E n D ®

'accident' (Buchanan 1992), 'leap' (Dorst & Cross 2001) or
'spark' (Goldschmidt 2003). This mystification of the genesis
of organising principles has limited our understanding of the
structured and motivated use of subjective knowledge within
design activity.
Organising principles have however, been described as the
'necessary rationality for designing' (Cross 1994) and as an
'ordered systematic approach to the invention of possibilities'
(Buchanan 1995). Known for connecting new and extant
knowledge (Restrepo & Christiaans 2004), they create a
'principle of relevance' for knowledge that enables the
designer to accommodate or 'filter' knowledge from multiple
domains or disciplines (Buchanan 1992). The'ac/aptafa///t/of
organising principles that enables designers to reformulate
design situations (Buchanan 1992), is based on the use of
personal and social knowledge in their construction. This is
possible because the designers personal experience, and the
situation, are both enculturated and therefore negotiable
(Restrepo & Christiaans 2004).
Goldschmidt (1988) suggests that an 'interpretation' (or
organising principle) represent a 'personalised program' or a
critical reading ofthe situation which transforms the'pieces Into
a stable structure by achieving a unique relationship' between
them (Goldschmidt 1988:235).The stabilising relationship offers
a vital clue to the objective use of subjective knowledge within
structured design activity. This idea is reinforced in Dorst's
(2006) recent conceptual framework of design problems as
'design paradoxes' in which designers address a 'network of
local links' rather than an absolute problem.
Socially situated design activity
Dorst (2006) holds that designers can never establish a
fixed mental representation of the problem at any one time
because it is constantly evolving. Instead, design problems
are approached as a 'local network of links' or sub-problems
within a larger 'global' problem. These links (or local actions
and decisions) are determined by the designer's subjective
interpretation based on their personal experience. Design
problems are essentially'unknowable' in a traditional sense,
and are in fact 'paradoxical'. 'Design paradoxes' reflect the
ambiguity of design situations and offer a contemporary
framework of design activity, which focuses on the agency of
the designer, as their solution often requires'the development
and creative redefinition of that situation' (Dorst 2006:14).
Paradoxical situations are understoodthrough theirunderlying
'discourses', including embedded terms and relationships.
The paradox is resolved when the designer 'transcends or
connects'different'discourses' by'stepping out'of the familiar
understanding of the'discourse'at points when design activity
'breaks down'. In effect, this alters the designer's situational
perspective using their 'personal experience' and a 'strong
intuitive element' (Dorst 2006:14).
'Paradoxical situations'correspond on many levels with Schon's
'reflective conversation'. Design activity, based on 'discourses'
as enculturated knowledge, Is socially situated and mirrors
the transactional nature of the 'reflective conversation'. The
alternative interpretations of normative discourses, resulting
from'break downs'within design activity, parallel the vital role
of surprise in generating altered perspective in Schon's model.
Most significantly, Dorst's concept ofa'local networkof links'in
which 'the linking behaviour of designers' relies on subjective
interpretation, corresponds with Schon's 'web-of-moves', in
which designers use their appreciative system to generate
and evaluate subjective, local 'moves experiments'within an
objective global frame. While Dorst's framework perpetuates
the understanding that altered perception results from
intuition, it supports a contemporary re-reading of Schon's
theory based on the agency of the designer in generating
these structuring relationships or links.
Naming and framing
While the use of informal and unorthodox knowledge in
design activity sounds subjective and chaotic. It is structured
and motivated and Schön argued,'objective'{Schön &Wiggins
1992:138). Unlike intuition, 'professional artistry'is'learnable'
(Schön 1983:18) and is based on the objective useof subjective
knowledge in action. Schön saw 'artistry' as 'an exercise of
intelligence' and a 'kind of knowing' (Schön 1986:13) which
was most evident when frames are generated in response a
feeling of surprise within'unique'design situatİons.Thİs activity
has been summarised as'naming-faming-moving-evaluating'
(Roozenburg & Dorst 1998). While helpful in understanding
the basic principles of reflection-in-action this model vastly