Content uploaded by Namkyu Chun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Namkyu Chun on Jan 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdj20
The Design Journal
An International Journal for All Aspects of Design
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdj20
Fashion Design Rediscovered: A Theory on
Dressmaking Practice
Namkyu Chun
To cite this article: Namkyu Chun (2021) Fashion Design Rediscovered: A Theory on
Dressmaking Practice, The Design Journal, 24:1, 97-114
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1851426
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 13 Jan 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Fashion Design
Rediscovered:
A Theory on
Dressmaking Practice
Namkyu Chun
Aalto University School of Arts, Design and
Architecture, Espoo, Finland
ABSTRACT Fashion design is often understood as
one of design’s subfields that lacks critical reflection
on its domain-specific situation. Research on fashion
design practice has either simply adopted research
results from design studies or been overshadowed
by its social and cultural implications from fashion
studies. This paper questions this overgeneralization
of design, especially the practice of design. For this
inquiry, distinctive features of fashion design’s
This is an Open Access
article distributed under
the terms of the
Creative Commons
Attribution-
NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommon-
s.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/), which permits
non-commercial re-use,
distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium,
provided the original
work is properly cited,
and is not altered,
transformed, or built
upon in any way.
The Design Journal DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2020.185142697
THE DESIGN JOURNAL VOLUME 24, ISSUE 1
PP 97–114
REPRINTS AVAILABLE
DIRECTLY FROM
THE PUBLISHERS
PHOTOCOPYING
PERMITTED BY
LICENSE ONLY
© 2021 THE
AUTHOR(S).
PUBLISHED BY
INFORMA UK
LIMITED, TRADING
AS TAYLOR &
FRANCIS GROUP
PRINTED IN THE UK
dressmaking practice are presented via a theoretical
sampling of the literature on fashion design and design prac-
tice. Grounded theory was employed to construct a theory
on dressmaking practice based on empirical data gathered
from the fashion design profession.
KEYWORDS: design thinking, design practice, fashion design,
dressmaking
Introduction
+
Fashion design, as a subfield of design, can be understood
simply by combining the term ‘fashion’with design. The
term is often associated with clothing or garments when
used together with design (Aakko 2016; Finn 2014; Kawamura
2011). However, a more profound understanding requires a thorough
investigation, as the notion of fashion adds a whole new complexity
beyond its seven-letter word.
In design, research on fashion design has been underdeveloped,
as argued by Nixon and Blakley (2012), and Finn (2014). They advo-
cated the importance of acknowledging fashion design’s domain-
specific knowledge and methods in order to expand its potential.
Meanwhile, a shortcoming to the overgeneralization of design subfields
was noted in a number of earlier studies (see Badke-Schaub,
Roozenburg, and Cardoso 2010; Kimbell 2011). Particularly, according
to Visser’s cognitive perspective (2009), various subfields of design
have both similar and different characteristics depending on the situ-
ation, the designers, and the artifact. On the one hand, common char-
acteristics—problem-solving, ill-defined problems, and pluralistic
approaches—exist regardless of different design situations (Visser
2009). On the other hand, different forms also occur in diverse situa-
tions. While comparing studies in several subfields of design, including
architecture, mechanical and software design, she noted three-dimen-
sions of the design process, the designers, and the artifact that influ-
ence design form differently (Visser 2009). However, due to her
hypothetical argument in the conceptual paper, she suggested con-
ducting empirical studies to further explore the different forms of design.
Thus, conducting an empirical study that explores the practice of
fashion design is required in order to understand the ways in which
fashion design is situated differently or similarly to design practice,
which is often described as ‘design thinking’(Kimbell 2011). Without
sensing the contextual difference that each design subfield pos-
sesses (Badke-Schaub, Roozenburg, and Cardoso 2010; Visser
2009), directly implementing research outcomes and theories from
design research to fashion design involves limitations. In fact, there is
a gap in the literature on fashion design in both fields of design and
fashion. In design studies, the voice of fashion designers is often
absent in empirical studies on design practice. For instance, in intro-
ducing ‘how designers think,’Lawson (2005) provided multiple exam-
ples to note the peculiarities of fashion design. The major shortcoming
N. Chun
The Design Journal98
of this study is that the examples of fashion design were not based on
empirical data from professional fashion designers though they were
used to support his arguments on design practice. Meanwhile, research
on fashion tends to stay on the social and symbolic level rather than
incorporating the actual practice of fashion designers (Finn 2014). In
order to both highlight the aspect of designing in fashion and separate it
from generic design practice, the notion of ‘dressmaking’is adopted in
this study to refer to the practice of individual fashion designers. There
are a number of benefits to using the term ‘dress,’including the avoid-
ance of using culturally biased words, contextualizing use, among many
others (Kawamura 2011,10).
The strategy of grounded theory was suitable for exploring this
under-researched topic, evolving and fragmented in the literature, by
bringing in other studies to support theorizing on the dressmaking
practice of fashion design, instead of limiting this study within a spe-
cific predefined theory. The following sections will first introduce the
research methods of this study, present the findings, then conclude
with implications.
Research Methods: Grounded Theory
The study employed the main principles of grounded theory in its
methods (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Grounded theory tends to con-
struct a theory from a certain empirical context (Strauss and Corbin
1998). The location of Helsinki provided a convenient research condi-
tion for this study. The fact that most Helsinki-based fashion design-
ers are self-employed and run his/her own business offered a
distinctive advantage in comparison to major fashion cities, including
Paris, London, Milan, and New York, where fashion designers tend
to work for larger companies (e.g., Malem, Miller, and K€
onig 2009).
As noted by Sinha (2002), this particular condition of Helsinki pro-
vides convenient access to study fashion designers’practice, as
they have autonomous decision-making and higher involvement in
design, rather than being restricted by other actors’decisions in the
company, including managers and marketers. In this section, the
method of data gathering and interpretation will be introduced.
Sampling and Data Collection
During an eight-month period (from February to September 2016), a
series of semi-structured interviews with Helsinki-based fashion
designers was conducted. Through a purposive sampling approach,
interviewees were selected with the following criteria:
Individuals who are currently working as a fashion designer;
Individuals who have more than five years’professional experi-
ence as a fashion designer.
For the first criterion, fashion designers refer to individuals who
are involved in designing a broader range of commercial items,
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal99
including apparel, accessories, and shoes. The second criterion is
supported by the study of Lawson and Dorst on design expertise
(2009). They noted that an ‘expert’level designer can express a cer-
tain set of values through his/her design practice. Therefore, design-
ers who have developed expertise in their work and field were
suitable for this study.
Two factors influenced the number of interviewees selected for
this study. Firstly, the small scale of the Finnish fashion scene
restricted identification of qualified interviewees. Secondly, the author
determined that data saturation had been reached due to repetition
of findings in the early stage of interpreting the data. Accordingly, the
data collection process was discontinued after 18 interviews (see
Appendix, Table A1). Interview participants were anonymized when
citing particular quotes (e.g., Respondent 1, Respondent 2), as the
unit of observation for this study is fashion design practice rather
than a specific designer.
Prior to each interview, secondary sources on the designer,
including fashion magazine articles and the official website, were
used to formulate guiding questions. These sources were mediated
data, which was produced for different purposes than this study.
Therefore, the sources only functioned as supportive information
separated from the main dataset.
The process of each interview started with an informal conversa-
tion about the designer’s academic/professional background.
Relevant questions then followed based on his/her responses. In this
way, conducting the interview as natural ‘conversations’was pos-
sible rather than formal exchanges of question and answer (Kvale
1996). For the same purpose, each interview was held at the design-
er’s studio or workspace to ensure his/her most natural status and
to document tangible examples that support his/her explanations
during the interview. During or after the visit, field notes were taken
to document observed relevant information about the designer,
including the general atmosphere of the workspace, personality and
organization of the work. Overall, the average duration of the inter-
views was one hour. After each interview and while transcribing the
recorded voice data, memos were taken to capture tentative
thoughts for reviewing the data.
Coding Phases
For the study, all recorded interviews were transcribed and then
combined with field notes. These datasets were reviewed through
grounded theory coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Throughout the
open and axial coding, Atlas.ti software was used to digitize the pro-
cess. This was necessary to ensure convenience in the handling of
the gathered data, which totaled 20 hours and 19 minutes. The data
were first broken down into small portions of meanings. Initial codes
were generated and compared with each other to identify concepts.
Categories related to the dressmaking practice of fashion designers
emerged while refining concepts. Then the relationships among the
N. Chun
The Design Journal100
key categories were further explored. While identifying the relation-
ships, initially coded data were also printed out and analyzed manu-
ally. This manual activity often provided a new perspective to view
the already identified concepts and categories. Selective coding was
followed to articulate and validate the categories.
Throughout the coding process, the relevant literature was identi-
fied constantly to compare with the emerged categories. For the
identified literature concurrently to this coding phase, the theoretical
scope was restricted to seminal works on design practice. From a
vast amount of literature on design thinking, a number of discourses
has been identified (Johansson-Sk€
oldberg, Woodilla, and C¸etinkaya
2013). Instead of exploring all, three discourses from Sch€
on (1983),
Cross (2006) and Lawson (2005), and Buchanan (1992) were
selected due to their direct connection to design practice.
Findings
As the findings of this study, three categories of continuity, collection
and context were identified. While continuity was emphasized in the
process dimension, collection was observed from within the outcome
dimension. Lastly, the category of context emerged from the dimen-
sion of use. Each category consists of several key concepts. In the
following sections, relevant quotes from the interviews are presented
first, to build the description of each concept, which is then com-
pared with previous studies on fashion design and design practice.
Following the typical design phase from the designer’s perspective,
the order of introducing the categories starts with the process
dimension, then moves to the dimensions of outcome and use. For
each category, four concepts were identified. They are introduced in
an order moving from the more abstract to tangible actions.
Dimension of Process: Continuity
The first category is related to the process dimension of dressmaking
practice. Instead of simply adopting the linear process introduced by
Lamb and Kallal (1992) and LaBat and Sokolowski (1999), this study
intends to identify concepts describing features of fashion design. As
a result of the coding phases, the category of continuity emerged for
the process dimension. The practice of fashion design tends to require
both creating a strong signature look and offering constant novelty
(e.g., Lipovetsky 1994). To balance between these two, fashion
designers employ certain actions. From the data, four concepts that
support this category of continuity were emerged: trusting a personal
vision, mixing external sources of inspiration, longitudinal evolution of
design over collections, and modifying a specific element of design.
Trusting a Personal Vision
Through accumulated experience in the field, fashion designers learn
how to trust themselves and what they have made. Respondent 6
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal101
noted that while designing, ‘you have to trust yourself because the
customer is not always right’(interview, March 1, 2016). Instead of
being calculative and only relying on feedback from their customers,
fashion designers tend to trust their taste and intuition during the
design process. Related to this, Respondent 4 explained that ‘you
need to approve [of] what you have done’(interview, February
23, 2016).
In a study on creativity in fashion, Sinha (2002) noted the import-
ance of intuition in fashion designers’thinking. As useful knowledge
for decision-making, intuition was stressed, while rational decision-
making is also required based on measurable factors, including sales
figures and perceived changes (Sinha 2002). In comparison, Nixon
and Blakley (2012) emphasized the strong role of personal taste of
fashion designers in judging what is aesthetically good or bad. When
discussing contextual knowledge of fashion designers, Aspers (2006)
noted that this ‘gut-feeling’or how to interpret available information
to develop a new collection is based on ‘a stock of knowledge’con-
structed from the socialization process in designers’experiences,
including education and previous collections.
From previous studies on design practice, it is not difficult to find
similar concepts. The importance of trusting one’s personal vision in
the intuitive design process was emphasized by Sch€
on (1983)as
‘reflective practice.’Buchanan (1992, 13) described designers’intu-
ition as an ability to apply and modify useful sets of flexible design
methods to a situation for the final outcome. When introducing
examples of expert designers, Lawson (2005, 133) also noted their
ability to connect intuition with concrete outcomes.
Mixing External Sources of Inspiration
Fashion designers use a range of external sources for inspiration
throughout their design process, including certain groups of people,
photos, artworks, materials, structures, and silhouettes. Respondent
13 responded, ‘I try to do some kind of research. I have my Pinterest
board as well. [ …] It is like references’(interview, April 8, 2016).
Designers often build their own archive of various items. ‘From form
to details, there are a lot of ways that [designers] can use what [they]
have collected’(Respondent 4, interview, February 23, 2016), and
these various sources of inspiration are frequently visited to create
new collections. Numerous respondents (Respondent 1, 6, 12 and
13) emphasized the inspiration from the strong sensations gained
through touching, seeing, and feeling the material.
A systematic investigation was conducted by Eckert and Stacey
(2000) on the sources of inspiration for designers in the fashion
industry, especially knitwear designers. They noted that, ‘designers’
stocks of remembered previous designs and other sources of inspir-
ation enable them to use these combinations to imagine and reason
about complex structures’(p. 527). Their study also identified
N. Chun
The Design Journal102
domains for the designers to apply collected sources, including indi-
vidual designs to styles and moods, in order to communicate with
the designer his/herself, fellow specialists, other designers, superiors,
customers, and unknown audiences (Eckert and Stacey 2000).
Additionally, this tendency to mix different sources of inspiration was
characterized as an attribute of fashion designers’creativity by
Aspers (2006). He listed many sources, including books, magazines,
movies, and music, regarding the issue of inspiration. He further
argued that creative fashion designers ‘copy, or at least sample, a lot
from the history as well as from the contemporary scene’(Aspers
2006, 749) during the development of a new collection.
Sch€
on (1983) noted representations in design appear externally in
a visual or material form and internally in a mental form. For him, this
‘conversation’between external and internal representations occurs
throughout the design process. Aligning with this, Buchanan (1992,
14) characterized designers’ability ‘to discover new relationships
among signs, things, actions and thoughts.’
Longitudinal Evolution of Design
The practice of fashion designers evolves through seasons.
Throughout this evolution, they refine certain items or styles, which is
often referred to as the ‘signature look’of the designer. Respondent
9 explained that ‘iteration exists throughout collections. If I have an
item that is not good, I try to make it better for the next’(interview,
March 18, 2016). Meanwhile, the conflict of continuity during the
long-term process is also observed. ‘I may think that it is an old
piece already, but if I think from the perspective of buyers or audien-
ces, no one has seen it’(Respondent 9, interview, March 18, 2016).
From the designer’s perspective, the evolution of design over mul-
tiple seasons can be seen as a repetition of their old work, but for
the customers, this gradual development still provides newness and
continuity with small changes. Thus, for many respondents
(Respondent 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 18), there was a coexistence of
two approaches. Designers develop a ‘classic’line reinforcing their
signature style alongside a ‘trendy’line presenting new styles for a
particular season.
Exploring fashion design methods, Ræbild (2015) coined the
canon metaphor, adopting it from music theory. She defined the
metaphor as ‘structured staggered repetitions in an on-going flux of
transformation’(Ræbild 2015, 222). It emphasizes the variation of
design applied by fashion designers over time. In other words, for
fashion design, ‘it is about a continued development of the existing,
hence an ongoing exploration of a theme’(Ræbild 2015, 223).
Regarding this longer-term evolution of design, Sch€
on (1983)
explained that design concepts often emerge from one’s own previ-
ous design works or existing works of other influential designers.
Instead of simply transferring these works into a new situation, a new
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal103
design concept is restructured in response to the conditions of the
situation (Sch€
on 2011). This evolution in the design process is also
discussed by Lawson (2005) and Cross (2006).
Modifying a Specific Element of Design
During the process of designing a new item for a collection, fashion
designers employ different types of iteration. Respondent 10 said, ‘I
don’t change the pattern. I only change materials [but] it comes in
totally different looks’(interview, April 1, 2016). Fashion designers
often modify a specific element of design, including colour, material,
length, and fit. However, making a prototype or mock-up also helps
them transform a two-dimensional drawing into a three-dimensional
garment. Additionally, this rapid prototyping happens concurrently
with other tasks. In other words, designers do not stick to modifying
or improving only one design element; they rather apply changes in
multiple elements concurrently. Through this quick modification, fash-
ion designers can minimize their efforts in designing new items in a
limited time and become more productive. The vital moment for this
modification occurs when they have an event of ‘fitting’with models.
Near the end of the design process, designers often have this event
to examine the fit of clothes on the actual human body.
This fitting was remarked upon by Ræbild (2015, 158) as the key
method for three-dimensional ideation. However, other methods
were also identified as fashion design practice, including directly
shaping materials, using opposite elements, reducing and adding
shapes on the body of the mannequin, among many others (Ræbild
2015, 237-244).
Similar to this emerged concept in fashion design, Cross (2006)
referred to the concept of modification as ‘mutation.’He argued that
this mutation ‘involves modifying the form of some particular feature,
or features, of an existing design’(p. 53). Similarly, with exemplary
cases of expert designers, Lawson (2005) demonstrated how an
early stage idea matures through iterative modification.
Dimension of Outcome: Collection
Closely related to the process dimension but with a distinction, the
second category resides in the outcome dimension of dressmaking
practice. Although the process dimension was discussed earlier in
this study, the consideration of outcome can also take place first dur-
ing the practice of an individual designer (Dieffenbacher 2013).
Regarding the outcome, the data of this study revealed that fashion
designers emphasize the notion of collection. For the fashion design
profession, each presentation of new design outcomes usually con-
sists of a collection of items, rather than a single product. Types of
the items vary from a garment to accessories, including hats, bags,
shoes, and other accessories, and one collection includes approxi-
mately 50 looks—ensembles of items—and 120 items (Skov et al.
N. Chun
The Design Journal104
2009). In this category of collection, four encompassing concepts
were identified: building design concepts, having a holistic view,
stressing the visual outcome, and combining different elements.
Building Design Concepts
Fashion designers commonly stress the importance of building
strong design concepts. By creating design concepts, they propose
an ‘ideal-world’for projecting their own values. Respondent 12 said
the concepts are ‘coming from the values that I hold dear in my life
than fashion—what is cool, what is new and what is amazing in this
world’(interview, April 7, 2016). In other words, the concepts are
proposals by designers to their audiences or a way to persuade a
particular audience why they need to accept the proposals.
Respondent 11’s comment supports this description:
It is important to create concepts because that way you convince
and make the people understand why to maybe buy the weirdest
coat you have. Because they trust the concept, get the idea and
then are inspired by it. (interview, April 6, 2016)
This conceptual proposal is to deliver certain experiences to
potential wearers. This dialogue between wearers and designers via
material clothes is described by Loschek (2009). She noted that a
collection of individual dialogues can drive a new fashion to emerge.
While fashion designers present ‘the assertion of an (innovative) col-
lection’periodically based on their interpretation of social processes,
the ‘acceptance’of this assertion is bound to the individual audience
(Loschek 2009, 95-98). Then, the acceptance from a group of indi-
viduals signals the assertion becoming fashion for the community.
Sch€
on’s notion of ‘framing’(1983) can be compared to this con-
cept building process of fashion designers. He considered a frame
as a window drawn on the world to make complex real-world situa-
tions easier to address. Additionally, Lawson (2005) introduced the
notion of ‘schema,’which refers to an internalized mental image.
‘This schema represents an active organization of past experiences
which is used to structure and interpret future events’(Lawson 2005,
133-134).
Having a Holistic View
The fact that fashion design outcomes usually consist of many pieces
encourages fashion designers to think holistically while designing.
They tend to think in terms of a ‘complete package,’or a collection,
and develop the whole area gradually instead of completing one piece
then moving to the next. ‘It is about the bigger picture and seeing
what is lacking’(interview, February 23, 2016). This comment of
Respondent 4 illustrates how fashion designers pay attention to pre-
senting a coherent aesthetic, or ‘feeling,’through various items in their
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal105
collection. Accordingly, the pieces have to go all together in the same
direction to provide the orchestrated theme. Respondent 1 explained:
‘when I make a collection, I think there are certain pieces that go
together’(interview, February 3, 2016). The integrity can emerge in
many levels of materials, colours, shapes, among others. However,
this does not mean designing identical items. Creating different yet
harmonized collections of items is essential for fashion designers’
dressmaking practice.
A study by Ræbild (2015, 206-209) introduced diverse classifica-
tion systems for designing a collection. This reflects the required
effort of fashion designers in order to have a holistic view when creat-
ing a set of items. The items can be graded depending on the gar-
ment’s proximity to the body from inner to outer; temperature from
cool to warm; and design input from basic to complex. Various
ranges of colour, material, price, and style also add complexity to
presenting a coherent collection.
This holistic approach was also portrayed by previous studies
on design practice (e.g., Lawson 2005). Particularly, Cross (2006,
16) argued that design thinking tends to be ‘multi-faceted and multi-
levelled.’When illustrating examples of industrial designers, he noted
that ‘the designer is thinking of the whole range of design criteria and
requirements’(Cross 2006, 16). These criteria and requirements
emerge not only from clients and external issues, including clients,
technology, and legislation, but also the designer’s preference for
certain aesthetics and practical decisions.
Stressing the Visual Outcome
‘[While designing a collection,] I am thinking about styling, which is
actually the end result’(Respondent 9, interview, March 18, 2016).
As Respondent 9 commented, the visual aesthetic was identified as
a crucial factor for fashion designers in this study. From styling for a
photoshoot to a press presentation and a runway show, the ways in
which their design outcomes are seen and adopted by others were
highlighted by fashion designers. At the same time, most respond-
ents noted this visual orientation of fashion design also makes the
field more superficial. This occurs as their proposals are judged and
visual presentations need to attract before being worn and ultimately
becoming fashion.
Ræbild (2015) introduced fashion design methods with visual-driven
approaches, including creating a visual overview of items for a collection
and developing a look-book that presents photographed styles for sales
purpose. These methods exemplify the visual orientation of fashion
design practice. Additionally, Sinha (2002) acknowledged the ways in
which fashion designers communicate visually for effectively presenting
their design. The role of drawing was highlighted in their earlier stage
meeting with clients (Sinha 2002).
This orientation to the visual aesthetic is also observed in previous
studies of design practice. Lawson (2005) noted that ‘the end
N. Chun
The Design Journal106
product of such design will always be visible to the user who may
also move inside or pick up the designer’s artefact. [ …] [W]hat is
clear is that designers express their ideas and work in a very visual
and graphical kind of way’(p. 13). He asserted the importance of
drawing, which designers often employ to communicate and to visu-
alize their concept (Lawson 2005). Meanwhile, Cross (2006) argued
that after all, ‘a design’for a designer is the description for a client,
which highly focuses on the end result.
Combining Different Elements
Complex layers of fashion design offer room for designers to play
with different elements. They often try to combine contrasting ele-
ments to create unexpected results. For instance, Respondent 2
described as, ‘a combination of two like the technical part and artis-
tic, I try to combine’(interview, February 5, 2016). Contrasting
approaches can be adopted in one collection due to a range of items
and the aesthetic taste of the designer. More specifically,
Respondent 5 said, ‘I want to have something loose and stiff, so I
can get different feelings’(interview, February 24, 2016). Various ele-
ments, including proportions, colours, shapes, and materials, can be
used to present different feelings in one collection, but this flexibility
has to make sense as a whole.
Loschek (2009) introduced various types of ‘crossing’that fashion
designers employ in order to turn new clothes into fashion. With
inclusion or fusion, explicitly or implicitly defined borders can be
crossed. Loschek (2009) provided various examples, including ‘art-
crossing’that applies art techniques to designing clothes, ‘fashion-
crossing’that combines old and new designs, and ‘multi-crossings’
that mix a variety of styles (e.g., workwear and sportswear). Through
these crossings, fashion designers can come up with ‘an infinite gen-
eration of the new’(Loschek 2009, 135).
Regarding these various types of combinations, Cross (2006, 51)
noted that ‘creative design can occur by combining features from
existing designs into a new combination or configuration.’More
broadly, Buchanan (1992) emphasized designers’ability to generate
‘new integrations of signs, things, actions and environments’for
more profound changes to deal with complex problems, rather than
a‘technological quick fix’(pp. 20-21). He referred to this ability as
‘the new liberal art of design thinking,’which is very different from
approaches of natural science (Buchanan 1992).
Dimension of Use: Context
As the last category, the notion of context derived from the dimen-
sion of use, where designers’creations are represented and reinter-
preted by wearers in the real world in order to become fashion
(Loschek 2009). In ordinary circumstances, most human beings
need to dress in something regardless of their interest in fashion.
Thus, the aspect of being used or worn is essential for fashion
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal107
designers, as it provides a specific context of designing. Four con-
cepts that support this contextual aspect of fashion designers’
dressmaking practice were identified: articulating personalities, set-
ting placements of the design, negotiating physicality in use, and cre-
ating sensorial experiences through materials.
Articulating Personalities
The practice of fashion design emerges through a conversation of
two personalities between designer and wearer. While the designer
is the creator who constructs a garment, if the wearer who actually
uses the garment is not taken into consideration, the collection can-
not exist. The following two comments illustrate this relationship.
Respondent 9 highlighted that, ‘actually the person is the main thing.
The garment is an aid or tool for that person to express their person-
ality. It is actually about their personality and what they see in the
garment and what makes them want to wear it’(interview, March 18,
2016). Moreover, Respondent 8 described how, ‘I keep in mind our
target group and where and when they would wear it; also, the fact
that we want to make items that are wearable, easy to wear and
care’(interview, March 18, 2016). Accordingly, fashion designers
constantly think about the needs and interests of the wearers. The
garment becomes a medium that enables the wearer to express his/
her own personality through continuous use.
Loschek’s view (2009) on fashion as a system of social communi-
cation supports this concept. She described the ways in which indi-
vidual personalities coexist in fashion:
The individual understands himself or herself (or is observed) as a
single being within an entirety. In turn, this overall constellation
has a defining impact on one’s individuality. This corresponds to
the definition of fashion as a personal aesthetic perception in the
collective. (Loschek 2009, 162)
From this quote, an analogy can be drawn that one aspect of
dressmaking practice is to help the individual realize his/her personal
aesthetic perception through creative interpretation of society in
temporality.
From the design research perspective, this consideration of per-
sonal expression is more discussed with regard to fashion design, as
a garment is often used in a specific context (see Lawson 2005, 94).
Lawson also highlights that ‘this idea of creating a product with a
“personality”to express some features of the lifestyle of its owner’is
one of guiding principles for design practice (Lawson 2005, 176). In
fact, most artifacts are designed for specific groups of people.
Hence, he argued that ‘designers must understand something of the
nature of these users and their needs’(Lawson 2005, 13).
N. Chun
The Design Journal108
Placements of the Design
‘In fashion, you have to think even more about the things that are
going on now’(interview, April 6, 2016). As this comment by
Respondent 11 demonstrates, fashion designers need to understand
topical issues of the moment, as the use of their artifacts will reflect
on those issues once they are presented. A collection is a proposal
for potential uses; thus, the designed items have to be relatable to
the particular context of potential audiences. To understand the con-
text of use, designers identify a place of situation and condition
where they can construct their design. For instance, Respondent 7
explained that, ‘I am thinking the colours in Helsinki are different than
Japan’(interview, March 16, 2016). Instead of having complete free-
dom for designing, this restriction of context offers designers a useful
boundary on which to focus and to differentiate in comparison to
other designers.
As Loschek (2009) introduced, for fashion designers to join a con-
versation while creating a meaning, they need to specify a conver-
sant. She noted that: ‘Which of the products are accepted and
become fashion is determined by the society, a group within society
or a single community’(Loschek 2009, 134). The ways in which fash-
ion designers identify audiences differ, from physical spaces to gen-
ders, ages, lifestyles, subcultures, among others (Loschek 2009).
From the perspective of design practice, Buchanan’s concept of
‘placement’explains this process of contextualization (1992). For
Buchanan, placements are flexible boundaries for designers to
include various conditions of a specific situation while developing
new ideas of design. This placement can be compared to Sch€
on’s
notion of ‘naming’and ‘framing’(1983). Sch€
on noted that designers
define a problem that they choose to address (‘naming’) and formu-
late possible solutions to explore further (‘framing’). Throughout this
process, designers can set boundaries within which to employ their
design practice and impose relevant solutions to deal with problems.
Negotiating Three-Dimensional Forms
The space fashion designers work within, the intimate and private
body of individuals, offers opportunities and challenges. Due to the
shape of the human bodies that they deal with, fashion designers
have to consider how to transfer a flat pattern into a three-dimen-
sional item. Respondent 1 commented thus: ‘[designing a garment]
is never just a sketch. I have to think three-dimensionally and make
patterns’(interview, February 3, 2016). Moreover, body types are
very different individually and ethnically. Respondent 18 said,
‘women’s bodies are very different from each other’(interview,
November 30, 2016). The average size of women’s bodies in e.g.
Finland and Japan differ, therefore impacting the size of clothes.
Designers also need to consider gender differences of the physical
body, which adds complexity to designing.
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal109
Ræbild (2015, 199-206) presented the body as one of the main
themes identified in her study on fashion design practice. She noted
four settings: a design by three-dimensional drawing based on past
personal bodily experiences with clothes, a design by testing on the
designer’s own body, a design by testing on a user’s body proxy,
including a model’s body and dummy, and a design by ‘handing,’a
bodily practice of touching and moving with the hands. In these
diverse settings, fashion designers interact with the three-dimension-
ality of the body.
Although the scale of the artifact varies, fashion design shares
certain similarities with architecture. In particular, regarding the users
of architecture, Lawson (2005) noted that ‘users are all different and
likely to make differing demands on the final design. The different
kinds of users involved in buildings often makes this extremely com-
plex’(p. 169). Additionally, regarding practical aspects, Lawson
(2005, 103) listed examples of various ‘technological problems’of
producing, making or building the design. For various types of
designers, from architects to graphic and product designers, these
problems need to be considered for not only the construction of
objects, but also their working life in use.
Offering Sensorial Experiences Through Materials
Respondent 1 commented, ‘when I see new fabrics, then I have new
ideas about what I could do with them’(interview, February 3, 2016).
Similarly, for many fashion designers, fabrics are the starting point of
designing. Finding a new fabric immediately sparks new ideas as
soon as the texture of the fabric is sensed. Beyond the material
being an inspiration source, the sensation of touching is closely con-
nected to the experiences that designers want to offer through the
use of their design. Besides texture, many other elements, including
comfort, colour, and weight, are considered depending on their use
of materials. Combinations of different materials can provide a new
sensorial experience for wearers and thus become an essential fea-
ture, offering unique experiences to the wearer beyond visual aes-
thetics. Accordingly, the quality aspect of materials is often
emphasized, and understanding the property of materials is vital in
order for fashion designers to create what they intend to offer to their
potential wearers.
Ræbild (2015, 163-167) discussed the ways in which fashion
designers attempt to ‘own’the material. To both understand and
create material, they apply diverse techniques in a ‘transformation
process,’including washing, crinkling, tearing, laddering, patchwork,
embroidery, stitching, and tumbling. These techniques take place on
the surface level of fabric or when the garment is constructed.
Besides understanding the material in relation to the sensation of
touch, designers’consideration of colour was acknowledged, as the
visual sensation can affect the personal aesthetic perception
of clothes.
N. Chun
The Design Journal110
Similarly, Cross (2006) explained that designers ‘understand what
messages objects communicate, and they can create new objects
which embody new messages’(p. 9). He argued that this ability to
‘read’and ‘write’through materials is at the core of their thinking.
Buchanan (1992) also wrote about design being material objects but
with deeper experiences to offer. Traditionally, the view on design
has been more concerned with the form and visual aesthetic of
everyday products. For Buchanan (1992, 9), this view has expanded
to include ‘a more thorough and diverse interpretation of the phys-
ical, psychological, social, and cultural relationships between prod-
ucts and human beings.’
Discussion and Conclusion
Figure 1 summarizes the concepts that are used in constructing
three categories of fashion design practice. It demonstrates how
fashion design practice requires a complex set of actions at both
abstract and tangible levels. Although the level of employing each
action can vary depending on the designer’s condition and prefer-
ence, it can be argued that continuity, collection and context situate
dressmaking practice within the dimensions of process, outcome
and use. In other words, this is how design should be considered
when the term ‘fashion’is added.
This effort to theorize dressmaking practice aims to contribute in
two ways, to give voice to fashion designers in research on design
practice and, secondly, to rediscover the aspects of designing that
are less visible in fashion research. When introducing ‘fashion think-
ing,’a set of actionable strategies of fashion design, Nixon and
Blakley (2012) remarked that the underdevelopment of studying fash-
ion design is due to social prejudices rendering it a gender-specific
and frivolous practice. Uncovering dressmaking contributes to over-
coming these issues while providing the language for fashion design-
ers to explain how they design instead of mystifying. Its significance
is comparable to design thinking discourses that have contributed to
expanding designers’role (Johansson-Sk€
oldberg, Woodilla, and
C¸etinkaya 2013; Kimbell 2011).
The objective of this study was to construct a theory on the dress-
making practice of fashion design in order to understand the various
situations that fashion designers may face compared to other
Figure 1.
Three categories of dressmaking practice.
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal111
designers. Alongside critically examining the literature on design and
fashion, an empirical study with professional fashion designers was
conducted to elaborate upon fashion design practice through a dia-
logue between the literature and the data. The study findings make
explicit a careful translation of fashion design for a fuller understand-
ing of fashion design in relation to design practice discourses and
the fragmented research on fashion design.
This study lacks the depth of reviewing a range of studies on
design practice in presenting the findings. However, its main intention
was to fill the empirical gap of studying fashion design practice, and
to compare fashion designers’practice with generic design practice.
The emerged concepts and categories of dressmaking are an invita-
tion for future studies to take place at the intersection of design and
fashion studies.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the support from the ENCORE research group at
Aalto University and the constructive feedback from reviewers of
the journal.
Disclosure Statement
This work has been adopted partially and revised from the doctoral
dissertation of the author Re(dis)covering Fashion Designers:
Interweaving Dressmaking and Placemaking, which was published
at Aalto University in 2018.
References
Aakko, M. 2016. Fashion in-between: Artisanal Design and
Production of Fashion. Helsinki: Aalto University School of Arts,
Design and Architecture.
Aspers, P. 2006. “Contextual Knowledge.”Current Sociology 54 (5):
745–763. doi:10.1177/0011392106066814.
Badke-Schaub, P., N. Roozenburg, and C. Cardoso. 2010. “Design
Thinking: A Paradigm on Its Way from Dilution to Meaninglessness.”In
DTRS 8 Interpreting Design Thinking,39–49.
Buchanan, R. 1992. “Wicked Problem in Design Thinking.”Design
Issues 8 (2): 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637.
Cross, N. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.
Dieffenbacher, F. 2013. Fashion Thinking: Creative Approaches to
the Design Process. New York: AVA Publishing.
Eckert, C., and M. Stacey. 2000. “Sources of Inspiration: A
Language of Design.”Design Studies 21 (5): 523–538. doi:10.
1016/S0142-694X(00)00022-3.
Finn, A. L. 2014. Designing Fashion: An Exploration of Practitioner
Research within the University Environment. Brisbane:
Queensland University of Technology.
N. Chun
The Design Journal112
Johansson-Sk€
oldberg, U., J. Woodilla, and M. C¸etinkaya. 2013.
“Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures.”Creativity and
Innovation Management 22 (2): 121–146. doi:10.1111/caim.12023.
Kawamura, Y. 2011. Doing Research in Fashion and Dress: An
Introduction to Qualitative Methods. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Kimbell, L. 2011. “Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I.”Design and Culture
3 (3): 285–306. doi:10.2752/175470811X13071166525216.
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing. London: Sage.
LaBat, K. L., and S. L. Sokolowski. 1999. “A Three-Stage Design
Process Applied to an Industry-University Textile Product Design
Project.”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 17 (1): 11–20.
doi:10.1177/0887302X9901700102.
Lamb, J. M., and M. J. Kallal. 1992. “A Conceptual Framework for
Apparel Design.”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (2):
42–47. doi:10.1177/0887302X9201000207.
Lawson, B. 2005. How Designers Think: The Design Process
Demystified. 4th ed. London: Routledge.
Lawson, B., and K. Dorst. 2009. Design Expertise. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Lipovetsky, G. 1994. The Empire of Fashion: Dressing Modern
Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Loschek, I. 2009. When Clothes Become Fashion: Design and
Innovation Systems. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Malem, W., J. Miller, and A. K€
onig. 2009. “High-end fashion manufac-
turing in the UK - product, process and vision: Recommendations
for a Designer and Fashion Manufacturer Alliance and a Designer
Innovation and Sampling Centre.”http://www.fashion-enterprise.
com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/UK-High-End-Manufacturing_
CFEreport11.pdf
Nixon, N. W., and J. Blakley. 2012. “Fashion Thinking: Towards an
Actionable Methodology.”Fashion Practice 4 (2): 153–176. doi:
10.2752/175693812X13403765252262.
Ræbild, U. 2015. Uncovering Fashion Design Method Practice: The
Influence of Body, Time and Collection. Kolding: Designskolen
Kolding.
Sch€
on, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professional
Think in Action. Cambridge: Basic Books.
Sch€
on, D. A. 2011. Displacement of Concepts. New York:
Routledge.
Sinha, P. 2002. “Creativity in Fashion.”Journal of Textile and
Apparel, Technology and Management 2 (4): 16.
Skov, L., E. Skjold, B. Moeran, F. Larsen, and F. F. Csaba. 2009.
“The Fashion Show as an Art Form the Fashion Show as an Art
Form.”Encounters, October, 1–37.
Strauss, A. L., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research:
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fashion Design Rediscovered
The Design Journal113
Visser, W. 2009. “Design: One, But in Different Forms.”Design
Studies 30 (3): 187–223. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.004.
Biography
Namkyu Chun, Doctor of Arts, is a postdoctoral researcher at Aalto
University. With his transdisciplinary background, he intends to critic-
ally engage with conversations on design.
ORCID
Namkyu Chun http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-2703
Address for correspondence
Namkyu Chun, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and
Architecture, PO Box 31000, FI-00076 AALTO, Espoo, Finland.
Email: namkyu.chun@aalto.fi
Appendix
Table A1. Key information about the interview respondents.
Respondent
ID
Professional
Experience
(Y: Years)
Type of
Product
Business Size
(N: Number of
employees)
15Y<10 Men’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
25Y<10 Women’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
35Y<10 Women’s wear,
accessories
Micro (1 N<3)
4Y20 Women’s wear,
accessories
Small (3 N<10)
55Y<10 Women’s wear Small (3 N<10)
65Y<10 Women’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
710Y<15 Women’s wear,
accessories
Small (3 N<10)
810Y<15 Women’s wear Small (3 N<10)
95Y<10 Women’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
10 5 Y<10 Women’s wear Medium (N 10)
11 5 Y<10 Women’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
12 15 Y<20 Women’s wear,
accessories, home
Medium (N 10)
13 10 Y<15 Women’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
14 5 Y<10 Women’s wear,
accessories
Micro (1 N<3)
15 5 Y<10 Unisex Micro (1 N<3)
16 5 Y<10 Women’s wear Micro (1 N<3)
17 5 Y<10 Unisex Micro (1 N<3)
18 Y 20 Women’s wear Small (3 N<10)
N. Chun
The Design Journal114
