Conditions influencing the development of

design expertise: As identified in interior

design student accounts
Kennon M. Smith, Department of Apparel Merchandising and Interior
Design, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA

This study examines conditions impacting early design expertise development,

as identified in student accounts of design education experiences. Thirty-eight
interior design students participated in interviews. A constant comparative
approach was applied to identify key themes. Findings indicate interviewees
perceived conditions influencing their efforts at expertise development in the
areas of interpersonal relationships; personal knowledge, skills, and attributes;
pedagogical culture; and resources. While this study does not purport to identify
conditions influencing design expertise development for all students, it does
suggest such development cannot be assumed to concern only cognitive and other
personal development factors. A proposed model, derived from findings, is
illustrated and directions for future research are explored.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: design education, evaluation, interior design, expertise development

A
s professional practice in fields such as architecture and interior
design is increasingly regulated by licensure requirements, and as
an accredited disciplinary degree becomes more often a prerequisite
for licensure examinations, formal design education plays a greater role than
ever before in shaping how fledgling designers develop design expertise and
determining who will have the opportunity to gain such expertise. Famous de-
signers such as Frank Lloyd Wright and Ray and Charles Eames are just a
few examples of individuals who never completed formal design education,
and yet had tremendous impacts on twentieth-century design. Persons with
similar biographies could not practice as freely in many twenty-first-century
design professions.

This observation is not made to suggest that licensure should not be required
for professional design practice, nor that a design-related degree should not
be prerequisite to licensure. Instead, it is offered as a basis from which to
argue that as we constrain the range of sanctioned pathways available to in-
dividuals seeking to develop design expertise and professional status, we
Corresponding author:- should recognize that the experiences students have in formal design
kennsmit@indiana. programs (sometimes to the exclusion of other types of experiences) may
edu increasingly shape the development and future expression of design expertise.
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X Design Studies 36 (2015) 77e98
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.09.001 77
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 In light of this reality, the work reported here seeks to contribute to design
expertise literature by examining conditions students perceive to have been
either conducive to, or counter-productive to, their success in formal design
education.

It is anticipated that examining factors which impinge upon the early devel-
opment of design expertise as fostered in formal design education experiences
has implications in two complementary arenas. First, in the arena of scholar-
ship of teaching and learning, the identification and understanding of chal-
lenges faced by students may better equip teachers and curriculum
designers to develop experiences that will be of greatest benefit. Second, in
the arena of disciplinary self-study, the examination of perspectives held by
students coming into a field may provide insights into disciplinary character-
istics that have been forgotten or never recognized by individuals who have
been socialized into the discipline (Siegel & Stolterman, 2008), as well as clues
to future expressions of design expertise. These educational experiences are
likely to influence the nature of future expertise as it is collectively expressed
within a given discipline to an ever greater extent as shared professional de-
grees become compulsory for professional practice. Identifying key factors
which shape the early development of design expertise, in real time, may
help us forecast and pre-emptively evaluate key issues which will characterize
the futures of design disciplines.

1 Review of literature
Examining conditions which contribute to the development of early design
expertise in the context of formal design education can be informed by two
inter-related bodies of literature: (1) that which seeks to identify qualities of
design expertise, and (2) that which examines the contexts and conditions
under which such expertise is developed. Findings in these two bodies of liter-
ature can be further contextualized by a brief exploration of the more general
scholarship concerning the nature and acquisition of expertise across
disciplines.

1.1 Qualities of design expertise

Research in recent decades has helped shape our understandings of the nature
of design expertise. In his widely-cited 1990 article, Cross (Cross, 1990)
concluded that expert designers: apply imagination, tolerate ambiguity, adopt
solution-oriented approaches, employ abductive thinking, and use non-verbal
modeling approaches as they work to develop novel solutions to practical, but
often ill-defined problems (paraphrased, pp. 130, 132). Overviews published
since this paper (including Cross, 2004; Lawson & Dorst, 2009) have largely
reinforced many of Cross’s earlier statements e especially with respect to
designers’ tendencies to treat problems as ill-defined, pose potential solutions
before conducting exhaustive analysis, selectively attend to aspects of the
problem (problem framing), and tolerate ambiguity.

78 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 1.2 Development of design expertise
The above-cited literature has been pivotal in framing dialogue regarding
design expertise through the identification of associated characteristics or ca-
pacities. However such conclusions, in and of themselves, often don’t reveal
how study participants developed expertise, or provide a roadmap for suggest-
ing how others might develop similar expertise. These related questions have
been examined in allied scholarship regarding the nature of design education.
Design education is often based in the idea that students are best nurtured
through ‘learning by doing’ (Dorst & Reymen, 2004, p. 1). The site for this
active mode of learning is typically the design studio, often considered the
key feature of design programs (Lawson & Dorst, 2009).

When engaged in design education (and particularly design studio) students

may experience a range of difficulties, some of which are specific to an individ-
ual, while others might be more widespread. Sachs (1999) identified a range of
ways in which students might become ‘stuck’ or have difficulty in moving for-
ward with their design work including design fixation (see also Jannson &
Smith, 1991; Purcell, Williams, Gero, & Colbron, 1993), in which a student be-
comes preoccupied by a design option and cannot move on from it or alter it in
the face of significant difficulties. Other cognitive milestones associated with
expertise development, and which may cause significant difficulty before
they are achieved, include the abilities to tolerate uncertainty (Osmond &
Turner, 2010) and navigate conditions arising in team-based work (Siegel &
Stolterman, 2008).

These studies on the cognitive challenges faced by novices seem often to

directly blend discourse on design education and design expertise e the under-
lying assumption being that education can and should help novices develop
capabilities more closely aligned with those exhibited by experts. Indeed, bet-
ter understanding cognitive barriers and milestones which mark the
acquisition and expression of design expertise can be of significant help in
identifying ways to assist students in acquiring the habits displayed by experts.
However, one cannot assume that a narrow focus on fostering such changes in
personal capacity will directly address all conditions impinging upon a stu-
dent’s success in the educational environment.

A small but significant body of literature identifies additional considerations

which may impact such success including: the emotional climate fostered in
studio (Austerlitz & Aravot, 2007), complex cultural dynamics embedded in
design juries (Anthony, 1991), and power differentials in student/instructor
interactions (Willenbrock, 1991). This literature suggests that while a focus
on changing the internal, personal capacities of students may be the primary
goal of design education, broader (sometimes unintentional) conditions
embedded in the emergent educational setting may significantly impact the

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 79

 development of such capacities and the forms they eventually take. This liter-
ature, while helpful in understanding conditions in design education, is not
usually directly linked to literature on the nature of design expertise, nor often
viewed as directly contributing to definitions of design expertise.

In making this point, it is not the intention to suggest that any scholar explic-
itly claims that broader contextual factors, such as those concerning culture or
interpersonal dynamics, are unimportant in the development of design exper-
tise. However, it is useful to recognize that the conditions under which many
studies of design expertise are conducted (particularly the relatively artificial
environments and timelines necessitated in some cases by study controls and
timelines) may separate study subjects from both (1) the broader contextual
factors which typically factor into their professional practice, and (2) the fac-
tors in their personal biography which shaped their expertise. In strictly
controlled experimental studies, the factors left to observe are those internal
to the participants (such as differences in ways of thinking or acting made
visible by the study), or those resources and conditions made available in
the design of the study treatment (such as access to specific kinds of resources).
The unintended consequence of such work may be that some readers then
focus on the factors highlighted by study findings, while not considering fac-
tors that the experimental design has precluded from surfacing. Over-
reliance on the findings of such studies may artificially constrain our primary
discourse on expertise to the personal characteristics or attributes observable
in these experimental settings. Such discourse may ignore conditions of exper-
tise distributed in the environment, in communities of practice, or in personal
biography if not supplemented by a greater quantity of literature inclusive of
broader contextual factors. When broader considerations related to conditions
shaping the development of expertise are currently addressed, they typically
appear in the context of literature on design education, and less often as direct
contributions to discourse on the nature (as well as the acquisition) of design
expertise.

1.3 Nature and acquisition of expertise: insights from non-

design fields
In general literature on the nature and acquisition of expertise, one of the most
frequent conclusions (independent of the specific field or skill under consider-
ation) is that expertise attainment requires the investment of significant time in
practice. This conclusion has been reached in studies concerning endeavors as
diverse as sports (Baker, Horton, Robertson-Wilson, & Wall, 2003), music
(Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993), and chess (Simon & Chase,
1973). While the typical amount of time required for mastery may vary
from one activity to another (Horn & Masunaga, 2006), estimates of practice
hours necessary to achieve expertise typically number in the thousands, spread
over the course of years (Ericsson et al., 1993; Simon & Chase, 1973). Further
scholarship has clarified that it is not only the amount of time in practice, but

80 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 also the quality of activities comprising such practice that significantly impacts
on progress towards expertise (Guest, Regehr, & Tiberius, 2001). Practice
must not simply reinforce routines already has mastered, but must instead
be deliberate (Ericsson, 2006; Ericsson et al., 1993) and engage the learner
in activities that expand beyond present capabilities.

This recognition of the significant amount of time required to develop exper-

tise, as well as the importance of carefully crafting how this time is spent, has
further expanded dialogue in expertise-development literature to consider the
importance of factors beyond the scope of conditions internal to the learner.
For example, while some innate capacities may be shaped by genetic factors
outside the learner’s control, such capacities are unlikely to be developed or
expressed unless the learner has access to practice opportunities and is
motivated to persevere through many years of practice (Baker & Horton,
2004). External factors such as support from family (C^ ote, 1999) or peers
(Gardner, 2011), access to training facilities and qualified teachers (Baker &
Horton, 2004), competition from rivals (Gardner, 2011), and societal rewards
for achieving expertise (Hunt, 2006), are all likely to mediate the expression of
innate capacities and the efficacy of efforts at expertise development. The im-
pacts of broader social factors may lead to varying levels of social support and
access to training opportunities from one culture to another, and help explain
how groups of experts tend to cluster in different regionsdice hockey players
in Canada, alpine skiers in Austria, and long-distance runners in Kenya (Baker
et al., 2003).

Certainly, the social context impacts upon the availability and prominence of
role models to whom a novice might look, the visibility of expert achievements
to which the student might aspire, and the availability of coaches capable of
nurturing expertise. Simonton (2003, 2006) emphasizes that the socio-
cultural milieu, including factors such as political stability, economics, and
the social value attached to different types of activities, plays a pivotal role
in shaping both opportunities and motivation for the development of exper-
tise. As summarized by Hunt (2006), ‘Becoming an expert in almost anything
requires literally years of work. People will do this only if they have some
initial success, enjoy the work, and are supported by the social climate. Exper-
tise is not solely a cognitive affair’ (p. 36).

As the literature on expertise development has expanded to consider factors

beyond those internal to the learner, there has been a growing effort to study
the different pathways that these factors may typically follow in their various
impacts on expertise. Baker and Horton (2004), in their scholarship on
expertise in sport, suggest that factors might be usefully categorized as primary
or secondary. Primary factors are those which impinge directly upon expertise
development and include, in athletics, factors such as genetics, training activ-
ities, and psychological abilities. Secondary factors are those which influence

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 81

 the development of expertise by modifying the likelihood of access to, or devel-
opment of, primary factors and include issues related to socio-cultural support
and context. For example, deliberate practice activities (or training) may be
primary factors and thus directly modify the internal capabilities of a student.
However, the likelihood of those practice activities being available may be
modified by secondary factors such as the social prestige of the activity, and
the learner’s motivation to persist in those activities may be modified by sec-
ondary factors such as family or peer support.

In a related argument, Baker and Horton (2004) propose that social factors
also fundamentally shape the defining characteristics of expertise in different
areas. Specifically, as an activity gains in popularity and prestige, the pool
of competitors vying for recognition as experts in the field grows, and thus
tends to raise the level of performance required to distinguish oneself in the
field. With this in mind, it could be argued that socio-cultural factors not
only shape the likelihood of accessing opportunities to develop expertise,
but also function to influence how such expertise is ultimately defined. Thus,
while secondary factors related to social climate and context may not be
directly observable in future expressions of expertise, they function as modi-
fiers of the likely development of such expertise and constitute important con-
siderations in dialogue concerned with the perceived nature of expertise.

In fields of design where college degrees are increasingly pre-requisite for entry
into the profession, it is important to examine how socio-cultural influences
may influence the likelihood of students matriculating into and persisting
through such programs. Indeed, the findings in expertise literature which point
to the important motivational and support functions of social context seem to
be reinforced in literature on student success in degree programs. Astin (1993),
after his landmark study involving thousands of college students concluded,
‘the student’s peer group is the single most potent source of influence on
growth and development during the undergraduate years’ (p. 398). Similarly,
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found that peer influence impacted intellectual
development and was a significant factor in program persistence. Such findings
may significantly alter our future models of expertise development within
educational settings, requiring that socio-cultural and other motivational fac-
tors been considered alongside the discipline-specific knowledge and skills that
are often the primary features of such models (Alexander, 2003).

1.4 Research question

In his 2004 overview, Cross noted three predominant approaches used in
studying design expertise: comparing novice and expert behavior, examining
experts in practice, and interviewing exceptional designers. This study seeks
to add to this growing body of literature by suggesting a fourth approach e
an examination of the development of early expertise as embedded in personal
biographical experiences in design education. It is conducted with the

82 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 assumption that formal design education experiences are integral to the early
stages of design expertise and impinge upon the shape that may be assumed by
more mature stages of such expertise. From this position, this research asks the
following: What conditions, embedded in interior design students’ narrative
accounts, are perceived as having facilitated or hindered their success in design
education experiences? The goal here is to better understand the nature and
development of design expertise by examining the experiences students have
as they become full participants in this form of design pedagogy, seeking to
develop design expertise.

In setting up this approach, this study assumes a slightly different position

than that described above with respect to the relationship of scholarship on
design expertise and that on design education. This relationship has sometimes
been presented as a one-way street e a question of how design education can
facilitate students’ movement towards design expertise. The research reported
here certainly recognizes this important relationship, but expands it by
assuming that the relationship is two-way e that investigations of design edu-
cation may help us better understand and critically evaluate the nature of
design expertise, and forecast its on-going, future expression.

2 Method
2.1 Participants
Students enrolled in their last required interior design studio at a large, public,
Midwestern university were invited to participate in interviews regarding their
design education experiences. This final studio is taught during only one se-
mester each academic year, and students from three successive cohorts (a sepa-
rate cohort each year, for three consecutive years), were recruited for study
participation. Ultimately, 38 students participated in interviews. The invited
cohorts were overwhelmingly comprised of female students, and 36 of the 38
participants were women. Most participants were traditional college-age stu-
dents in their early to mid-twenties.

Students enrolled in the final required studio were targeted for participation in
this study because they were at a cross-road deemed particularly beneficial to
the gathering of student narratives. As a prerequisite to enrollment in this stu-
dio, each had completed nearly all of their undergraduate design coursework,
and most were on track to graduate with Bachelor’s degrees at the end of the
academic year in which they were taking the studio. It was assumed that their
undergraduate learning experiences would be relatively fresh in their minds
and not yet dimmed by the extensive passage of time, or altered by extensive
professional practice. Furthermore, by conducting the interviews near the
end of the educational experience, it was anticipated that students would be
able to describe their perceptions of personal trajectories, changes, and
challenges over the course of that period.

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 83

 2.2 Data collection
An in-person, one-on-one interview was conducted by the same interviewer
with each participant. Interviews were deemed appropriate due to the explor-
atory nature of this research study as the format permitted a wide range of is-
sues to be discussed and facilitated a searching process co-constructed by
interviewer and interviewee in the absence of a pre-set framework regarding
the issues students might deem most significant in their educational experi-
ences and the expertise that they sought to develop through such experiences.
It was anticipated that data gathered in this way would inform future hypoth-
eses regarding the early stages of expertise development, and focus future,
more time- and resource-intensive data collection methods such as prolonged
observations or surveys administered to a larger number of participants.

Interviews were audio recorded and ranged in length from approximately 30 to

75 min, with most interviews lasting between 45 and 60 min. Interviews were
guided by scripts of questions (see example questions in Table 1), but dialogue
proceeded flexibly with the possibility of questions being dropped or added
based on the content of the specific interview. For example, some participants
addressed the intent of later questions in the course of answering an early ques-
tion. In such a situation, the later question would be omitted. In other cases, in-
terviewees emphasized key concerns which prompted the interviewer to ask
follow up questions (to ensure or expand understanding), even if such follow-
up questions had not been anticipated and were not part of the interview script.

2.3 Data analysis

All interviews were transcribed by the researcher and then analyzed utilizing a
constant comparative approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Specifically, the
interview transcripts were printed and then separated into coherent sections

Table 1 Example interview questions

How has the program been similar to, or different from, what you expected?

What did you expect the program to be like when you began?

What were your incoming perceptions of interior design?

How do those perceptions compare to your current perceptions?
What parts of the program did you find most difficult? Why?
What project/projects did you feel you were most successful with?

What do you like about the finished project?

What do you think made this project so successful for you?

How did you approach this project?
What project do you believe was least successful for you? Why?
How do you know if a project is going well or not? (Or if it is successful or not?)
Do you ever get stuck and have a hard time moving forward when you are working on a design project?
If so, does it usually happen at a certain point in the design process? If so, how to you get unstuck?
What advice would you give an incoming student?
What (if anything) would you do differently if you were starting the program again?
What advice would you give to faculty? What worked well and has to stay?
What did not work well and has to be changed or improved?

84 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 (unitized). These units were then physically sorted into stacks based on the
similarity of ideas being addressed in each unit. From these stacks of similar
excerpts, themes were identified in an effort to summarize salient points being
expressed in the excerpted dialogue. These themes form the basis of the issues
identified in the findings and discussion section of this paper.

2.4 Limitations and assumptions

As with any study, the specific design of this investigation carries with it certain
advantages and limitations. Specifically in this case, the approach and sample
size limit generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that
interviewee perceptions may not be consistent with impressions that would be
developed by an outside bystander, or by other students or instructors who
may have been involved in events described in interview narratives. Indeed,
previous research has demonstrated that student perceptions may often be
different from those of their teachers (Goulden & Griffin, 1997). For the
purposes of this study, interviewee accounts are assumed to be true, in the
sense that they are seen as good-faith attempts on the part of the study partic-
ipant to explain their personal experiences, and based on the assumption that
it is the experiences as they are perceived by the student that have the greatest
impact on the student, not the experience as perceived by an outsider.

3 Findings and discussion

At the outset of data collection, the researcher anticipated findings would pri-
marily focus on cognitive challenges students had faced as they attempted to
change their ways of thinking and learn skills and content necessary for the
development of design expertise. However, response patterns grounded in
interviewee narratives turned out to be inconsistent with this projection. Stu-
dents identified a much wider range of factors impacting the efficacy of their
experiences. These themes can be organized in four broad categories: interper-
sonal relationships; personal knowledge, skills, and attributes; pedagogical
culture; and resources. Each of these categories is briefly elaborated in
Table 2. While interviewees did relate experiences which pointed to difficulties
in knowledge and skill acquisition, these were overshadowed by the over-
whelming emphasis narratives gave to describing the impact interpersonal in-
teractions had (for better or for worse) on their developing design expertise.
Each of these four categories will be addressed in order of the significance
interviewee accounts seemed collectively to accord them and will be accompa-
nied by a table of representative interviewee remarks and a brief discussion of
links between findings and existing literature.

3.1 Interpersonal relationships

Interview transcripts were filled with stories of pivotal moments involving stu-
dents and their interactions with peers, instructors, friends and family, and
even strangers. These interactions were described either as sources of
considerable support or as impediments to student progress.

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 85

Table 2 Major categories emergent in interviewee narratives

Category Description

Interpersonal This category deals with interpersonal relationships interviewees developed with
relationships peer students, instructors, and persons outside the program, particularly with
reference to the degree to which these relationships were seen as supportive or
non-supportive. These relationships were described as directly influencing the
effectiveness of their design education experiences with respect to their
developing expertise, as well as impacting their resilience and ability to persist
in the program.
Personal knowledge, This category deals with cognitive and skill changes that interviewees described
skills, and attributes occurring within themselves. These changes included acquiring content
knowledge, developing deeper understandings of design process and facility in
moving through such a process, mastering technical and craft skills needed in
completing projects, and shifting personal attitudes and expectations.
Pedagogical culture This category deals with the culture which students described as existing within
the program and, most often, within studios. Issues included studio expectations,
traditions, and policies, as well as larger issues pertaining to the nature and
management of the program’s curricular plan.
Resources This category deals with both knowledge resources and physical resources.
These resources were described as essential with respect to their availability and
were identified as major sources of frustration when they proved to be unreliable.

3.1.1 Student to student

Among these respondents, relationships to and among their fellow, design stu-
dent peers seemed to have been the single most important factor in their persis-
tence and in the efficacy of the experiences afforded them through that
persistence. They repeatedly described turning to each other first when they
had questions, stated that they could not have made it through the program
without other members of their cohort, and described tight-knit communities
emerging as they progressed together through the four-year program. When
competition among peers was mentioned, it was usually cast in a positive light,
as a motivating impetus toward better work. However, a small number of par-
ticipants identified such competition as stress-inducing, or even as a motiva-
tion for peers to ‘steal’ ideas from one another. Similarly, a very small
group of interviewees described, sometimes in painful terms, that they felt
excluded or sidelined from the majority group and that this had significantly
and negatively impacted their experience. This sense of isolation may have
been a deterring factor for some students who never made it to the senior stu-
dio, as a few interviewees speculated that some of their peers who dropped out
of the program may have done so because they did not fit in with the emerging
cohort personality.

3.1.2 Student to instructor

Descriptions of the influence faculty interactions had upon students was more
evenly mixeddwith some interviewees expressing appreciation for the support
and mentoring they felt faculty had provided, while others described faculty
interactions as major barriers in their attempts to develop design expertise.

86 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 Even within single interviews there was sometimes variation, with specific fac-
ulty members singled out as having been particularly helpful while others were
described has having been particularly difficult. It is interesting to note that it
was usually not the faculty member’s perceived subject matter competence that
seemed to make the difference here, but more often the faculty member’s
perceived willingness to mentor students and ability to convey to students a
genuine interest in their progress and a sense of confidence in their ultimate
success. An area of particular concern in student/instructor interactions was
the perception expressed by some interviewees that grades were influenced
by favoritism. Such perceptions were expressed by both high-achieving and
low-achieving students, and undermined confidence that grades could be
used as reliable forms of instructor communication in efforts to develop design
expertise.

3.1.3 Student to program outsiders

Some interviewees explained significant impacts on their success made by
family, friends outside the program, and even strangers. For example,
when asked how they had become interested in the interior design program,
many students reported that family members had initially encouraged them
to consider interior design, or been particularly helpful in their program se-
lection processes. However, such perceived family support was not univer-
sal. In one particularly memorable account, an interviewee expressed
frustration that a family member repeatedly denigrated the importance of
her field of study, asking her if she was ‘done playing with crayons yet.’
Other interviewees expressed the frustration they felt in constantly having
to justify their work because outside friends and strangers often viewed
interior design as being easy. This lack of larger societal support led
some interviewees to wonder aloud if they had made the right decision to
persist in the field when so many people outside the program seemed to
hold low opinions of their work and the interior design profession.
(Table 3).

3.1.4 Discussion of interpersonal relationships

While issues related to interpersonal relationships do not seem to constitute a
major focus in existing literature on design expertise, it is perhaps not surpris-
ing (if one looks at broader literature regarding expertise development) that
these relationships were the issues discussed most often, and accorded the
greatest significance, by interviewees. Lauren Sosniak, formerly a coordinator
for Benjamin Bloom’s Development of Talent Project, reflected that the
research team had at first assumed the talented adults who were part of the
study (and were considered experts in their respective fields) had been identi-
fied at young ages as having great potential and that this potential was then
nurtured through learning opportunities and encouragement (Sosniak,
2006). The findings of the project, however, suggested a different patterndthat
the individuals had first been provided social support, then began to show

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 87

Table 3 Interpersonal Relationships: Sub-themes and representative interview excerpts

3.1.1: Student to student

Role of student peers in ‘. my class is very close. . . . we are all each other’s support system. None of
providing support us could have gotten through this program in my opinion without the help of
(or of causing exclusion) everybody else. . . . we rally around each other and
we, if we can’t figure something out, we go to somebody else because we don’t
feel like we necessarily always get the support from some of the faculty.’
‘. everyone’s so close that I kind of always felt like an outsider . I’ve
always felt like I was just on the outskirts of everything .’
Impact of competition ‘I mean there’s always like a little bit of rivalry in our class and I think that
(both positive and you’re going to get that. You get that with siblings even, but it’s still
detrimental) supportive. . . . They’re not judging my competence. They just want to do
better and everybody wants to do better and you don’t learn, and you don’t
grow without competition.’
‘. I know that a lot of people feel like they don’t want to work at the studio
because the competitive nature. . . .’
3.1.2: Student to instructor
Importance of perceived ‘. I don’t feel like I get treated with any respect in this program and . I know
instructor belief and I have high standards for myself but when the people around me don’t expect
confidence in student anything from me, it makes me wonder why . they don’t expect high standards
from me .’
Questions regarding ‘. I know it’s hard but a lot of the teachers are very subjective, . if they like
favoritism in grades someone I think they’re definitely gonna give them a better grade . we produce
like the same level of work, but I got a higher grade and I think that’s definitely
because [professor name removed] favored me .’
3.1.3: Student to program outsiders
Impact of social perceptions ‘. I say interior design to so many other people and they’re just like, Oh, fluff.
of field and value of work You know, it’s just all fluff. And you’re not really doing anything .’

promise in their given area, and were subsequently provided even more social
support. It appears that the effort necessary to move beyond initial introduc-
tion to a field, to persist through difficult developmental phases, and to endure
the tedium which accompanies some aspects of expertise development was
often facilitated by ‘enormously supportive social contexts’ (Sosniak, 2003,
as quoted in Sosniak, 2006, p. 289). Sosniak (2006) summarized the role
such support had played as follows.

[W]e found that the development of talent appears to require enormously

supportive social contexts. One of the lessons we learned from the project
is that no one develops talent on his or her own, without the support,
encouragement, advice, insight, guidance, and goodwill of many others.
(p. 290)
Students in the current, interior design study seemed to support Sosniak’s
conclusion, citing time and time again the role supportive interpersonal rela-
tionships played in their persistence and in their perceived successes. Simi-
larly, when such support was absent, or when social contexts actively
discouraged their efforts or were dismissive of the value of their work, this
was seen as a significant barrierdone which some students believed had led
peers to discontinue their studies, and some interviewees to question their
commitment to future persistence in the field.

88 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 3.2 Personal knowledge, skills, and attributes
At the outset of this study the researcher anticipated interviewees’ accounts
would largely center on the cognitive and skill challenges faced in their at-
tempts to develop design expertise. Recognizing that much of the literature
pertaining to design expertise deals with issues surrounding the nature of
design thinking and ways in which expert habits of thought and action might
be inculcated in novice students, interview scripts included questions specif-
ically intended to draw out descriptions of the subject matter, projects, and ex-
periences that had proved most difficult to master or complete. As it turned
out, these questions proved to be among the least useful in identifying patterns
of experience. When asked to reflect on specific subject matter which had been
particularly challenging or that had come to them easily, interviewees did not
respond in any consistent pattern. The topics which some students found to be
difficult, others reported as having mastered easily. When asked to identify
successful or unsuccessful projects, respondents spoke more in terms of their
affinity for one kind of design specialization (hospitality versus health care
versus residential) than in terms of challenges or obstacles encountered in
one project or another.

While these questions did not elicit the patterns that had been hoped, consid-
eration of the interview accounts as wholes did surface more generalized issues
that proved to be particularly challenging for most respondents with respect to
personal development in their ways of thinking and acting. Specifically, narra-
tives revealed significant difficulties learning how to manage design processes
and developing more nuanced, personal understandings of the nature of
design.

3.2.1 Managing design process

Numerous accounts were given regarding difficulty developing better time
management skills and learning to navigate design processes in collaborative
projects. Nearly every interviewee, in one way or another, identified time man-
agement as a major hurdle. Students described multiple all-nighters, incom-
plete projects, difficulty estimating time needed to complete tasks, and the
negative effects they felt studio demands had on their physical health. The abil-
ity to forecast the work involved in completing a given design assignment,
schedule work on a realistic timeline, and then adhere to that timeline was
something to which many aspired, but few felt confident they had mastered.

3.2.2 Understanding nature of design

A second major area of focus in student accounts was a gradual change in their
personal understanding of the nature of design. This evolution was character-
ized in three specific ways: understanding the nature of design problems,
learning to make judgments regarding design quality, and developing an abil-
ity to tolerate uncertainty.

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 89

 First among these issues contributing to a more nuanced view of design was
difficulty in grasping the nature of design problems, especially considering
how different these problems seemed to be when compared to previous school-
work, in which problems typically had right or wrong answers. In the absence
of ‘correct’ answers, interviewees described difficulty in learning how to judge
the quality of the work they were doing, some determining that design was ul-
timately ‘subjective’ while others developed ways of making situational judg-
ments based on project-specific criteria. In some particularly reflective
accounts, interviewees were able to see how design had required them to
develop greater capacity to tolerate uncertainty in their work e to be able
to keep an open mind instead of blindly adhering to an early solution if it
proved increasingly problematic. (Table 4).

3.2.3 Discussion of personal knowledge, skills, and

attributes
The changes these students described in their own knowledge, skills, and attri-
butes, along with the challenges they faced in accomplishing such changes,
have links to design-specific literature regarding the nature of design and
expertise. For example, questions regarding the nature of design and design
problems are consistent with literature describing design problems as wicked,
or ill-defined (e.g., Dorst, 2006; Restrepo & Christiaans, 2004). Conspicuous in
their absence, student accounts did not stress many of the cognitive challenges
(such as fixation), or practices (such as problem framing) identified in litera-
ture on design expertise. This does not indicate that such challenges did not
exist for the interviewees, but does suggest that such challenges may not
have been apparent to the study participants, or that the interview format
more successfully elicited accounts which foregrounded other types of issues.

3.3 Pedagogical culture

A third major category of themes in student accounts related to the pedagog-
ical culture that emerged within the interior design program. Interviewees

Table 4 Personal knowledge, skills, attributes: Sub-themes and representative interview excerpts

3.2.1: Managing design process

Developing time ‘. I’m not always like happy with it [space planning on the floor plan] so I feel like
management skills sometimes I get stuck there and then I forget that I need to move on, it’s design
development time and I think that’s one thing I think a lot of us have trouble with, is
saying, OK, this is the floor plan. Stop. It’s good, it’s good enough. It’s done. It’s what
it’s gonna be.’
‘. I saw people’s [final presentation] boards but I had no idea how much work was
behind that .’
3.2.2: Understanding nature of design
Difficulty learning to ‘. people are never gonna agree but it’s one of the things that I think is most
make judgments frustrating about design, but you’re always gonna deal with it.’
of quality
Difficulty learning to ‘Well, I’m one of those bad people that falls in love with the design and then I hate
tolerate uncertainty listening to people critique it, even if it’s not the best design, like I just fall in love with
just one piece of it and I just hold on to it for way too long.’

90 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 discussed several of these inter-related factors, including issues surrounding
studio expectations, feedback mechanisms, and power differentials that
emerged in this culture.

3.3.1 Studio expectations

The expectations that accompanied studio culture proved to be troublesome to
interviewees with respect to both implicit and explicit requirements. Most in-
terviewees expressed that upon entering the program they had been surprised
by the workload, had struggled to keep up with assigned projects, and had felt
growing pressure as they progressed through the program to spend increas-
ingly large proportions of their available time on studio. For some, the pres-
sures inherent in this demanding workload were compounded by
departmental policies intended to foster professionalismdspecifically policies
concerning late work. Students in upper-division studios were required to turn
in projects by the assignment deadline, even if incomplete, or receive a zero for
the project. Because these were typically large projects and consumed the ma-
jor part of any given semester (and thus constituted a major portion of the
course grade) failure to deliver a project on time could result in an overall
course grade so low that the student would be held back from advancing to
the next year’s coursework. While this rarely happened, the threat of such a
dire consequence featured prominently in many interviewee accounts and
they described how this policy (combined with the sometimes unreliable nature
of certain technologies) incentivized students toward conservative approaches
in their work.

3.3.2 Feedback
Prominent features of typical design studios include both formative feedback
(often provided through informal desk critiques) and summative feedback
(often provided through final presentations and formal grades). Both types
of feedback proved difficult and were seen as major impediments by a sizable
portion of interviewees. Many expressed confusion regarding the purpose of
desk critiques. Having been required to present their work-in-progress to in-
structors, some could not understand why instructors had not corrected all
of their errors by the time the final design was developed. These interviewees
explained how surprised they had then been when they received lower grades
than had been hoped, having assumed there was an implicit agreement that in-
structors should guide students and mold interim work so that by the time the
final design is submitted, it is awarded an A letter-grade.

Similarly, many recounted difficulties in understanding assessment practices

and indicated that grades often seemed random, or to be contingent on in-
structors’ fluctuating whims instead of being directly reflective of work quality.
A number of interviewees expressed serious doubts about their abilities mov-
ing forward, and a sense of helplessness in being able to influence the direction
of their grades. Confusion regarding both formal (grades) and informal (desk

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 91

 critiques) feedback made it very difficult for students to have a sense of how
they were progressing in their efforts to develop design expertise.

3.3.3 Power relationships

Uncertain meanings of feedback and ambiguous expectations regarding how
they should respond to such feedback appear to have interacted for many in-
terviewees with perceptions of the validity (or invalidity) of grades, and
fostered what were described as power struggles between student and
instructor. This uneasy power differential was illustrated by narratives re-
counting interim critiques in which students described feeling like instructor
comments were no more than statements of opinion, yet being obligated to
conform to corrective advice in order to attain the highest possible grade.
This view was summarized by one student who explained that the ultimate
rationale for design decisions was ‘to make the professor happy.’ (Table 5).

3.3.4 Discussion of pedagogical culture

In 2000, the American Institute of Architecture Students launched the Studio
Culture Task Force to examine the potentially detrimental effects of studio
culture and the workloads imposed on students in such a culture (AIAS,
2010). The struggles identified above are consistent with the cautions expressed
in the studio culture project and suggest that many of the concerns raised in the
literature are still on-going in these interviewees’ lived experiences. Similarly,
there is precedent for finding shortcomings, even abuses (e.g., Anthony,
1991), in the feedback systems typically accompanying studio culture, and
this might legitimately give one pause to consider whether these practices
are assisting or impeding in the development of design expertise. Finally,
first-person student accounts such as Willenbrock’s (1991) suggest that howev-
er egalitarian studio instructors might hope their classrooms are, the realities
of power structures in academic settings create differentials that are difficult to
students to navigate, and which may complicate students’ abilities to chal-
lenge, or even effectively weigh, instructor feedback when they do not under-
stand or are not in agreement.

Table 5 Pedagogical culture: Sub-themes and representative interview excerpts

3.3.1: Studio expectations

Workload ‘. the workload it was just . I mean it was ridiculous .’
3.3.2: Interpreting feedback
Challenge knowing how to ‘It’s just the fact that sometimes you get told one thing, then you get told
respond to critique another thing and then you get told another thing and it’s like and then they
go back to the first thing that they tell you they don’t want.’
Difficulty interpreting grades ‘. it doesn’t reflect all the work. It never, it never reflects all of the work
you’ve put into it .’
3.3.3: Emergent power relationships
Design decisions grounded ‘. at certain points I felt like I was designing it for her satisfaction. I didn’t
in teacher approval really design it for . me . I just feel like it’s not, it’s no longer my design
any more .’

92 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 3.4 Resources
Interviewees stressed the importance of both knowledge resources (including
access to peers, instructors, relevant coursework, and technical support) and
physical resources (including hardware, software, and studio facilities) as
they described their efforts to develop design expertise. These resources were
discussed both with respect to students’ abilities to access these resources as
needed, as well as the quality or dependability of these resources.

3.4.1 Knowledge resources

With respect to knowledge resources, the preponderance of interviewees iden-
tified peers as their most important, responsive, and targeted knowledge
resources. While instructors were also perceived as being valuable sources of
insight and information, a number of respondents stressed that instructors
did not understand student difficulties in acquiring information and
completing design tasks, and therefore could not provide information or guid-
ance in useful ways. Similarly, while instructors were seen as valuable
resources in the sense that they could lead coursework, many students ex-
pressed concern that this coursework was not sufficiently broad and did not
expose them to the knowledge (particularly with respect to the latest software
programs) they believed would be necessary for professional success.

3.4.2 Physical resources

Access to dependable physical resources was described as being of critical
importance in students’ experiences. These physical resources were primarily
in the form of hardware (computers), software, and studio facilities. A major
concern among many interviewees was the management of the laptop com-
puters they used for modeling, drafting, and rendering. Students reported
numerous difficulties managing these tools and frustrations associated with
frequent machine failures. It seemed that nearly every interviewee had their
own horror story, or knew one of their peers who had experienced a case of
computers dying, or of software freezing up right before a deadline. Several
students saw this as a major distraction and as taking away from their time
and ability to focus on design solutions. Furthermore, for some, it seemed
that their designs were constrained by what they knew how to do with the soft-
ware, or by what they anticipated might cause technological problems down
the road. Thus computer technologies were not just tools to develop and repre-
sent ideas, but also shaped solution paths that students would consider.

Another major issue in the area of physical resources was access to and
perceived suitability of studio facilities. Due to security concerns, students
did not have 24-h access to the design studios and many felt strongly the spaces
needed to be accessible longer hours. This was usually not, as one might
expect, because they needed access to specialized tools or resources at all hours
of the night, but often because they needed a dedicated space in which they

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 93

 could all work together. The space facilitated easy access to that which was
described as their most important resource e their peers. (Table 6).

3.4.3 Discussion of resources

Resources seem to present an ever-growing challenge to both students and to
the administrators responsible for provisioning them. The traditional studio
model is, due to its nature and structure, an expensive and resource-
intensive endeavor relative to other modes of education (Jeffries, 2007). As
tools become more sophisticated and costly, while also proliferating in variety
and sheer number, providing the physical tools and the technical knowledge to
support such resources is likely to continue as a major challenge.

4 Implications and conclusion

Even if design disciplines continue to characterize expertise primarily in terms
of the knowledge and skill possessed by individuals considered to be experts,
our dialogue regarding expertise cannot be limited to these factors if the devel-
opment of such expertise subsumes a broader range of concerns. As previously
noted, much of the literature related to design expertise focuses on the cogni-
tive and physical capabilities of design experts and thus points towards a strat-
egy of helping students change their patterns of thought and action to be more
consistent with expert practice. While such approaches are critically impor-
tant, the findings in this particular study suggest they may not always be suf-
ficient to address the major conditions impinging on students’ efforts to
develop such expertise. Indeed, the narratives in these interviews suggest
that cognitive factors are only part of the larger picture concerning novices’
development of design expertise.

4.1 Proposed interaction of factors

This expanded range of factors contributing to perceived design expertise
development for this study’s interviewees is perhaps not surprising when

Table 6 Resources: Sub-themes and representative interview excerpts

3.4.1: Knowledge resources

Student peers ‘. our last project I worked at the studio most of the time and I think that really helped cuz
everyone else was there and you could ask questions immediately to everyone else around you
and it was such like a collaborative environment I guess . so it was really helpful all around.’
‘. we all just have different skills and help each other out.’
Coursework ‘. I wish that we had some kind of class like that cuz we never were really taught Photoshop
or taught InDesign.’
3.4.2: Physical resources
Hardware ‘. some people’s computers can actually really not handle it because they’re building such
crazy cool things .’
Software ‘. the computer programs crash so much that that drives me absolutely insane .’
Studio facilities ‘I mean you sit there and cuz there’s so many things I couldn’t keep it all in. We all knew
different things. I can’t imagine not having the studio open and being able to sit next to the
other students. I just couldn’t do it.’
‘. having a spot to go to and be with the other students is, I think it’s crucial. I think I would
have failed out if I hadn’t had those girls next to me.’

94 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 considered against the backdrop of literature concerned with expertise in a
wider range of disciplines. As described above, there is precedent in the
broader expertise-development literature for studying and evaluating the
potential impacts of factors extending beyond the novice’s internal knowledge
and skill development. The approach suggested by Baker and Horton (2004),
with its distinction between primary and secondary factors, may be particu-
larly helpful in developing a preliminary model of the trajectories described
by these interviewees. Specifically, the changes in personal knowledge, skills,
and attributes (issues that have traditionally been at the center of scholarly in-
vestigations of design expertise) feature prominently in these students’ narra-
tives, and could be considered primary factors in the development and
expression of expertise. However, these attributes are not developed in a vac-
uum, and both these interviewees’ narratives and the larger literature on exper-
tise development suggests that contributing (or secondary) factors may
mediate the opportunities for, and even predict the likely success of, devel-
oping such expertise. In these interviewees’ narratives, interpersonal relation-
ships, pedagogical culture, and resources appear to function as secondary
factors which support and mediate the likely success of efforts directed at
the attainment of those primary factors. This hypothesized relationship of fac-
tors, and their ultimate influence upon design expertise development, is de-
picted in Figure 1.

4.2 Proposed directions for future research

In presenting this model, it should be emphasized that it is based on findings
generated in a limited context and from a relatively small number of partici-
pants. It is not possible, at this juncture, to anticipate how widely applicable
such a model might be. Despite this limitation, the links between these findings
and the more general literature on expertise suggests there may be considerable
merit in pursuing similar studies to gauge whether or not these seem to be
important mediating factors for larger groups of students, and across a variety
of design disciplines and their educational contexts. In future studies, the
interview methods used in this research might usefully be conducted with a

Figure 1 Projected relationships among factors contributing to development of design expertise

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 95

 larger sample of design students across various disciplines so as to evaluate the
degree to which this broad range of issues does or does not seem to factor into
others’ lived experiences of design expertise development. Furthermore, inter-
views might be supplemented in future studies by observations of interviewees
in studio settings, as well as by data concerning student performance on design
projects. Such supplemental data sources would enable researchers to gauge
the degree to which specific student narratives seem to be linked to particular
ways of working in the studio and to different levels of student accomplish-
ment. Studies expanded in this manner would allow researchers to evaluate
the degree to which different types of design education experiences do, or do
not, seem to correlate with different levels of expertise acquisition and expres-
sion, and thus inform the design of more strictly controlled experiments aimed
at evaluating whether or not such correlational relationships are additionally
causal in nature. If it is found that the range of factors contributing to exper-
tise development seems to consistently expand beyond the more narrow focus
on personal knowledge and abilities, the traditional emphasis on domain-
specific knowledge and skill development may be insufficient if not paired
with greater emphasis on socio-cultural factors, including but not limited to
interpersonal relationships, pedagogical culture, and resource availability.

While patterns emerging in other contexts might not be appropriate for whole-
sale adoption in discourse regarding design expertise, the findings in this study
suggest that a broader range of considerations (like those being addressed in
areas such as athletics and music expertise) may be useful in trying to account
for conditions impinging upon ways we develop, exercise, and ultimately
define design expertise. Models which prompt consideration of a broader
range of variables may be useful tools for expanding dialogue regarding the
conditions that need to be attended if our efforts to educate today’s novices
are to beneficially foster tomorrow’s expressions of design expertise, as well
as for understanding how the conditions we attend to in the educational expe-
riences of today’s novices may shape tomorrow’s definitions of such expertise.

References
AIAS. (2010). Studio culture. Available online at. http://www.aias.org/website/ar-
ticle.asp?id¼77 Retrieved November 7, 2013.
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclima-
tion to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10e14.
Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio.
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Austerlitz, N., & Aravot, I. (2007). Emotions of architecture students: a new
perspective for the design studio. In A. M. Salama, & N. Wilkinson (Eds.),
Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 233e245). Gateshead,
UK: The Urban International Press.

96 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015

 Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on
sport expertise. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 211e228.
Baker, J., Horton, S., Robertson-Wilson, J., & Wall, M. (2003). Nurturing sport
expertise: factors influencing the development of elite athlete. Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine, 2, 1e9.
C^ote, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport.
The Sport Psychologist, 13(4), 395e417.
Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3),
127e140.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5),
427e441.
Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4e17.
Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In Inter-
national Engineering and Product Design Education Conference, September
2e3, 2004, Delft, The Netherlands.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the
development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness,
P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and
expert performance (pp. 683e703). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3),
363e406.
Gardner, H. (2011). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives
of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York:
Basic Books.
Goulden, N. R., & Griffin, C. J. G. (1997). Comparison of university faculty and
student beliefs about the meaning of grades. Journal of Research and Develop-
ment in Education, 31(1), 27e37.
Guest, C. B., Regehr, G., & Tiberius, R. G. (2001). The life long challenge of
expertise. Medical Education, 35, 78e81.
Horn, J., & Masunaga, H. (2006). A merging theory of expertise and intelligence.
In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 587e611). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, E. (2006). Expertise, talent, and social encouragement. In K. A. Ericsson,
N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge hand-
book of expertise and expert performance (pp. 31e38). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Jannson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1),
3e11.
Jeffries, K. K. (2007). Diagnosing the creativity of designers: individual feedback
within mass higher education. Design Studies, 28(5), 485e497.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Osmond, J., & Turner. (2010). The threshold concept journey in design: from
identification to application. In J. H. J. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.),
Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 347e363). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. Volume 2:
A third decade of research. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Purcell, A. T., Williams, P., Gero, J. S., & Colbron, B. (1993). Fixation effects: do
they exist in problem solving? Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, 20, 333e345.

Conditions influencing the development of design expertise 97

 Restrepo, J., & Christiaans, H. (2004). Problem structuring and information ac-
cess in design. The Journal of Design Research, 4(2). Retrieved from. http://
www.inderscience.com/jdr/backfiles/articles/issue2004.02/Art7.html.
Sachs, A. (1999). ‘Stuckness’ in the design studio. Design Studies, 20(2), 195e209.
Siegel, M. A., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Metamorphosis: transforming non-
designers into designers. In D. Durling, C. Rust, L. Chen, P. Ashton, &
K. Friedman (Eds.), Undisciplined! Proceedings of the Design Research Society
Conference 2008, Sheffield, UK, 16e19 July 2008. Retrieved from. http://shur-
a.shu.ac.uk/449/1/fulltext.pdf.
Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess: experiments with chess-
playing tasks and computer simulation of skilled performance throw light on
some human perceptual and memory processes. American Scientist, 61(4),
394e403.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilization: strategies and
results. In P. B. Paulus, & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation
through collaboration (pp. 304e328). New York: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2006). Historiometric methods. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness,
P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise
and expert performance (pp. 319e335). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Sosniak, L. A. (2003). Developing talent: time, task and context. In N. Colangelo,
& G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 247e253) New
York: Allyn & Bacon.
Sosniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and
expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, &
R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert perfor-
mance (pp. 287e302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willenbrock, L. L. (1991). An undergraduate voice in architectural education. In
T. A. Dutton (Ed.), Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and
pedagogy (pp. 97e119). New York: Bergin and Garvey.

98 Design Studies Vol 36 No. C January 2015