As I read the Cross chapter on Design Ability, I could not stir the feeling of being setup in a trap.
Why are we reading this? What is Jeff’s purpose?
At first I kept thinking, well, don’t we have to understand the act of designing, and design thinking? Perhaps it is to question what design thinking is, and how it is understood. Being immersed in design thinking as we work on our own projects, perhaps this is an attempt to gain a meta-perspective, and be a bit more reflective in our process (a la “the reflective practitioner”, and continously reflect in-action and on-action).
Something that was prominent is the idea of trying to explain and understanding design thinking via case studies, the same way we should look at examples to work with and stir our thinking. “The most significant outcome from the varied studies and research into design practice has been the growth of respect for the inherent, natural intelligence that is manifested in design ability… This mature view has grown from a better, research-based understanding of the nature of design ability, from analysis of its strengths and weaknesses, and from a desire to defend and nurture that ability.” Isn’t this what our portfolios represent though? a snap-shot of our design process for particular projects, out for everyone to see?
It was interesting to see abduction as the “logic of design”, or as appositional reasoning, since through design we find a solution that seems apt for the circumstance and problem we re-framed…