"Sketches are obviously pictorial, for they refer to shape and orientation, and often to approximate size even if they maintain a varying degree of abstractness. Yet it is impossible to confirm that there is a direct one-to-one correspondence between shapes and figures on paper and the images they stand for. It is therefore proposed to refer to the (pictorial) reasoning evident in interactive imagery at the time of sketching as consisting of two modalities. The designer is 'seeing as' when he or she is using figural, or 'gestalt' argumentation while 'sketch-thinking'. When 'seeing that', the designer advances no figural arguments pertaining to the entity that is being designed. The process of sketching is a systematic dialectics between the 'seeing as' and 'seeing that' reasoning modalities. To examine this proposition, design moves and arguments were inspected as they are established through protocol analysis. The notion of 'seeing as' and 'seeing that' will be further elucidated as we proceed, so as to best exploit documentation from the protocols."
(Gabriela Goldschmidt 1991, p.131)
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). "The dialectics of sketching." Creativity Research Journal, Routledge 4(2): 123-143.
Fig.1 Donald Owen Colley [http://buttnekkiddoodles.com/2012/12/26/knockin-about-chicago/]
"Perception of external sources of inspiration prompts new imaginings. Research on the role of externalisations in design thinking has concentrated on the role of sketching. Schön has shown that for many architects, sketching is an essential part of creative design, and creation is driven by making and perceiving sketches; Schön characterises design as an interactive conversation between mind and sketch. Designers directly appreciate different types of information in their own sketches, alternating between seeing that and seeing as. Ambiguity in sketches facilitates reinterpretation triggered by dissatisfaction with the current design. For designers who make active use of sources of inspiration in designing, they play a similar role to designers' own sketches."
(Claudia Eckerta, Martin Stacey, p.526, 2000, Design Studies)
 Purcell, A T and Gero, J S 'Drawings and the design process' Design Studies Vol 19 (1998) pp 389-430
 Schön, D A The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action Basic Books, New York (1983)
 Schön, D A and Wiggins, G 'Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing' Design Studies Vol 13 (1992) pp 135-156  Gabriela Goldschmidt 'The dialectics of sketching' Creativity Research Journal Vol 4 (1991) pp 123-143 [https://blog.itu.dk/DIND-E2010/files/2010/10/goldsmidt_dialectics_paper.pdf]
 McFadzean, J, Cross, N G and Johnson, J H 'Notation and Cognition in Conceptual Sketching' in Proceedings, VR'99 Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1999)
Claudia Eckerta, Martin Stacey (2000). "Sources of inspiration: a language of design", Design Studies, Volume 21, Issue 5, September 2000, Pages 523-538
"We differentiate research artifacts from design practice artifacts in two important ways. First, the intent going into the research is to produce knowledge for the research and practice communities, not to make a commercially viable product. To this end, we expect research projects that take this research through design approach will ignore or deemphasize perspectives in framing the problem, such as the detailed economics associated with manufacturability and distribution, the integration of the product into a product line, the effect of the product on a company’s identity, etc. In this way design researchers focus on making the right things, while design practitioners focus on making commercially successful things.
Second, research contributions should be artifacts that demonstrate significant invention. The contributions should be novel integrations of theory, technology, user need, and context; not just refinements of products that already exist in the research literature or commercial markets. The contribution must demonstrate a significant advance through the integration. This aspect of a design research contribution makes particular sense in the interaction design space of HCI. Meteoric technological advances in hardware and software drive an aggressive invention of novel products in HCI and interaction design domains that are not as aggressively experienced by other design domains. While product designers might find themselves redesigning office furniture to meet the changing needs of work, interaction designers more often find themselves tasked with inventing whole new product categories.
Our model of design research allows interaction design researchers to do what designers do best: to study the world and then to make things intended to affect change. Our model provides a new channel for the power of design thinking, desired by many disciplines, to be unleashed as in a research context. Design researchers can contribute from a position of strength, instead of aping the methods of other disciplines as a means of justifying their research contribution."
(John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, Shelley Evenson, p.500, 2007)
John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson (2007). "Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI". In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493-502. DOI=10.1145/1240624.1240704 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704
"team[s] of students of mixed disciplines worked together to understand and map a problem-space (identified by the client). They then defined a solution-space before focussing on a particular opportunity outcome. The range of projects included incremental innovation opportunities represented by the Lego and Hasbro projects through radical Philips work to truly disruptive work with Unilever. The studies confirmed stereotypical view points of how different disciplines may behave. They showed that design students were more (but not completely) comfortable with the ambiguous aspects associated with ‘phase zero’ problem-space exploration and early stage idea generation. They would only commit to a solution when time pressures dictated that this was essential in order to complete the project deliverables on time and they were happy to experiment with, and develop, new methods without a clear objective in mind. In contrast, the business students were uncomfortable with this ambiguity and were more readily able to come to terms with incremental innovation projects where a systematic approach could be directly linked to an end goal. The technologists, were more comfortable with the notion of the ambiguous approach leading to more radical innovation, but needed to wrap this in an analytical process that grounded experimentation. Meanwhile, the designers were unclear and unprepared to be precise when it came to committing to a business model. "
(Mark Bailey, 2010, p.42)
Bailey, M. (2010). "Working at the Edges". Networks, Art Design Media Subject Centre (ADM-HEA). Autumn 2010.
"DesignLab© is a 2 days Design Thinking workshop that introduces professionals from multi-disciplined industries to work as a collective to create solutions using design process. Participant will be able to adopt a system and use it repetitively in solving the most complex challenges by understanding the process that is involved.
With today’s global economy, design thinking does not only allow us to be individually innovative, but also appreciation the collaborative spirit of eclectic ideas, better team building to produce solutions that are unique and creative.
In this DesignLab©, Granma Inc from Japan will be collaborating with us by providing real world issues and the selected project from Designlab© will be chosen as a part of solution provided at places most underserved on our planet. Some of the countries Granma Inc are involved are in rural spaces of India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bangladash (sic) and other developing nations. With the collaboration, participants will be able to experience the importance of Design Thinking as an important innovation tool in their lives and others."