Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bamford, G. (2002). From analysis/synthesis to conjecture/analysis: a review of Karl Popper’s influence
on design methodology in architecture. Design Studies. 23(3), p. 245–261.
Banathy. B.H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues. 18(2), p. 5–21.
Chang, H. (2016). Autoethnography as Method. London: Routledge.
Davidson, D. (1987). Knowing one’s own mind. proceeding and addresses of the American philosophical
association. 60(3), p. 441–458.
de Bruyn, G. & Reuter, W. (2011). Das wissen der architektur. Bielefeld, Transcript Verlag.
de Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Steven Rendell (Transl.). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Design thinking bootleg. Available
at: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg
Emmons, P. (2019). Drawing imagining building. Embodiment in Architectural Design Practices. Oxon:
Routledge.
Eastman, C. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-structured problems: A case study from design. In Walker,
D. & Norton, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Washington DC.
Farias, I. (2013). Epistemische Dissonanz. Zu Vervielfältigung Entwurfsalternativen in der Architektur. In
Ammon, S., and Froschauer, E. (Eds.), Wissenschaft Entwerfen. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. p. 76–
107.
Fleck, L. (1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Forsyth, C. J. & Copes, H. (Eds.) (2014). Encyclopedia of social deviance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Gethmann, D. & Hauser, S. (Eds.) (2009). Kulturtechnik Entwerfen. Praktiken, Konzepte und Medien in
Architektur und Design Science. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Girard, M. & Stark, D. (2002). Distributing intelligence and organizing diversity in new media projects. In
Environment and Planning A. 34 (11), p. 1927–1949.
Goel, V. (1992). A comparison of well-structured and ill-structured task environments and problem spaces.
In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. p. 844–850.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal. 2(4), p. 123–143. DOI:
10.1080/10400419109534381
Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Serial sketching. visual problem-solving in designing. Cybernetics and Systems.
An International Journal. 2(23), p. 191–219. DOI: 10.1080/01969729208927457
Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Manual sketching: Why is it still relevant? In S. Ammon, S. and CapdevilaWerning, R. (Eds.), The Active Image. Architecture and Engineering in the Age of Modeling. Cham: Spring
Switzerland Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_4
Hanna, R., & Paans, O. (2021). Thought-Shapers. Cosmos and History. 17(1), p. 1–72.
Heil. J. (1988). Privileged Access. Mind. 97 (386), p. 238–251.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Lawson, B. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. In Ergonomics. 22(1), p. 59–68.
Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Elsevier.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked
problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. In Policy Sciences. 45(2),
p. 123–152.
McLaughlan, R. & Garduño Freeman, C. (2020). You can’t say that at SAHANZ: Critical nearness and the
role of autoethnography in architectural history. In Jackson, V., Leach, W.A. & Stickells, L. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand 36: Distance Looks
Back. Sydney: SAHANZ, p. 258-272.
Munro, A. J. (2011). Autoethnography as a research method in design research at universities. 20/20
Design Vision. p. 156–163.
Newell, A. (1979). Reasoning, problem-solving and decision processes: The problem space as a
fundamental category. Research Showcase @CMU. Pittsburgh, PE: Carnegie Mellon
University.
Paans, O. & Pasel, R. (2020). The simulative stance: an essay on architectural design as epistemic
enactment. In Christensen, R. L., Drach, E., Gasperoni, L., Hallama, D., Hougaard, A. and Liptau, R. (Eds.),
Artefakte des Entwerfens. Skizzieren, Zeichnen, Skripten, Modellieren. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU
Berlin: p. 58–74. DOI: 10.14279/depositonce-8508
Paans, O. (2022). Details, totalities and reciprocal interpretation. In: Paans, O., Field Notes From Design
Space. Essays in Design Theory. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin. p. 76–87.
Paans. O. (2024). Handscapes: Gestures as agents of change and mimetic awareness. In Dimensions.
Journal of Architectural Knowledge [forthcoming].
Pressman, A. (2019). Design thinking. A guide to creative problem-solving for everyone. london:
Routledge.
Rittel, H. (1970). Der planungsprozeß als iterativer vorgang von varietätserzeugung und
varietätseinschränkung. In Joedicke, J. (Ed.), Arbeitsberichte zur Planungsmethodik 4 Entwurfsmethodik
in der Bauplanung. Stuttgart: Karl Krämer Verlag. p. 17–31.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 4, p. 155–
169.
Roberts, K. (2019). The Hiroshima Peace Memorial cenotaph and the shadowside of spatial research.
Fabrications. (29)1, p. 86-108. DOI: 10.1080/10331867.2018.1540082
Rowe, P. (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Schouwenberg, L., & Kaethler, M. (Eds.). (2021). The auto-ethnographic turn in design. Amsterdam:
Valiz.
Siegenthaler, F. (2013). Towards an ethnographic turn in contemporary art scholarship. Critical Arts:
South-North Cultural and Media Studies. 27(6), p. 737–752, DOI: 10.1080/02560046.2013.867594
Simon, H. (1973). The structure of Ill-structured problems. In Artificial Intelligence. 4, p. 181–201.
Taylor, B. P. (2021). The double diamond as an example of some challenges of attribution in the history of
ideas. Available at: https://chosen-path.org/2021/05/05/the-double-diamond-as-an-example-of-somechallenges-of-attribution-in-the-history-of-ideas/
Wood, J. (2016). Collective metamorphosis: A combinatorial approach to transformation design. In Jonas,
W., Zerwas, S. and Von Anshelm, K. (Eds.), Transformation Design. Perspectives on a New Design
Attitude. Basel: Birkhäuser. p. 246–262.
)