‘Does this compromise your design?’ Interactionally producing a design concept in talk

How a design concept was interactionally produced in the talk-in-interaction between an architect and client representatives was studied. The empirical analysis was informed by ethnomethodology and conversation analysis to observe structures and patterns of talk that accomplished actions and practices of design. Some differences were observed between the properties of the design concept in comparison with the design ideas that were considered during these conversations. The design concept was observed to be significant for assessing why some moves in a design space were considered better than others. The importance of the design concept to these interactions raised more general questions about what a design concept is and how it can be described as an object type. With reference to studies of science, technology and society these concerns were provisionally engaged with and further study of the object properties of design concepts is suggested.

[1]  Friedrich Glock,et al.  Aspects of language use in design conversation , 2009 .

[2]  Fehm Smulders,et al.  Co-evolution in design practice , 2009 .

[3]  Jean-François Boujut,et al.  A co-operation framework for product–process integration in engineering design , 2002 .

[4]  D. Zimmerman,et al.  Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis , 1991 .

[5]  Dominique Vinck,et al.  Mediating and Commissioning Objects in the Sociotechnical Process of Product Design : a conceptual approach , 1995 .

[6]  Jane Darke,et al.  The primary Generator and the Design Process , 1979 .

[7]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[8]  A. Grimshaw,et al.  Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis:Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. , 1992 .

[9]  Claudia M. Eckert,et al.  Against Ambiguity , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[10]  Ben Matthews,et al.  Locating design phenomena: a methodological excursion , 2007 .

[11]  Charles Antaki,et al.  Analysing everyday explanation : a casebook of methods , 1989 .

[12]  Donald A. Schön.  The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[13]  Peter Medway.  Virtual and Material Buildings , 1996 .

[14]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[15]  J. M. Atkinson.  Structures of Social Action: Contents , 1985 .

[16]  A. Dong.  The enactment of design through language , 2007 .

[17]  L. Suchman.  Plans and situated actions , 1987 .

[18]  E. Mishler,et al.  Talk and Institution: A Reconsideration of the “Asymmetry” of Doctor-Patient Interaction , 2006 .

[19]  Anita Pomerantz.  Structures of Social Action: Pursuing a response , 1985 .

[20]  Ann Heylighen,et al.  Design in Mind , 2009, Design Issues.

[21]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Developments in design methodology , 1984 .

[22]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[23]  S. A. R. Scrivener,et al.  Matching Descriptions of Team Design , 2000 .

[24]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[25]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[26]  Peter Lloyd,et al.  About: Designing , 2022 .

[27]  David Fleming,et al.  Design Talk: Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations , 1998 .

[28]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Designing in the context of fashion – designing the fashion context , 2001 .