Cultivating the critical imagination: post-disciplinary pedagogy in a computational design laboratory

References

• Agre, Philip. 1997a. “Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI.” In Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work, edited by Geoff Bowker, Les Gasser, Susan Leigh Star, and Bill Turner, 131–157. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Agre, Philip. 1997b. Computation and Human Experience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Akin, Omer. 1987. Psychology of Architectural Design. London: Pion Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Argota Sanchez-Vaquerizo, Javier. 2018. “What You See Is What You Get: Data-Informed Workflow in Design for Architecture and Urbanism.” Thesis, figshare. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/7063361.v1.
   Google Scholar
• Baumann Jaegger, Camille. 2018. “Designing for the Hybrid Body: Presence, Representation, and Self in Virtual Reality.” MS, Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
   Google Scholar
• boyd, danah, and Kate Crawford. 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (5): 662–679. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bredendieck, Hin. 1962. “The Legacy of the Bauhaus.” Art Journal 22 (1): 15–21. doi:10.2307/774604. doi: 10.1080/00043249.1962.10794356
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, Daniel. 2015. Builders of the Vision: Software and the Imagination of Design. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, Daniel. 2017. Designing the Computational Image, Imagining Computational Design (Exhibition Catalogue). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, Daniel. 2018. “Reconstructing ‘Sketchpad’ and the ‘Coons Patch’: Toward an Archaeology of CAD.” Leonardo 51 (4): 429–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, Daniel. 2019. “Tracing Design Ecologies: Collecting and Visualizing Ephemeral Data as a Method in Design and Technology Studies.” In DigitalSTS Handbook, edited by Janet Vertesi and David Ribes. Princeton, NJ, United States: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, Daniel, and Scott Donaldson. 2019. “An Experimental Archaeology of CAD: Using Software Reconstruction to Explore Early Computer-Aided Design Technologies.” In CAAD Futures 2019: Hello, Culture. Daejeon, Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, Wei Wei. 2019. “3D Microscopic Texture Interface in CAD: Cultivating Material Knowledge for the Practiced Digital Hand.” Thesis, figshare. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/8234276.v1.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, John. 1903. Ethical Principles Underlying Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, John. 1944. Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, John. 1958. Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, John. 1990. The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum, (1902). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• DiSalvo, Carl. 2015. Adversarial Design. Reprint edition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drucker, Johanna. 2009. SpecLab: Digital Aesthetics and Projects in Speculative Computing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eastman, Charles M. 1969. “Cognitive Processes and Ill Defined Problems.” Institute of Physical Planning. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. http://doi.library.cmu.edu/10.1184/pmc/newell/box00032/fld02219/bdl0001/doc0001.
   Google Scholar
• Eastman, Charles M. 1975. “The Use of Computers Instead of Drawings in Building Design.” AIA Journal 46–50.
   Google Scholar
• Eastman, Charles M. 1981. “Recent Developments in Representation in the Science of Design.” In Proceedings of the 18th Design Automation Conference, 13–21. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800073.802274.
   Google Scholar
• Fenves, Steven, Ulrich Flemming, and Chris Hendrickson. 1994. Concurrent Computer-Integrated Building Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, F. 2009. “Affirming Values: Using Critical Reflection to Explore Meaning and Professional Practice.” Reflective Practice 10 (2): 179–190. doi: 10.1080/14623940902786198
   Google Scholar
• Habraken, N. John, and Mark D. Gross. 1988. “Concept Design Games.” Design Studies 9 (3): 150–158. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(88)90044-0.
   Google Scholar
• Hertz, Garnet. 2015. “Conversations in Critical Making.” CTheory, July, 7/29/2015-7/29/2015.
   Google Scholar
• Irani, L. C., and M. S. Silberman. 2015. “Turkopticon: Interrupting Worker Invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk,” October. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/10c125z3.
   Google Scholar
• James, W. 1983. Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khovanskaya, Vera, Phoebe Sengers, Melissa Mazmanian, and Charles Darrah. 2017. “Reworking the Gaps Between Design and Ethnography.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5373–5385. CHI ‘17. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026051.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, Terry, and George Stiny. 2001. “Classical and Non-Classical Computation.” Architectural Research Quarterly 5 (4): 355–372. doi: 10.1017/S1359135502001410
   Google Scholar
• Krishnamurti, Ramesh. 1979. “On the Generation and Enumeration of Tessellation Designs.” School of Architecture, January. http://repository.cmu.edu/architecture/2.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Loukissas, Yanni A. 2012. Co-Designers: Cultures of Computer Simulation in Architecture. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, P. 2012. “Critical Reflection: What Do We Really Mean?” In Collaborative Education: Investing in the Future – Proceedings of the 2012 ACEN National Conference, edited by M. Campbell, 163–171. Perth.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, Noortje. 2016. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-48074-3.
   Google Scholar
• Ozkar, Mine. 2017. Rethinking Basic Design in Architectural Education. 1st ed. S.l.: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ratto, Matt. 2011. “Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life.” The Information Society 27 (4): 252–260. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.583819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhee, Jinmo. 2019. “Context-Rich Urban Analysis Using Machine Learning: A Case Study in Pittsburgh, PA.” Thesis, figshare. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/8235593.v1.
   Google Scholar
• Ribes, David, and Karen Baker. 2007. “Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community Infrastructure Design.” In Communities and Technologies 2007, edited by Charles Steinfield, Brian T. Pentland, Mark Ackerman, and Noshir Contractor, 107–130. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner, Daniela K., Ken Friedman, and Erik Stolterman. 2018. Critical Fabulations: Reworking the Methods and Margins of Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salama, Ashraf, and Nicholas Wilkinson. 2007. Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead, United Kingdom: The Urban International Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C. 1995. “What We Learn When We Learn by Doing.” Technical Report ILS 60. Institute for Learning Sciences, Northwestern University.
   Google Scholar
• Schon, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. 1st ed. United States: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schon, Donald A. 1990. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Star, Susan Leigh, and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. “Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces.” Information Systems Research 7 (1): 111–134. doi: 10.1287/isre.7.1.111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, Lucy A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, Lucy. 2006. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, Lucy. 2011. “Anthropological Relocations and the Limits of Design.” Annual Review of Anthropology 40 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.041608.105640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonkinwise, C. 2012. “The Idealist Practice of Reflection: Typologies, Techniques and Ideologies for Design Researchers.” In Futureground: Design Research Society International Conference, edited by D. Durling, J. K. Redmond, and A. de Bono, 220. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
   Google Scholar
• Vertesi, Janet, David Ribes, Yanni A. Loukissas, and Marisa Leavitt Cohn. 2017. “Engaging, Designing, and Making Digital Systems by Janet Vertesi, David Ribes, Laura Forlano, Yanni Loukissas, and Marisa Leavitt Cohn.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed., 169–193. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, Langdon. 1980. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109, no. 1 121–36.
   Google Scholar
• Woodbury, Robert. 1984. “The Knowledge Based Representation and Manipulation of Geometry.” Ph.D., Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
   Google Scholar
• Yaneva, Albena. 2016. Mapping Controversies in Architecture. 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yessios, Christos. 1973. “Syntactic Structures and Procedures for Computable Site Planning.” PhD. Diss., Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
   Google Scholar