{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025821596244131457, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.626943005181347, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Metaphor, analogy, and the discourse of originality: five Iranian case studies

ABSTRACT This article explores the roles metaphors and analogies play in architectural design thinking. Architects, planners, and designers use these cognitive tools extensively. While the linkages between metaphors, analogies, and design thinking are not new, how architects use them is not systematically explored. Metaphors and analogies are used idiosyncratically. What a particular metaphor or analogy signifies varies from person to person and could mean different things to different people. In this study two key findings emerge from the interviews with five prominent Iranian architects, who have used metaphors or analogies in their projects. First, this study confirms the other findings that designers use metaphors/analogies in three ways: problem solving, problem definition, and explaining a problem to others. At times architects post-rationalize metaphors or analogies, or use them after the fact instead of during the conceptual design stage; second, arguably, metaphors and analogies shed some light on broader issues of public concern, that is, the authenticity (originality) vs. imitation debate. This latter debate remains contentious within the Iranian architectural circles.