hey, J., Agogino, H. G., & Alice, M. (2007). Metaphors in Conceptual Design. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Las Vegas. Nevada. USA.
43. Hey.J, Linsey, J. Agogino, A.M & Wood, K.L. (2008). Analogies and Metaphors in Creative Design. Int. J. Education, 24(2), Printed in Great Britain.283±294. 
44. Indurkhya, B.(1992). Metaphor and cognition. Dordrecht: 
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45. Indurkhya, B. (1999). Creativity of Metaphor in Perceptual Symbol Sys‌tems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 122 (2). 621-622.
46. Holton, G. (1998). The Scientific Imagination. Harvard University Press. Cambridge: Massachusetts.
47. Johnson, M. (2003). The Body in the Mind: the Body Basis Meaning and Reason. Chicago University Press. Chicago.
48. Kirby, John T. (1997). Aris‌totle on Metaphor. American journal of philology. 118. University of Miami. 517-554.
49. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational Implications of Analogy: A View from Case-Based Reasoning. American Psychologis‌t. 52(1). 57–66.
50. 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 Design Education.
51. Kryssanov, V. V., Tamaki, H. & Kitamura, S. (2001). Unders‌tanding Design Fundamentals: How Synthesis and Analysis Drive Creativity. Resulting in Emergence. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering. 15. 329±342.
52. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53. Lakoff. G, & Johnsen, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press.
54. Lawson, B. (2004a). What Designers Know., Architectural Press. An imprint of Elsevier. Linacre House. Jordan Hill. Oxford OX2 8DP. 30 Corporate Drive. Burlington, MA 01803. Firs‌t published 2004.
55. Lawson, B. (2004b). Schemata, gambits and precedents: some factors in design expertise. Design S‌tudies. 25. 443-457.
56. Levin, S. R. (1982). Aris‌totle's Theory of Metaphor. Philosophy & Rhetoric.15(1). (Winter, 1982). Published by: Penn S‌tate University Press. 24-46.
57. Ledewitz, S. (1984). Models of Design in S‌tudio Teaching. Journal of Architectural Education (1984 ). 38(2). 2–8.
58. Linsey J. S Laux. J. ;Wood. K; and  Markman. A. (2006). 
Modality and Representation in Analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design. Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM). 22(2).
59. Linsey J. S, Laux. J., Wood. K, & Markman. A. (2007a). Effects of Analogous Product Representation on Future Design-by-Analogy, Proceeding of the 2007 International Conference on Engineering Design. Paris. France.
60. Linsey J. S, Laux. J, Clauss. E. F., Wood. K, &  Markman. A. (2007b). Increasing Innovation: A Trilogy of Experiments towards a Design-By-Analogy Methodology. Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference. Las Vegas. NV.
61. Rowe, P.G. (1987). Design thinking. MIT press. ISBN 0262181223 (Modified by Robert Satunders).
62. Ricoeur, P. (1991). A Ricoeur Reader in Reflection and Imagination. M. J. Valdes (Ed.). University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
63. Ritel, W.J. (1993).The researching of designers hos‌t. university of California. Berkley. Universitaet S‌tuttgart.
64. Rothenberg, A. (2008). Rembrandt’s Creation of the Pictorial Metaphor of Self. Metaphor and Symbol. 23(2). 108–122.
65. Soares, L, & Pombo, F. (2010a). Interpretation as a Design Method. (co-autor Fátima Pombo).In David Durling, Rabah Bousbaci, Lin-Lin Chen, Philippe Gauthier, Tilu Poldma, Seymour Roworth-S‌tokes, Erik S‌tolterman (Editors) Design & Complexity: Conference Proceedings. Design Research Society (DRS) Intern. Conference. Université de Montreal, 7-9 July, Montreal.
66. Soares, L., & Pombo, F. (2010b). The Interpretation as a Method in Design or the Designer as an Interpreter. (co-autor Fátima Pombo). 1s‌t International Congress of Design and Innovation of Catalonia. Barcelona. Fundació per l’ESDI e Escola Superior de Disseny. 18 - 19 March de 2010 a la Fira de Sabadell. Barcelona, Spain.
67. Schon, D.A. (1984) Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing. Design S‌tudies. 5. 132-136.
68. Tucker, B. I. (1994). The Role of Metaphors in the Shift 
to a Quantal Paradigm, The University of Texas. unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation Ulusu, T. (1990). Mimari Tasarımda ‘Concept’. Yapı. Ekim.
69. Wakkary, R. (2005). Framing Complexity Design and Experience: a Reflective Analysis. Digital Creativity. 16(2). 65–78.