Abstract
Reasoning is a central skill in design education, yet it often remains implicit in studio courses. This paper presents an instructional exercise that adapts methods of deductive and inductive reasoning, commonly associated with crime scene investigation, into industrial design education. Inspired by Sherlock Holmes’ investigative methods, students examined manufactured products as ‘crime scenes,’ collecting traces of production and assembly as evidence. By reconstructing these processes, they practised analytical thinking and transferred investigative reasoning into design reasoning. Implemented across three semesters with around 101 students, the activity was followed by interviews with 25 participants. Findings indicate that students reported stronger observation, more systematic reasoning, and greater awareness of material–process–form relations when products were treated as evidence. The study suggests that integrating cross-domain reasoning frameworks can make analytical thinking more explicit in design education and foster evidence-based, reflective approaches to design practice.
Keywords
reasoning skills, deductive and inductive reasoning, industrial design education, design pedagogy
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1506
Citation
Gelmez, K., Efilti, P., Yildiz, H.K., and Alan, A. (2026) Sherlock Holmes in the studio: Supporting deductive and inductive reasoning skills in design education, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1506
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Sherlock Holmes in the studio: Supporting deductive and inductive reasoning skills in design education
Reasoning is a central skill in design education, yet it often remains implicit in studio courses. This paper presents an instructional exercise that adapts methods of deductive and inductive reasoning, commonly associated with crime scene investigation, into industrial design education. Inspired by Sherlock Holmes’ investigative methods, students examined manufactured products as ‘crime scenes,’ collecting traces of production and assembly as evidence. By reconstructing these processes, they practised analytical thinking and transferred investigative reasoning into design reasoning. Implemented across three semesters with around 101 students, the activity was followed by interviews with 25 participants. Findings indicate that students reported stronger observation, more systematic reasoning, and greater awareness of material–process–form relations when products were treated as evidence. The study suggests that integrating cross-domain reasoning frameworks can make analytical thinking more explicit in design education and foster evidence-based, reflective approaches to design practice.