i guess linear thinking = straight foward thinking

lateral = thinking "out of the box"

Why architects are not scientists 
Written by Azari Mat Yasir    
Sunday, 21 January 2007 

we're not talking about what's the difference in terms of what architects do or what scientists achieve. we're talking about the fundamental difference between architects and scientists, although both go into similar process of problem solving. the very core of how an architect thinks is different, and more importantly, architects approach problem solving in a different way.

lawson (1997) have established a study experimenting on a group of architects and a group of scientists. the results were apparent enough to draw a conclusion that architects dont think the same way scientists do.

his experiment pointed out that scientists generally adopted a strategy of systematically exploring the possible combinations to a problem solution in order to discover the fundamental rule which would allow a permissable combination. basically scientists will explore all possibilities of attempting a design solution, and find the best way to solve it.

architects, on the other hand, are more inclined to propose a series of solutions, and to have these solutions eliminated, until they found an acceptable one. architects immediately provide alternative solutions and goes through another process which eventually provides the best solution.

the experiment suggests that scientists problem solve by analysis, whereas designers problem solve by synthesis.

it is also established, in other research, that there are virtually no difference in the way of thinking of secondary school students between science based, humanities or art based. presumably they learn, are taught or discover in architecture education, specifically in the studio.

in UTM itself, it is common that the administration goes neck to neck with the architecture department on the issues of the studio. to the scientists, studios are like workshop, while to engineers, studio is like a lab. this is true, if we're looking at it superficially.

studio is not a workshop, due to the fact that design requires learning and doing occuring simultaneously. studio is not a lab either, where theory is learnt simultaneously with practicals. this is a concept that the administration in almost every university in the world have a problem with. the definition of a studio.

however, to put it easily, UTM have come up with the nickname "design lab", to justify the existence of the studio.

having the foundation of thinking differing between architects and scientists, it is up to the students reading this short article now, to make best of who they are.


references
1. Cross, Nigel (1982). "DESIGNERLY WAYS OF KNOWING", Journal of Design Studies, Volume 3 Issue 4 October 1982.
2. Lawson, Bryan (1997). "HOW DESIGNERS THINK: THE DESIGN PROCESS DEMYSTIFIED", 3rd Edition, Architectural Press, Oxford
3. Editorial (various years). "UNIT WORKBASE DESIGN BOOKLET", Department of Architecture, FAB, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.