Visual Knowing: A Case-Study of Gigamapping as a Pedagogical Approach

Document Type : Original Article


LASALLE College of the Arts, Singapore, Republic os Singapore


Design has embedded itself as part of the everyday through perspectives of professional practice, cultural identity, technological advancement and economic forces. The very nature of design, driven by a need for newness and change, poses challenges affecting its disciplinary foundations. As a field of study, the future paradigm of design education should rely less on controlled boundaries of theory and practice but explore new modes of inquiry to impact different applications and outcomes. Design plays a central role within the context of rapid change, defining new discourses on design education for creative placemaking and cultural production. Through the introduction of mapping as a research tool, this paper advocates for a significant change in the design education agenda to address how future designers can critically embark on new research inquiries pertinent to the creative landscape. This research examines and outlines existing understandings of design that are limited by traditional specialisms and proposes future directions for design research and pedagogy. Through a discussion of the disciplinary divide of design, its relevant knowledge and cultural considerations, this paper explores gigamapping as a pedagogical approach that generates visual expressions and articulations. The thinking and reflective practice of mapping is presented as an exploratory and conversational tool for interdisciplinary design research and practice, functioning as a creative site to challenge the epistemological foundations of design and developing forms of visual knowing.


Bremner, C., & Rodgers, P. (2013). Design without discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), p. 4-13. DOI:10.1162/DESI_a_00217
Chon, H., & Abu Bakar, N. H. (2018). Collective individualism in design. In Proceedings Series of Cumulus Paris Conference, 3, Paris, France.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), p. 5-10.
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), p. 1-5.
Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. (2012). An analysis of design process models across disciplines. In the Proceedings of International Design Conference - Design 2012, p. 171-180.
Glanville, R. (2015). Uncomfortable marriages of design and research. In Rodgers, P. A., & Yee, J. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Design Research. London: Routledge, p. 9-22.
Hekkert, P., Keyson, D., Overbeeke, K., & Stappers, P. J. (2000). The Delft ID studio lab: Research through and for design. Design Research in the Netherlands, p. 133-142.
Jonas, W. (2012). Exploring the Swampy Ground. In Grand, S., Michel, J. R., & Jonas, W. (eds), Mapping Design Research: Positions and Perspectives. Basel: Birkhauser, p. 2-24.
Makela, M. A., Hekkinen, T., & Nimkulrat, N. (2014). Drawing as a research tool: Making and understanding in art and design practice. Studies in Material Thinking, 10, p. 1-12.
Norman, D. A., & Stappers., P. J. (2015). Design X: Complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 1(2), p. 83-104.
Owen, C. L. (1998). Design research: Building the knowledge base. Design Studies, 19(1), p. 9-20.
Poggenpohl, S. H. (2015). Communities of practice in design research. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 1(1), p. 44-57.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge, Basic Books. ISBN: 0465068782.
Sevaldson, B. (2013). Systems oriented design: The emergence and development of a designerly approach to address complexity. In DRS Cumulus 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Oslo, Norway.
Sevaldson, B. (2019). Visualizing complex design: The evolution of gigamaps. In Jones, P., & Kijima, K. (eds), Systemic Design: Theory, Methods and Practice. Translational Systems Sciences, 8, p. 243-269. Springer, Tokyo.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.