The Transformation of Design Knowledge in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53463/inda.20260426Keywords:
Design knowledge, epistemology, black-box, glass-box, explainable AIAbstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into design processes fundamentally transforms the nature of design knowledge. Traditional approaches often conceptualize the design process through a binary framework of black-box and glass-box metaphors. However, these metaphors are insufficient to capture the simultaneous, interactive, and permeable nature of knowledge production in AI-assisted design. Accordingly, this study examines the transformation of design knowledge in the AI era from an epistemological perspective, aiming to reconsider the processes that shape both knowledge and its production. The research employs a theory-building methodology situated within qualitative research paradigms. The findings reconceptualizes design knowledge not as a linear production chain, but as a multi-layered knowledge ecosystem in which human intuition, AI inference, and explainability layers are interwoven. In this respect, the study distinguishes itself from existing research by emphasizing a multi-layered knowledge ecosystem, moving beyond the black-box/glass-box duality, and proposing a third epistemological approach.
Downloads
References
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018). Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, 6, 52138-52160. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052.
Anlı, Ö. F. (2025). Kim biliyor?: Yabancı zekâ, epistemolojik yabancılaşma ve bilginin dönüşümü. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, 2, 254-286.
Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17-20.
Aydınlı, S. (2015). Tasarım eğitiminde yapılandırıcı paradigma: ‘Öğrenmeyi Öğrenme’. Tasarım + Kuram, 11(20), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.239579.
Barelli, E., Lodi, M., Branchetti, L., & Levrini, O. (2025). Epistemic insights as design principles for a teaching-learning module on artificial intelligence. Science & Education, 34, 671-706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00504-4.
Billingsley, W. (2025). The practical epistemologies of design and artificial intelligence. Science & Education, 34, 807-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00517-z.
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., … Koh, P. W. (2022). Unpublished Results. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258.
Burrel, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2660674.
Chen, B. (2025, April 9). Unpublished Results. Beyond Tools: Generative AI as Epistemic Infrastructure in Education . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.06928.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly way of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196.
El Moussaoui, M. (2025). Future Illiteracies-Architectural epistemology and artificial intelligence. Architecture, 5(53), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture5030053.
Eroğlu, S. E. (2025). Hibrit zekâda sosyolojik imgelem: Stratejik inovasyon kapsamında insan zekâsı ile yapay zekânın bilgi ekosistemleriyle etkileşiminin incelenmesi. Medya ve Kültür, 5(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.60077/medkul.1695407.
Friedman, K. (2000, October 16-18). Creating design knowledge: from research into practice [Conference presentation]. IDATER 2000 Conference, Smolenice, Slovakia.
Gero, J., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. MIT Press.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural research methods (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Gunning , D., & W. Aha, D. (2019). DARPA's explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program. AI Magazine, 40(2), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850.
Kurt Çavuş, Ö., & Kaptan, B. (2019). Bilgi türleri bağlamında tasarım bilgisi ve Türkiye’de akademik alandaki yeri. Online Journal of Art and Design, 7(1), 67-85.
Lam, N. (2022). Explanations in AI as claims of tacit knowledge. Minds & Machines (32), 135-158.
Lawson, B. (2004). What designer know?. Elsevier.
Liu, Y., & Fu, Z. (2024). Hybrid intelligence: Design for sustainable multiverse via integrative cognitive creation model through human–computer collaboration. Applied Sciences, 14(4662), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14114662.
Manzini, E. (2009). New design knowledge. Design Studies, 30(1), 4-12.
Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence (267), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007.
Moleka, P. (2025). Unpublished Results. A new epistemology of ıntelligence: Rethinking knowledge through noesology. doi: 10.20944/preprints202502.1377 .v2.
Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies, 27(3), 229-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.11.002.
Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99-120.
Paker Kahvecioğlu, N. (2001). Mimari tasarım eğitiminde bilgi ve yaratıcılık etkileşimi (Publication No. 112217) [Doctoral dissertation]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Doubleday&Company Inc.
Sanzogni, L., Guzman, G., & Busch, P. (2017). Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: Questioning the tacit dimension. Prometheus, 35(1), 37-56.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Perseus Book Group.
Thalpage, N. S. (2023). Unlocking the black box: Explainable artificial ıntelligence (XAI) for trust and transparency in AI systems. Journal of Digital Art & Humanities, 4(1), 31-36.
Uluoğlu, B. (1988). Tasarım stüdyosuna bir bakış. Planlama, 88(2), 21-25.
Uluoğlu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00002-2.
Uluoğlu, B. (2004). Mimarlık ve felsefe. Ş. Ural, A. Şentürer, A. Atasoy (Eds.), Mimarlık bilgisinin çifte kimliği ve kavramsallaştırılış biçimi üzerine (pp.52-67).YEM Yayınları.
Wong, W., & Radcliffe, D. (2010). The tacit nature of design knowledge. Technology Anaysis & Strategic Management, 12(4), 493-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698497.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Şeckin Yayınclık.
Youvan, D. C. (2025). Unpublished Results. Epistemic resonance: A new paradigm for truth in the age of human–AI symbiosis. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22053.20967.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sekizgen Academy

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

















