AccScience Publishing / DP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/dp.4875
Submit to DP
Cite this article
4
Download
92
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Transposing purposeful human action theory and task performance research into the design context

Thomas Fischer1* ,  Chitraj Bissoonauth2 ,  Guillermo Sánchez Sotés3 ,  Christiane M. Herr1
Show Less
1 School of Design, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
2 Department of Architecture, School of Design, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
3 Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom
DP 2025, 2(2), 4875 https://doi.org/10.36922/dp.4875
Received: 18 September 2024 | Revised: 7 April 2025 | Accepted: 6 May 2025 | Published online: 28 May 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

Purposeful human action theory and empirical task performance research inform our understanding of human action and how human action may be improved. The findings of these fields are often assumed to be generalizable across all areas of human activity. Several design theories, however, characterize design as a distinct regime of human action with ill-structured, wicked, and messy qualities. This perspective suggests that insights from other fields about purposeful action and task performance may not be applicable in design. This research addresses the gap between assumptions about human action uniformity across disciplines and design’s distinctive characteristics as an ill-structured domain. We proposed analogical reasoning as both an operational framework and an explanatory mechanism for transposing theories from well-structured contexts to design contexts. We demonstrated this approach with two investigations: Testing Kirsh and Maglio’s theory of epistemic and pragmatic actions in design contexts and exploring an approach to testing Bavelas’s empirical performance studies in design contexts. Our results showed that while some principles of purposeful human action theory and empirical task performance research remain relevant in design contexts, they could also require substantial adaptation. Without adaptation, the findings of both fields may be inapplicable or even misleading when applied to design. We hope this research contributes clarity to the development of design theory as well as to theory applications in design research, education, management, and practice.

Keywords
Purposeful human action
Task performance
Ill-structured problems
Analogy
Research into design
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Eyster HN, Satterfield T, Chan KMA. Why people do what they do: An interdisciplinary synthesis of human action theories. Ann Rev Environ Resour. 2021;47:725-751. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020422-125351

 

  1. Heckhausen H. Historical trends in motivation research. In: Heckhausen J, Heckhausen H, editors. Motivation and Action. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 15-65. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4-2

 

  1. Kirsh D. Adapting the environment instead of oneself. Adapt Behav. 1996;4(3-4):415-452. doi: 10.1177/105971239600400307

 

  1. Locke EA, Latham GP, editors. New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. New York: Routledge; 2013.

 

  1. Thye SR, Lawler EJ, editors. Advances in Group Processes, 13th ed. Bingley: Emerald; 2013.

 

  1. Brown R, Pehrson S. Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2020.

 

  1. Campbell JP, Wiernik BM. The modeling and assessment of work performance. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2015;2(1):47-74. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427

 

  1. Sonnentag S, Frese M. Performance concepts and performance theory. In: Sonnentag S, editor. Psychological Management of Individual Performance. Chichester: Wiley; 2002. p. 4-25. doi: 10.1002/0470013419.ch1

 

  1. Wildman JL, Bedwell WL, Salas E, Smith-Jentsch KA. Performance measurement at work: A multilevel perspective. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Handbooks in Psychology. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 303-341.

 

  1. Zedeck S. Introduction. In: Zedeck S, editor. APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Handbooks in Psychology. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 1003-1004.

 

  1. Pinsonneault A, Kraemer KL. The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research. Decis Support Syst. 1989;5(2):197-216. doi: 10.1016/0167-9236(89)90007-9

 

  1. Simon HA. The structure of ill structured problems. Artif Intell. 1973;4(3-4):181-201. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8

 

  1. Ackoff RL. The future of operational research is past. J Oper Res Soc. 1979;30(2):93-104. doi: 10.2307/3009290

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 42-43.

 

  1. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4(2):155-169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730

 

  1. Cross N. The development of design methodology in architecture, urban planning and industrial design. In: Trappl R, editor. Proceedings of the Eighth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1986. p. 173-180.

 

  1. Rittel HWJ. On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the “first and second generations”. Bedrifts Økonomen. 1972;8:390-396.

 

  1. Rittel HWJ. The Reasoning of Designers. Working Paper for the International Congress on Planning and Design Theory (ICPDT). Boston: 1987.

 

  1. Rittel H. On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the “first and second generations”. Bedrifts Økonomen. 1972;8:394. 20. Frayling C. Research in Art and Design [Royal College of Art Research Papers]. Vol. 1. 1994. p. 1-5. Available from: https://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384

 

  1. Findeli A. Introduction. Des Issues. 1999;15(2):1-3.

 

  1. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995.

 

  1. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Vol. 6. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995.

 

  1. Johnson-Laird PN. Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In: Visniadou S, Ortony A, editors. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 313-331. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.015

 

  1. Gentner D, Bowdle BF, Wolff P, Boronat C. Metaphor is like analogy. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN, editors. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001. p. 199-253. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/1251.003.0010

 

  1. Vosniadou S, Ortony A. Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A, editors. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York; Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 1-18. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.002

 

  1. Hofstadter DR. Epilogue: Analogy as the core of cognition. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN, editors. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001. p. 499-538. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/1251.003.0020

 

  1. Vosniadou S, Ortony A. Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A, editors. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 1. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.002

 

  1. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. p. 2-5.

 

  1. Crilly N. The evolution of “co-evolution” (Part II): The biological analogy, different kinds of co-evolution, and proposals for conceptual expansion. She Ji J Des Econ Innov. 2021;7(3):333-355. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2021.07.004

 

  1. Johnson-Laird PN. Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In: Visniadou S, Ortony A, editors. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 313. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.015

 

  1. Gentner D. Analogy. In: Wilson RA, Keil FC, editors. The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999. p. 17-20.

 

  1. Ponsi A. Analogy and Design. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press; 2015.

 

  1. Hey J, Linsey J, Agogino AM, Wood KL. Analogies and metaphors in creative design. Int J Eng Educ. 2008;24(2):283-294. doi: vol24-2/s11-ijee2031

 

  1. Casakin H, Goldschmidt G. Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Des Stud. 1999;20(2):153-175. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00032-5

 

  1. Ball LJ, Ormerod TC, Morley NJ. Spontaneous analogizing in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices. Des Stud. 2004;25(5):495-508. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.004

 

  1. Gick ML, Holyoak KJ. Analogical problem solving. Cogn Psychol. 1980;12(3):306-355. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4

 

  1. Dumas D, Dong Y, Doherty M. The influence of creative expertise on the sensitivity and selectivity of analogical reasoning. Mind Brain Educ. 2021;15(3):239-249. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12287

 

  1. Gilbert SW. An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile and metaphor in science texts. J Res Sci Teach. 1989;26(4): 315-327. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260405

 

  1. Morice-Singh C. Indian calculation: The rule of three-quite a story In: Barbin É, Guichard JP, Moyon M, editors. Let History into the Mathematics Classroom. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 47-57. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57150-8-4

 

  1. Pang KYP, Pierre Pang’s Com£puter. YouTube Video, 3:48, Final Project, BA(Hons) in Industrial and Product Design, School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Posted by Yinjohn; 2007. Available from: https://youtu.be/ ED82V-mx3R0 [Last accessed on 2025 May 26].

 

  1. Kirsh D, Maglio P. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cogn Sci. 1994;18(4):513-549. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1804-1

 

  1. Cross N. The development of design methodology in architecture, urban planning and industrial design. In: Trappl R, editor. Proceedings of the Eighth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1986. p. 179.

 

  1. Cross N. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. 36.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.

 

  1. Suchman LA. Plans and Situated Actions: An Inquiry into the Idea of Human-Machine Communication. PhD Dissertation, University of California; 1984. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/ 5bcb63f1571b270f8fae350e7ad622d5/1 [Last accessed on 2025 May 26].

 

  1. Glanville R. Acting to understand and understanding to act. Kybernetes. 2014;43(9-10):1293-1300. doi: 10.1108/K-07-2014-0147

 

  1. Glanville R. Researching design and designing research. Des Issues. 1999;15(2):80-91. doi: 10.2307/1511844

 

  1. Fischer T, Herr CM. An introduction to design cybernetics. In: Fischer T, Herr CM, editors. Design Cybernetics: Navigating the New. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-18557-2-1

 

  1. Loader P. The epistemic/pragmatic dichotomy. Philos Explor. 2012;15(2):219-232. doi: 10.1080/13869795.2012.670723

 

  1. Bissoonauth C, Fischer T, Herr CM. Extended linkography to scrutinise the distinction between epistemic and pragmatic actions in design. In: Han JW, Lombardi D, editors. Advances in the Integration of Technology and the Built Environment: Select Proceeding of Architecture Across Boundaries 2024. Singapore: Springer; 2025.

 

  1. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev. 1980;87(3):215-251. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215

 

  1. Kan JWT, Gero JS, editors. Quantitative Methods for Studying Design Protocols. Dordrecht: Springer; 2017.

 

  1. Lee JH, Ostwald MJ, Gu N, editors. Design Thinking: Creativity, Collaboration and Culture. Cham: Springer; 2020.

 

  1. Smithwick D. Physical Design Cognition: An Analytical Study of Exploratory Model Making to Inform Creative Robotic Interaction. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2016. Available from: https://dspace.mit.edu/ handle/1721.1/106727 [Last accessed on 2025 May 26].

 

  1. Glanville R. A ship without a rudder. In: Glanville R, De Zeeuw G, editors. Problems of Excavating Cybernetics and Systems. Southsea: BKS+; 1997. p. 131-142.

 

  1. François C. International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. 2nd ed., Vol. 1. Munich: Saur KG; 2004. p. 312. doi: 10.1515/9783110968019

 

  1. Goldschmidt G. Linkography: Assessing design productivity. In: Trappl R, editor. Proceedings of the Tenth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. Singapore: World Scientific; 1990. p. 291-298.

 

  1. Goldschmidt G. Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 144-147.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 153.

 

  1. Glanville R. A (cybernetic) musing: Wicked problems. Cybern Hum Knowing. 2011;19(1-2):163-173.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 68.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 103.

 

  1. Glanville R. Conversation and design. In: Luppicini R, editor. Handbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2008. p. 73. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-597-9.ch005

 

  1. Valkenburg RC. The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams. PhD Dissertation, Delft University of Technology; 2000. Available from: https://resolver.tudelft. nl/uuid:8bbe62ab-e761-46f7-b386-3ead14a9d56d [Last accessed on 2025 May 26].

 

  1. Harman GH. The inference to the best explanation. Philos Rev. 1965;74(1):88-95. doi: 10.2307/2183532

 

  1. Thagard P. Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1993.

 

  1. Haig BD. Scientific method. In: Salkind NJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010. p. 1325-1329.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 145.

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 146.

 

  1. Bavelas A. Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J Acous Soc Am. 1950;22(6):725-730. doi: 10.1121/1.1906679

 

  1. Bavelas A. A mathematical model for group structures. Hum Organ. 1948;7(3):16-30. doi: 10.17730/humo.7.3.f4033344851gl053

 

  1. Leavitt HJ. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1951;46(1):38-50. doi: 10.1037/h0057189

 

  1. Bavelas A. Communication patterns in problem-solving groups. In: Pias C, editor. Cybernetics Kybernetik: The Macy- Conferences 1946-1953 Transactions Protokolle. Zurich: Diaphanes; 2003. p. 349-381.

 

  1. Von Foerster H. Principles of self-organization - in a socio-managerial context. In: Ulrich H, Kaken H, editors. Self- Organization and Management of Social Systems: Insights, Promises, Doubts and Questions. Berlin: Springer; 1954. p. 2-24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-69762-3-1

 

  1. Guetzkow H, Simon HA. The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Manage Sci. 1955;1(3-4): 233-250. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1.3-4.233

 

  1. Kvan T. Collaborative design: What is it? Autom Constr. 2000;9(4):409-415. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00025-4

 

  1. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983. p. 42.

 

  1. Shrout PE, Rodgers JL. Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Ann Rev Psychol. 2018;69:487-510. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845

 

  1. Fischer T. A theory of (and for) enquiry. In: Fischer T, Herr CM, editors. Design Cybernetics: Navigating the New. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 247. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-18557-2-14

 

Next article in this issue
Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept