Dissociation of Design Knowledge

Publisher Summary This chapter provides neuropsychological evidence for dissociation between the two types of knowledge. They are explicit, articulate, domain-specific knowledge, and inarticulate, domain-independent, and procedural knowledge. This reinforces the reality of the distinction. It is further suggested that the inarticulate, procedural knowledge is not knowledge in the traditional sense of the word, but consists of mechanisms to support “ill-structured” representations and computations. This implies that learning environments—such as the design studio—that provide students with practice in groping and coping with ill-structured, real-world design problems must be an integral part of design education. The data suggests that while the explicit Type 1 knowledge may be necessary for successful designing, it is clearly not sufficient. When Type 2 knowledge is absent, patients literally cannot design. As a mechanism, it is not something to be learned and remembered like a formula for calculating a point load on a beam. Rather, given the neural endowment, the educational challenge is to develop and hone it through practice. On this account, it is not surprising that Type 2 knowledge should seem inarticulate and elusive. This view has consequences for design education. “Teaching” students Type 2 design knowledge is a matter of giving them the opportunity and encouragement to develop the representational and computational mechanisms necessary to deal with the ill-structured situations.