Abstract:

“Design thinking” is effectively becoming a cliché that industries and educational institutions alike rally around however there is both a lack of clarity on the definition of the term from discipline to discipline and as a result, the approach remains mired in rhetoric and potentials rather than experimental application towards actionable and tangible results. “Design Thinking” is only made possible by “Design Doing.” Academia is not immune to the demand for fixed delivery, clear outcomes, and operational sustainability that industry faces. Like many disciplines, architecture is fueled by the hypothetical promise of design options an exploration, however unlike other disciplines, it does not facilitate the capacity to follow through and bring ideas to realized prototypes. Whether on account of scale, cost, or regulatory constraints, students embracing “Design Thinking” are unable to capitalize on taking ownership and empower themselves with the ability to embark on “Design Doing.” The methodology of the study consists of an initial literature review of pedagogical practices highlighting the demand for "design thinking" and its challenges to the contemporary classroom. This is followed by a survey of several key case study design-build projects undertaken within the largest architecture program in Canada documented over nearly a decade. Comparisons on quantitative assessments of project success and qualitative metrics on pedagogical merits are presented showcasing the development, implementation, and outcomes in ascribing value to "design doing" in tandem with "design thinking." This presentation outlines strategies to mitigate some of these obstacles to transition from design thinking to doing within the often restrictive and resource-scarce parameters of academia. The authors posit that the implementation of resource sensitivity within the context of executing real projects via service-learning as opposed to hypothetical thought experiments have far greater pedagogical benefit as underscored by notable educators in the literature review.

Keywords:

Design thinking, digital fabrication, service-learning, pedagogy.