Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:54:47.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of analogies, metaphors, and similes by students and reviewers at an undergraduate architectural design review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2018

Fehmi Dogan ,
Batuhan Taneri  and
Livanur Erbil
Fehmi Dogan*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, TR-35430, Izmir, Turkey
Batuhan Taneri
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, TR-35430, Izmir, Turkey
Livanur Erbil
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, TR-35430, Izmir, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Fehmi Dogan, E-mail: fehmidogan@iyte.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the use of similarities in the form of analogy, metaphor, and simile by students and reviewers in an undergraduate architectural design review. In contrast to studies conducted in vitro settings, this study emphasizes the importance of studying analogies, metaphors, and similes in a natural setting. All similarity relationships were coded according to their type, the level of expertise, range, frequency, goal, value judgment, and depth. The results indicate that analogies, metaphors, and similes were used spontaneously and without any difficulty by both reviewers and students. Reviewers, however, were almost twice as likely to evoke similarities. Metaphor was the most frequently used similarity relationship among the three. It was found that there was a significant relationship between the level of expertise and type of similarity, with students more likely to use analogies and less likely to use similes. It was also found that goal is the most important factor, with a significant relation to all other variables, and that embodiment is often invoked in both students’ and reviewers’ metaphors. We conclude that design education should take full advantage of students’ natural ability to benefit from similarity relationships.

Keywords

Analogydesign cognitiondesign educationmetaphorssimiles
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 69 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ball, LJ and Christensen, BT (2009) Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies 30(2), 169–186.Google Scholar
Ball, LJ, Ormerod, TC and Morley, NJ (2004) Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25(5), 495–508.Google Scholar
Berger, LL (2013) Metaphor and analogy: the Sun and Moon of legal persuasion. Journal of and Policy 22, 147.Google Scholar
Blanchette, I and Dunbar, K (2000) How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition 28(1), 108–124.Google Scholar
Blanchette, I and Dunbar, K (2001) Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals. Memory & Cognition 29(5), 730–735.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N (2000) Towards understanding and supporting creativity in design: analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Knowledge-Based Systems 13(7–8), 505–513.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N and Marmèche, E (2004) Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management 13(3), 176–186.Google Scholar
Bowdle, BF and Gentner, D (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1), 193.Google Scholar
Caballero, R (2003) Metaphor and genre: the presence and role of metaphor in the building review. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 145–167.Google Scholar
Cardoso, C and Badke-Schaub, P (2011) The influence of different pictorial representations during idea generation. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 130–146.Google Scholar
Casakin, H (2004) Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: expert versus novice performance. Journal of Design Research 4(2), 197–217.Google Scholar
Casakin, H (2006) Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process. Environment and Planning B 33(2), 253–268.Google Scholar
Casakin, H (2010) Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37(1), 170–188.Google Scholar
Casakin, H (2011) Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: a perspective for design education. Journal of learning design 4(2), 29–38.Google Scholar
Casakin, H (2017) The use of metaphors as design communication tools in an architectural team. International Journal of Contemporary Architecture – The New ARCH 4(2), 62–70.Google Scholar
Casakin, H and Goldschmidt, G (1999) Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies 20(2), 153–175.Google Scholar
Chou, A and Shu, LH (2015) Using analogies to explain versus inspire concepts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29(2), 135–146.Google Scholar
Christensen, BT and Schunn, CD (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
Coyne, R and Snodgrass, A (1991) Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies 12(3), 124–131.Google Scholar
Coyne, R, Snodgrass, A and Martin, D (1994) Metaphors in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education 48(2), 113–125.Google Scholar
Dahl, DW and Moreau, P (2002) The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1), 47–60.Google Scholar
Dogan, F (2013) Architectural design students’ explorations through conceptual diagrams. The Design Journal 16(1), 103–124.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K (1997) How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In Ward, TB, Smith, SM & Vaid, S (eds). Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association, pp. 461–493.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1999) How scientists build models in vivo science. In Magnani, L, Nersessian, NJ and Thagard, P (eds). Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 85–89.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K (2000) How scientists think in the real world: implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2(1), 49–58.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K (2001) The analogical paradox: why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory. In Gentner, D, Holyoak, KJ & Kokinov, BN (eds). The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 313–334.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K and Blanchette, I (2001) The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: the case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(8), 334–339.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G and Turner, M (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22(2), 133–187.Google Scholar
Gentner, D (1982) Are scientific analogies metaphors? In Miall, D (ed.). Metaphor: Problems and Perspectives. Brighton, England: Harvester Press, pp. 106–132.Google Scholar
Gentner, D (1998) Analogy. In Bechtel, W, Graham, G and Balota, DA (eds). A Companion to Cognitive Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 107–113.Google Scholar
Gentner, D, Bowdle, B, Wolff, P and Boronat, C (2001) Metaphor is like analogy. In Gentner, D, Holyoak, KJ and Kokinov, BN (eds). The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.Google Scholar
Gentner, D and Bowdle, BF (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16(3–4), 223–247.Google Scholar
Gentner, D and Markman, AB (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52(1), 45–56.Google Scholar
Gibbs, RW (1999) Figurative language. In Wilson, RA and Keil, FC (eds). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 314–315.Google Scholar
Gick, ML and Holyoak, KJ (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 12(3), 306–355.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S (1999) Metaphor. In Wilson, RA and Keil, FC (eds). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 535–537.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S and Keysar, B (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97(1), 3.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S and McGlone, MS (2001) Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G, Casakin, H, Avidan, Y and Ronen, O (2014). Three studio critiquing cultures: fun follows function or function follows fun? In Adams, SR and Siddiqui, JA (eds). Analyzing Design Review Conversations. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Publishers, pp. 457–483.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G, Hochman, H and Dafni, I (2010) The design studio “crit”: teacher-student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM 24(3), 285–302.Google Scholar
Hey, J, Linsey, J, Agogino, AM and Wood, KL (2008) Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education 24(2), 283–294.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, DR (2001) Analogy as the core of cognition In Gentner, D, Holyoak, KJ and Kokinov, BN (eds). The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 499–538.Google Scholar
Holyoak, KJ (1985) The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In Gordon, HB (ed.). Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 19. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–87.Google Scholar
Holyoak, KJ (2005) Analogy. In Holyoak, KJ and Morrison, RG (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–142.Google Scholar
Holyoak, KJ and Thagard, P (1989) Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 13(3), 295–355.Google Scholar
Holyoak, KJ and Thagard, P (1996) Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holyoak, KJ and Thagard, P (1997) The analogical mind. American Psychologist 52(1), 35–44.Google Scholar
Huet, G, Culley, SJ, McMahon, CA and Fortin, C (2007) Making sense of engineering design review activities. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM 21(3), 243–266.Google Scholar
Johnson, M (2013) The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kalogerakis, K, Lüthje, C and Herstatt, C (2010) Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(3), 418–436.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–251.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Le Corbusier. (1986) Towards a New Architecture. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Linsey, J, Wood, K and Markman, A (2008) Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 85–100.Google Scholar
Margolis, J (1957) Notes on the logic of simile, metaphor and analogy. American Speech 32(3), 186–189.Google Scholar
Murphy, KM, Ivarsson, J and Lymer, G (2012) Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies 33(6), 530–556.Google Scholar
Nersessian, NJ (2008) Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ortony, A (1979) Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review 86(3), 161.Google Scholar
Ozkan, O and Dogan, F (2013) Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: differences between expert and novice designers. Design Studies 34(2), 161–192.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V, Chakrabarti, A and Lindemann, U (2015) An empirical understanding of use of internal analogies in conceptual design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29(2), 147–160.Google Scholar
Stern, J (2005) Metaphor, semantics, and context. In Holyoak, KJ and Morrison, RG (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 162–179.Google Scholar
Tseng, I, Moss, J, Cagan, J and Kotovsky, K (2008) The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design Studies 29(3), 203–221.Google Scholar
Vattam, SS, Helms, ME and Goel, AK (2010) A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM 24(4), 467–481.Google Scholar
Venturi, R, Scott Brown, D and Izenour, S (1977) Learning From Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Visser, W and Maher, ML (2011) The role of gesture in designing. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM 25(Special Issue 03), 213–220.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S (1989) Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: a developmental perspective. In Vosniadou, S and Ortony, A (eds). Similarity and Analogical Reasoning Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 413–437.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S and Ortony, A (1989) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Webster, H (2007) The analytics of power. Journal of Architectural Education 60(3), 21–27.Google Scholar
Zahner, D, Nickerson, JV, Tversky, B, Corter, JE and Ma, J (2010) A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(02), 231–244.Google Scholar