Deconstruction as a Technique for Divergent Thinking in Pedagogy of the Academic Design Process

Document Type : Original Article


School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and technology,Tehran, Iran.


Academic pedagogy of the architectural design process is one of the most contested concerns in architecture.
Divergent thinking has resulted from the intricacy of architectural problems, as well as the requirement for
creativity in finding solutions. One of the most well-known theories in the field of linguistics is Jacques Derrida's
deconstruction theory, which looks to be comparable to divergent thinking. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate
how deconstruction may be used to develop different thinking and, as a result, increase the creativity and problem-solving
abilities of architecture students. The two design processes and their outcomes were compared in this study, which was
undertaken experimentally during an academic architecture pedagogy semester with the participation of senior
architecture students. According to the findings, 80 percent of students in group A, who used the deconstruction technique,
had all of the divergent thinking criteria in their design process and outputs; however, these criteria were not totally
obvious in group B work that used the regular process. Based on the qualitative and quantitative findings of this study, it
can be concluded that deconstruction in the design process serves as a tool (technique) to foster divergent thinking and
creativity in students, hence boosting their ability to generate responsive solutions. 


Araya, K. A. (2008). Deconstruction and figurative language: An analysis of the way Language works. Revista Comunicación. 1, p. 29-41.
Aspelund, K. (2006). The design process. New York, Fairchild.
Athavankar, U. A., & Mukherjie, A. (2003). Blindfolded classroom: Getting design students to use mental images. In Human Behaviour in Design, Edited by Lindemann, U., Springer, Berlin. p. 111–120.
Baer, J. (2016). Chapter 1-Domain specificity: Introduction and overview. Domain Specificity of Creativity. p. 1-16.
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology. 109(3), p. 720–752.
Bramston, D. (2008). Basic product design 01: Idea searching. AVA Publishing.
Casakin, H., & Wodehouse, A. (2021). A systematic review of design creativity in the architectural design studio. Buildings. 11(1), p. 31.
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual differences. 14(1), p. 155-162.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies. 3(4), p. 221-227.
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2008). Correspondences and divergences between teachers and students in the evaluation of design creativity in the design studio. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 35(4), p. 666-678.
Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design. 6(3), p. 18-28.
Deconstruction as a Technique for Divergent Thinking in Pedagogy of the Academic Design Process JDT, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2021 12
Davies, R., & Talbot, R. J. (1987). Experiencing ideas: identity, insight and the imago. Design Studies. 8(1), p. 17-25.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press. Maryland.
Derrida, J. (1988). Derrida and différance. Northwestern University Press. Illinois.
Derrida, J. (1998). Writing and difference. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Drago, V., & Heilman, K. M. (2012). Creativity. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. 2, p. 606-617.
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies. 35(1), p. 29-53.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence has three facets: There are numerous intellectual abilities, but they fall neatly into a rational system. Science. 160(3828), p. 615-620.
Goldschmidt, G. (2004). Design representation: Private process, Public image. In Design Representation, Edited by Goldschmidt, G. and Porter, W. L., Springer-Verlag. p. 203–217.
Goldschmidt, G. (2007). To see eye to eye: The role of visual representations in building shared mental models in design teams. Co Design. 3(1), p. 43–50.
Goldschmidt, G., & M. Smolkov. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies. 27(5), p. 549–569.
Goldschmidt, G., & Sever, A. L. (2011). Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design Studies. 32(2), p. 139–155.
Harvey, B. D. (2013). Perceptions of environmental influences on creativity in landscape architecture design students. Thesis (M.L.A.) Advised by Naderi, J. R., Department of Landscape Architecture of Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Heinstrom, J. (2010). Positive emotionality. In From Fear to Flow, Personality and Information Interaction. Chandos Information Professional Series. p. 109-121.
Killgore, W. D. (2010). Effects of sleep deprivation on cognition. Progress In Brain Research. 185, p. 105-129.
Khakzand, M., & Azimi, M. (2015). A method to use metaphors in creative architectural design. Iran University of Science & Technology. 25(2), p. 67-75.
Khakzand, M., & Babaei, S. (2018). Developing a new method for the architectural design process: An experimental study using found-object art in the design studio. The Design Journal. 21(2), p. 209–225.
Kim, S., Moon, W., Kim, W., Park, S., & Moon, I. (2011). Is it possible to improve creativity? If yes, how do we do it?. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier. 29, p. 1130-1134.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. 2(3), p. 219–222.
Lawson, B. (1994). Design in mind. Architectural Press. Butterworth.
Lee, J. H., & Ostwald, M. J. (2022). The relationship between divergent thinking and ideation in the conceptual design process. Design Studies. 79, 101089.
Liu, Y. T. (1996). Is designing one search or two? A model of design thinking involving symbolism and connectionism. Design Studies. 17(3), p. 435–449.
Lynch, K. (2012). Site planning. Literary Licensing, LLC. United States.
Deconstruction as a Technique for Divergent Thinking in Pedagogy of the Academic Design Process JDT, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2021 13
McLuhan, H. M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. The MIT Press. Cambridge.
Merriam-Webster. (2016). Resource document:
Mumford, M. D., Todd, E. M., Higgs, C., & Elliott, S. (2018). The skills needed to think creatively: Within-process and cross-process skills. In Individual creativity in the workplace. Academic Press. p. 129-152.
Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, CA: Academic Press. San Diego. 1(A–H), p. 577–582.
Runco, M. A. (2001). Cognition and creativity. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. p. 2892-2895.
Runco, M. A., & Sumners, S. E. (2015). Creativity training. p. 2900-2903.
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic press.
Schön, D. A. (2008). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Sorguç, A. G., Hagiwara, I., & Selcuk, S. E. M. R. A. (2009). Origamics in architecture: A medium of inquiry for design in architecture. Metu Jfa 2009/2. 26(2), p. 235-247. DOI: 10.4305/mento.jfa.2009.2.12
Toth, R. E. (1988). Theory and language in landscape analysis, planning, and evaluation. Landscape Ecology. 1(4), p. 193-201.
Tokman, L. Y., & Yamacli, R. (2007). Reality-based design studio in architectural education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. p. 245-269.
Torrance, E. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking, verbal and figural: Directions manual and scoring guide. Personnel Press. New York.
Turner, C. (2016). Jacques derrida: Deconstruction. Critical Legal Thinking.
VanGundy, A. B. (2008). 101 activities for teaching creativity and problem solving. John Wiley & Sons.