Article - Open Access.

Idioma principal

Across Disciplines: Triggering Frame Awareness in Design Education

Luhan, Gregory A.; Gregory, Robert;


Tacit cognitive structures have been explored by many disciplines (cognitive science, anthropology, psychology) under several names: frames, schemas, and scripts (D''Andrade, R., 1992; D''Andrade, R. and Strauss, C., 1992; Mandler, J., 1984). Although useful in automating routine repetitious activity, their tacit nature makes them problematic for disciplines that emphasize creative activity. Put another way, it''s difficult to think outside the box if the box is invisible. As Schön (1983) explains, such frames limit creativity because they determine our strategies of attention. Frames shape thought and also behavior but invisibly; practitioners "do not attend to the ways in which they construct the reality in which they function; for them, it is simply the given reality." Bijker (1989) has called such mental structures technological frames "constructed from the concepts and techniques used by a community in its problem solving" -- defined broadly to include "a combination of current theories, tacit knowledge, engineering practice (such as design methods and criteria)" etc. The more advanced the practitioner, the more tacit the knowledge, as Lindblom and Cohen (1979) put it: "all expertise rests on a veritable iceberg of tacit, taken-for-granted knowledge."


Palavras-chave: Tacit knowledge, Design thinking, Sustainability, Systems thinking, Frame reflection,


DOI: 10.5151/despro-sigradi2013-0122

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] Adams R., Mann, L., Forin, T. and Jordan, S. (2009). Cross-Disciplinary Practice in Engineering Contexts DS 58-9: Proceedings of ICED 09, 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 9, Human Behavior in Design, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24.-27.08.
  • [2] Badurdeen, F., Gregory, R., Luhan, G.A., Schroeder, M., Vincent, L.V and Sekulic, D.P., (2012) Systems Thinking for Sustainability: Envisioning Trans-disciplinary Transformations in STEM Education, International Symposium On Sustainable Systems Andamp; Technology 2012, Boston, MA, May 16-18, 2012, pp. 1-6.
  • [3] Badurdeen, F., Brown, A., Gregory, R., Fu, H., Schroeder, M.. Sekulic, D. P., Vincent, L. and Luhan, G. A. (2013). Reframing interdisciplinary approaches to systems thinking for sustainability. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems Andamp; Technologies, ISSST2013, May 15 – 17, Cincinnati, OH USA.
  • [4] Bijker, W. (1989). The social construction of Bakelite. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (Eds.), Social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 159-187). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • [5] Cross, N. (2007) Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhauser.
  • [6] D''Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • [7] D''Andrade, R. and Strauss, C., eds. (1992). Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • [8] Forrester, Jay. (1968). Principles of systems. Waltham, Mass.: Pegasus. Gelwick, R. (1977). The way of discovery: an introduction to the thought of Michael Polanyi. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
  • [9] Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Boston: Polity.
  • [10] Lindblom, C. and Cohen, D. (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
  • [11] Mandler, J. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: aspects of schema theory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • [12] Martone, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N., eds. (1984). Experience of learning: implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
  • [13] Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: a primer, ed. Diana Wright. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green.
  • [14] National Research Council. (1999). Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Retrieved from
  • [15] National Research Council. (1996). From analysis to action: undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from
  • [16] Polanyi, M. (1966; reissue 2009) The tacit dimension. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
  • [17] Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4,155-169.
  • [18] Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
  • [19] Schön, D and Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
  • [20] Scott, D. (1985). Everyman Revived: The Common Sense of Michael Polanyi.
Como citar:

Luhan, Gregory A.; Gregory, Robert; "Across Disciplines: Triggering Frame Awareness in Design Education", p. 619-623 . In: Proceedings of the XVII Conference of the Iberoamerican Society of Digital Graphics: Knowledge-based Design [=Blucher Design Proceedings, v.1, n.7]. São Paulo: Blucher, 2014.
ISSN 2318-6968, DOI 10.5151/despro-sigradi2013-0122

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação