‘How can I say this politely?’: Remodelling peer critiquing in design education and revealing compassionate critiques

References

1. Anthony, K. H. (1991), Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Apak, G. and Gelmez, K. (2022), ‘From critical friendship to design critique friendship: Disclosing the mechanisms of informal design critique within a design studio course’, International Research & Education in Design Conference 2022, Lisbon, 19–20 May.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Balamir, A. K. (1985), ‘Mimarlık söyleminin değişimi ve eğitim programları’ (‘The change of architectural discourse and education programs’), Mimarlık, 23:8, pp. 9–15.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Battarbee, K., Fulton Suri, J. and Gibbs Howard, S. (2014), ‘Empathy on the edge: Scaling and sustaining a human-centered approach in the evolving practice of design’, IDEO, 9 January, https://new-ideo-com.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/files/pdfs/news/Empathy_on_the_Edge.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2021.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. (2001), Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from & with Each Other, London: Kogan Page.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Buchanan, R. (1992), ‘Wicked problems in design thinking’, Design Issues, 8:2, pp. 5–21.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Budge, K., Beale, C. and Lynas, E. (2013), ‘A chaotic intervention: Creativity and peer learning in design education’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32:2, pp. 146–56, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01734.x.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Carspecken, P. F. (1996), Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide, New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Casakin, H. and Goldschmidt, G. (1999), ‘Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education’, Design Studies, 20:2, pp. 153–75.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chen, G., Zhao, Q., Rong, P., Li, Z. and Bei, K. (2022), ‘Comparing the design cognitive process between problem-driven and solution-driven industrial design students’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33:2, pp. 557–84, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09740-7.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chiu, S.-H. (2008), ‘Students’ knowledge sources and knowledge sharing in the design studio: An exploratory study’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20:1, pp. 27–42.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Coplan, A. (2011), ‘Understanding empathy: Its features and effects’, in A. Coplan and P. Goldie (eds), Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2–18.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Craig, D. L. and Zimring, C. (2000), ‘Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities’, Design Studies, 21:2, pp. 187–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00041-1.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Creswell, J. W. (2007), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Cuff, D. (1991), Architecture: The Story of Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Dannels, D. and Martin, K. (2008), ‘Critiquing critiques: A genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22:2, pp. 135–59.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dutton, T. (ed.) (1987), ‘Design and studio pedagogy’, Journal of Architectural Education, 41:1, pp. 16–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dutton, T. (ed.) (1991), Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy, New York: Bergin and Garvey.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Ferreira, J., Christiaans, H. and Almendra, R. (2016), ‘A visual tool for analysing teacher and student interactions in a design studio setting’, CoDesign, 12:1&2, pp. 112–31.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Findeli, A. (2001), ‘Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion’, Design Issues, 17:1, pp. 5–17.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Friedman, K. (2002), ‘Design curriculum challenges for today’s university’, in A. Davies (ed.), Enhancing the Curricula: Exploring Effective Curricula Practices in Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design, pp. 27–63.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Friedman, K. (2012), ‘Models of design: Envisioning a future design education’, Visible Language, 46:1&2, pp. 132–33.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Fulton Suri, J. (2003), ‘Empathic design: Informed and inspired by other people’s experience’, in I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee and T. Mattelmäki (eds), Empathic Design: User Experience in Product Design, Helsinki: Edita IT Press, pp. 51–58.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gelmez, K. and Bagli, H. (2018), ‘Tracing design students’ affective journeys through reflective writing’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28:4, pp. 1061–81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9424-1.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H. and Dafni, I. (2010), ‘The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication’, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24:3, pp. 285–302, https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041000020X.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Gray, C. (2013a), ‘Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 12:2, pp. 195–209, https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.195_1.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Gray, C. (2013b), ‘Discursive structures of informal critique in an HCI design studio’, Nordic Design Research Conference 2013, Copenhagen and Malmö, 9–12 June.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Heylighen, A. and Dong, A. (2019), ‘To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design’, Design Studies, 65:1, pp. 107–24.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Jiancaro, T. N. (2018), ‘Exploring technology, design and dementia: Design approaches, considerations, and implications for an emerging field’, Ph.D. thesis, Toronto: University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kocadere, S. A. and Ozgen, D. (2012), ‘Assessment of basic design course in terms of constructivist learning theory’, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51:1, pp. 115–19.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Lickerman, A. (2009), ‘What compassion is’, Psychology Today, 5 November, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/happiness-in-world/200911/what-compassion-is. Accessed 1 December 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Lindsay, S., Brittain, K., Jackson, D., Ladha, C., Ladha, K. and Olivier, P. (2012), ‘Empathy, participatory design and people with dementia’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, 5–10 May, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 521–30.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lueth, P. L. O. (2008), ‘The architectural design studio as a learning environment: A qualitative exploration of architecture design student learning experiences in design studios from first- through fourth-year’, Ph.D. thesis, Ames: Iowa State University.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (2010), Designing Qualitative Research, 5th ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Mattelmäki, T. (2006), ‘Design probes’, Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
38. McClean, D. and Hourigan, N. (2013), ‘Critical dialogue in architecture studio: Peer interaction and feedback’, Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8:1, pp. 35–57, https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2013.00004.
    [Google Scholar]
39. McDonagh, D. and Thomas, J. (2010), ‘Disability+relevant design: Empathic design strategies supporting more effective new product design outcomes’, Design Journal, 13:2, pp. 180–98.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Megahed, N. (2018), ‘Reflections on studio-based learning: Assessment and critique’, Journal of Engineering Design and Technology, 16:1, pp. 63–80, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-08-2017-0079.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Newell, A., Gregor, P. and Morgan, M. (2011), ‘User-sensitive inclusive design’, Universal Access in the Information Society, 10:3, pp. 235–43.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Nicol, D., Thompson, A. and Breslin, C. (2014), ‘Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:1, pp. 102–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Norman, D. (2010), ‘Why design education must change’, Core 77, 26 November, https://www.core77.com/posts/17993/why-design-education-must-change-1799. Accessed 12 February 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Norman, D. and Meyer, M. W. (2020), ‘Changing design education for the 21st century’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6:1, pp. 13–49.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D. and Yi-Luen Do, E. (2013), ‘A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios’, Design Studies, 34:3, pp. 302–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Pelsmakers, S., Donovan, E., Moseng, K. and Eybye, B. T. (2019), ‘Developing architecture studio: Peer-peer learning’, Education, Design and Practice: Understanding Skills in a Complex World, New York, 17–19 June.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Robinson, S. (2007), ‘Peer assisted learning within architecture: The methods and benefits’, CEBE Transactions, 4:2, pp. 43–53.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Rose, P., Beeby, J. and Parker, D. (1995), ‘Academic rigour in the lived experience of researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21:6, pp. 1123–29, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061123.x.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Saunders, D. (1992), ‘Peer tutoring in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, 17:2, pp. 211–19.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Scagnetti, G. (2017), ‘A dialogical model for studio critiques in design education’, Design Journal, 20:1, pp. 781–91, https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353024.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Schön, D. (1982), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Simon, H. (1984), ‘The structure of ill-structured problems’, in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 145–65.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Strauss, C., Taylor, B. L., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F. and Cavanagh, K. (2016), ‘What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures’, Clinical Psychology Review, 47:1, pp. 15–27.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Strickfaden, M. and Devlieger, P. (2011), ‘Empathy through accumulating techne: Designing an accessible metro’, Design Journal, 14:2, pp. 207–29.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Surma-aho, A. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2022), ‘Conceptualization and operationalization of empathy in design research’, Design Studies, 78:1, p. 101075, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101075.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Topping, K. J. (2005), ‘Trends in peer learning’, Educational Psychology, 25:6, pp. 631–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Turner, H. (2021), ‘Effective critique through affective peer engagement’, Journal of Interior Design, 46:3, pp. 29–45, https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12195.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Uluoglu, B. (2000), ‘Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques’, Design Studies, 21:1, pp. 33–58.
    [Google Scholar]
61. van Manen, M. (2007), ‘Phenomenology of practice’, Phenomenology & Practice, 1:1, pp. 11–30.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Vygotsky, L. (1986), Thought and Language, rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
63. de Waal, F. B. M. (2008), ‘Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy’, Annual Review of Psychology, 59:1, pp. 279–300.
    [Google Scholar]
64. de Waal, F. B. M. (2010), The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society, New York: Broadway Books.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Weber, R. P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Wingler, H. M. (1979), The Bauhaus, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
67. World Design Organization (2015), ‘Definition of industrial design’, https://wdo.org/about/definition. Accessed 1 December 2022.
68. Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (2011), Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (‘Qualitative research methods in the social sciences’), Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Yorgancıoğlu, D. and Tunalı, S. (2020), ‘Changing pedagogic identities of tutors and students in the design studio: Case study of desk and peer critiques’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 19:1, pp. 19–32.
    [Google Scholar]