Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2021.1860628
G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, G. V. Georgiev, J. Zelaya
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, G. V. Georgiev, J. Zelaya","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2021.1860628","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2021.1860628","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2021.1860628","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48920256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1858970
Agnes Guenther, B. Eisenbart, A. Dong
ABSTRACT Selecting novel product concepts for further development into successful innovations entails decision making under conditions of high uncertainty. The literature discusses several influencing factors for making accurate decisions in such situations, such as domain expertise to evaluate technical feasibility and market potential. Recent scholarship increasingly highlights the decision makers’ personal creative capabilities to have an important influence in dealing with uncertain options. This article examines an individual’s creativity and its relation to the individual’s propensity to select novel product concepts and to choose product concepts correctly for further development. We present an experimental study showing that an individual’s level of creativity increases the likelihood of accepting novel product concepts without negatively affecting decision accuracy. Domain expertise operationalized as familiarity with the intended, central use case or technology in the product concept neither influences the likelihood of accepting new product concepts nor decision accuracy. These findings have strong implications for companies in relation to managing individuals selecting product concepts for further development in early stages of the innovation process.
{"title":"Creativity and successful product concept selection for innovation","authors":"Agnes Guenther, B. Eisenbart, A. Dong","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1858970","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1858970","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Selecting novel product concepts for further development into successful innovations entails decision making under conditions of high uncertainty. The literature discusses several influencing factors for making accurate decisions in such situations, such as domain expertise to evaluate technical feasibility and market potential. Recent scholarship increasingly highlights the decision makers’ personal creative capabilities to have an important influence in dealing with uncertain options. This article examines an individual’s creativity and its relation to the individual’s propensity to select novel product concepts and to choose product concepts correctly for further development. We present an experimental study showing that an individual’s level of creativity increases the likelihood of accepting novel product concepts without negatively affecting decision accuracy. Domain expertise operationalized as familiarity with the intended, central use case or technology in the product concept neither influences the likelihood of accepting new product concepts nor decision accuracy. These findings have strong implications for companies in relation to managing individuals selecting product concepts for further development in early stages of the innovation process.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1858970","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45086747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-14DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1854122
C. Masclet, J. Boujut, M. Poulin, Laetitia Baldaccino
ABSTRACT Co-creation with end-users is gaining an increasing interest in the design industry today. This study investigates the mechanisms by which spatial augmented reality (SAR) technology can affect socio-cognitive processes in groups involved in co-creative design sessions. More precisely, when used in real co-creative design sessions, does a SAR system facilitate the collective creative process, compared to sessions occurring in standard settings? A protocol analysis has been conducted to investigate three different design sessions involving experienced designers and end-users on a product design task: a design session supported by conventional design representations (usual design practices), a design session supported by non-spatial augmented reality (AR), and a session supported by SAR technology. While results do not clearly show that SAR or AR technologies increase end-user’s commitmen t, they illustrate the ability for these technologies to allow browsing through more ideas during a co-creative design session. Furthermore, it tends to reduce time spent on ideas, compared to a traditional session. We also noted that the introduction of this technology does not modify the profiles of the sessions in terms of cognitive activities. This tends to demonstrate that the technology itself does not impair the design activity.
{"title":"A socio-cognitive analysis of evaluation and idea generation activities during co-creative design sessions supported by spatial augmented reality","authors":"C. Masclet, J. Boujut, M. Poulin, Laetitia Baldaccino","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1854122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1854122","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Co-creation with end-users is gaining an increasing interest in the design industry today. This study investigates the mechanisms by which spatial augmented reality (SAR) technology can affect socio-cognitive processes in groups involved in co-creative design sessions. More precisely, when used in real co-creative design sessions, does a SAR system facilitate the collective creative process, compared to sessions occurring in standard settings? A protocol analysis has been conducted to investigate three different design sessions involving experienced designers and end-users on a product design task: a design session supported by conventional design representations (usual design practices), a design session supported by non-spatial augmented reality (AR), and a session supported by SAR technology. While results do not clearly show that SAR or AR technologies increase end-user’s commitmen t, they illustrate the ability for these technologies to allow browsing through more ideas during a co-creative design session. Furthermore, it tends to reduce time spent on ideas, compared to a traditional session. We also noted that the introduction of this technology does not modify the profiles of the sessions in terms of cognitive activities. This tends to demonstrate that the technology itself does not impair the design activity.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1854122","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49549280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1838331
H. Casakin, G. V. Georgiev
ABSTRACT The analysis of conversations during design activity can facilitate deeper insights into design thinking and its relation to creativity. A semantic analysis approach was employed to explore the semantic content of communication and information exchange between students and instructors. The goal was to examine design conversations in terms of abstraction, Polysemy, Information Content, and Semantic Similarity measures, and analyze their relation to the creativity of final solutions. These design outcomes were assessed according to their Originality, Usability, Feasibility, Overall Value, and Overall Creativity. Consequently, 35 design conversations from the 10th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS10) dataset were analyzed. The main results showed that Information Content and Semantic Similarity predicted Originality, and Information Content alone predicted Overall Creativity. Likewise, Abstraction predicted Feasibility, while Semantic Similarity, Information Content, and Polysemy predicted Overall Value. In context of instructors, Semantic Similarity predicted Usability, and Polysemy predicted Feasibility. For students, Semantic Similarity predicted Overall Value. On the whole, Semantic Similarity and Information Content were the most prolific measures, and therefore could be considered for promoting creativity in the design studio. The implications of using support tools such as automated systems are also discussed.
{"title":"Design creativity and the semantic analysis of conversations in the design studio","authors":"H. Casakin, G. V. Georgiev","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1838331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1838331","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The analysis of conversations during design activity can facilitate deeper insights into design thinking and its relation to creativity. A semantic analysis approach was employed to explore the semantic content of communication and information exchange between students and instructors. The goal was to examine design conversations in terms of abstraction, Polysemy, Information Content, and Semantic Similarity measures, and analyze their relation to the creativity of final solutions. These design outcomes were assessed according to their Originality, Usability, Feasibility, Overall Value, and Overall Creativity. Consequently, 35 design conversations from the 10th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS10) dataset were analyzed. The main results showed that Information Content and Semantic Similarity predicted Originality, and Information Content alone predicted Overall Creativity. Likewise, Abstraction predicted Feasibility, while Semantic Similarity, Information Content, and Polysemy predicted Overall Value. In context of instructors, Semantic Similarity predicted Usability, and Polysemy predicted Feasibility. For students, Semantic Similarity predicted Overall Value. On the whole, Semantic Similarity and Information Content were the most prolific measures, and therefore could be considered for promoting creativity in the design studio. The implications of using support tools such as automated systems are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1838331","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48202488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1854121
R. Sosa, A. Connor
ABSTRACT Creativity is considered here as a universal and diverse capacity that is central to full human agency. This view contrasts with beliefs that negate one’s creativity and that of others. Self-reports of creativity are examined in this paper taking inspiration from the study of oppression and liberation in the praxis of social change by the influential education theorist Paulo Freire. An exploratory survey of one hundred and fifty-nine professionals examines the types of perceptions and beliefs that designers and non-designers have about their own creativity, the creativity of others, and how they explain the nature of creativity. Based on how respondents explain their own creative capacities and those of others, three initial categories are formulated based on theories of social change: oppressive, oppressed, and liberating views of creativity. The findings demonstrate how these categories can be interpreted and implications for future work are discussed in the closing section.
{"title":"A Freirean interrogation of creativity beliefs","authors":"R. Sosa, A. Connor","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1854121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1854121","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Creativity is considered here as a universal and diverse capacity that is central to full human agency. This view contrasts with beliefs that negate one’s creativity and that of others. Self-reports of creativity are examined in this paper taking inspiration from the study of oppression and liberation in the praxis of social change by the influential education theorist Paulo Freire. An exploratory survey of one hundred and fifty-nine professionals examines the types of perceptions and beliefs that designers and non-designers have about their own creativity, the creativity of others, and how they explain the nature of creativity. Based on how respondents explain their own creative capacities and those of others, three initial categories are formulated based on theories of social change: oppressive, oppressed, and liberating views of creativity. The findings demonstrate how these categories can be interpreted and implications for future work are discussed in the closing section.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1854121","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46777583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1813632
Ying Sun, S. Münster, T. Köhler, C. M. Sommer
ABSTRACT As an essential step, design ideas generation is a process rooted in personal knowledge with a precedent-based type of reasoning, where knowledge is constantly transformed to develop new insights. An outstanding challenge in industrial design is transforming the inspirational source into insights that inform design. Based on the grounded theory, an open-ended semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted with professional industrial designers, to uncover what sources and methods do they choose and how do they transform the generated insights to ideas and the design mind-set involved. A compact framework and a detailed instrument paradigm were developed, which helps novice and students designers to explore creative solutions during the ideation process.
{"title":"Understanding the industrial designer’s self-perception of ideation","authors":"Ying Sun, S. Münster, T. Köhler, C. M. Sommer","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1813632","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1813632","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As an essential step, design ideas generation is a process rooted in personal knowledge with a precedent-based type of reasoning, where knowledge is constantly transformed to develop new insights. An outstanding challenge in industrial design is transforming the inspirational source into insights that inform design. Based on the grounded theory, an open-ended semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted with professional industrial designers, to uncover what sources and methods do they choose and how do they transform the generated insights to ideas and the design mind-set involved. A compact framework and a detailed instrument paradigm were developed, which helps novice and students designers to explore creative solutions during the ideation process.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1813632","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46603248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-07DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1813633
Rohan Prabhu, Jennifer Bracken, Clinton Armstrong, K. Jablokow, T. Simpson, N. Meisel
ABSTRACT The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) enable designers to generate and build creative solutions beyond the limitations of traditional manufacturing. However, designers must also accommodate AM limitations to minimize build failures. Several researchers have proposed design tools and educational interventions for integrating design for AM (DfAM) in engineering design. However, there is a need to investigate the effect of DfAM training on industry professionals’ use of these techniques and its subsequent effects on the creativity of their designs. In this paper, we present a workshop-based study in which industry professionals were sequentially introduced to opportunistic and restrictive DfAM. Participants were also given a DfAM task, with short idea generation sessions conducted between each content lecture. The participants’ designs and their DfAM and creative self-efficacies were compared from before to after receiving DfAM training. The results show that DfAM training successfully increased participants’ restrictive DfAM self-efficacy; however, no changes were seen in their opportunistic DfAM or creative self-efficacies. Further, the results show an increase in the uniqueness and overall creativity of the participants’ designs, but no significant changes were seen in the initially high usefulness of the designs. These findings suggest that DfAM training presents an opportunity to encourage creative idea generation.
{"title":"Additive creativity: investigating the use of design for additive manufacturing to encourage creativity in the engineering design industry","authors":"Rohan Prabhu, Jennifer Bracken, Clinton Armstrong, K. Jablokow, T. Simpson, N. Meisel","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1813633","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1813633","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) enable designers to generate and build creative solutions beyond the limitations of traditional manufacturing. However, designers must also accommodate AM limitations to minimize build failures. Several researchers have proposed design tools and educational interventions for integrating design for AM (DfAM) in engineering design. However, there is a need to investigate the effect of DfAM training on industry professionals’ use of these techniques and its subsequent effects on the creativity of their designs. In this paper, we present a workshop-based study in which industry professionals were sequentially introduced to opportunistic and restrictive DfAM. Participants were also given a DfAM task, with short idea generation sessions conducted between each content lecture. The participants’ designs and their DfAM and creative self-efficacies were compared from before to after receiving DfAM training. The results show that DfAM training successfully increased participants’ restrictive DfAM self-efficacy; however, no changes were seen in their opportunistic DfAM or creative self-efficacies. Further, the results show an increase in the uniqueness and overall creativity of the participants’ designs, but no significant changes were seen in the initially high usefulness of the designs. These findings suggest that DfAM training presents an opportunity to encourage creative idea generation.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1813633","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43059969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-24DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1811775
Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. S. Frillici, F. Rotini
ABSTRACT The novelty metric suggested by Shah and colleagues is one of the most widespread among the suggestions made by scholars, and it is based on the subjective identification of attributes and/or functions underpinning analyzed ideas. If not correctly managed, this subjectivity can lead to non-negligible ambiguity of assessments, which could potentially invalidate the research results. Several variants to this metric have been proposed in the last two decades, with some of them claiming to have improved the original metric. However, the related benefits and drawbacks are still unclear, especially in terms of subjectivity. The aim of this study is to estimate the potential misalignment between research teams that independently perform the assessment of the same set of ideas. To this purpose, the considered metrics have been applied to a set of 100 ideas by utilizing the assessment results from three independent evaluators. It was revealed that the obtained novelty scores can be extremely different owing to the plethora of different possible interpretations of the analyzed ideas. Accordingly, the results highlight that for the same set of ideas, very different novelty assessment rationales can be followed by the evaluators.
{"title":"Subjectivity of novelty metrics based on idea decomposition","authors":"Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. S. Frillici, F. Rotini","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1811775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1811775","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The novelty metric suggested by Shah and colleagues is one of the most widespread among the suggestions made by scholars, and it is based on the subjective identification of attributes and/or functions underpinning analyzed ideas. If not correctly managed, this subjectivity can lead to non-negligible ambiguity of assessments, which could potentially invalidate the research results. Several variants to this metric have been proposed in the last two decades, with some of them claiming to have improved the original metric. However, the related benefits and drawbacks are still unclear, especially in terms of subjectivity. The aim of this study is to estimate the potential misalignment between research teams that independently perform the assessment of the same set of ideas. To this purpose, the considered metrics have been applied to a set of 100 ideas by utilizing the assessment results from three independent evaluators. It was revealed that the obtained novelty scores can be extremely different owing to the plethora of different possible interpretations of the analyzed ideas. Accordingly, the results highlight that for the same set of ideas, very different novelty assessment rationales can be followed by the evaluators.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1811775","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49026100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1767885
J. Gero
Design is recognized as one of the creative professions but that does notmean that design equals creativity. Much of design is not creative, rather it is routine in the sense that the designs produced are those that are similar to existing designs and are only unique in terms of the situation they are in. However, there is value in producing designs that are considered creative in that they add significant value and change people’s perceptions and, in doing so, have the potential to change society by changing its value system. A search for the terms ‘design’ and ‘creativity’ in books over the last 200 years (using Google’s Ngram) shows that the term “design’ was well established by 1800 and its use dropped between 1800 and 1900, after which its use increased to 2000. The term ‘creativity’ only came into noticeable use from 1940 on (Figure 1). It is, therefore, not surprising that creativity research is a young field. Much of early design creativity research has focused on distinguishing design creativity from designing; typically, by attempting to determine when and how a designer was being creative while they were designing. This still remains an important area of design creativity research that deserves considerable attention. Much of the design creativity research over the last 30–40 years has focused on either cognitive studies of designers or on building computational models of creative processes, generally using artificial intelligence or cognitive models. As in other areas of design research, there has been interest in developing cognitive creativity support tools. These two paradigmatic approaches have yielded interesting and important results. Tools can be categorized along a spectrum from passive through responsive to active. Passive tools need to be directly invoked by the designer and remain unchanged by their use. A spreadsheet is an exemplary example of a general passive tool. Passive tools that support design creativity include, for example, morphological analysis and TRIZ. Responsive tools need to be directly invoked by the designer but are changed by their use and do so by learning (Gero, 1996). They aim to tailor their response to the user over time. They tend to be developed for a specific purpose and are often proprietary. Active tools interact with the designer, i.e., they respond to what the designer is doing and make proposals. More recently, there has been interest in studying creativity when the designer is using responsive and active creativity aids. These aids cover a wide spectrum. Here two new categories will be considered: artificial intelligence that supports co-creation and neuro-based creativity enhancement. These two approaches form the basis of two nascent directions that are fundamentally different to the current directions of cognitive studies and passive cognitive support tools. In addition, there have been studies with drugs that affect the brain and that anecdotally enhance creativity. Alcohol has been show
{"title":"Nascent directions for design creativity research","authors":"J. Gero","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1767885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1767885","url":null,"abstract":"Design is recognized as one of the creative professions but that does notmean that design equals creativity. Much of design is not creative, rather it is routine in the sense that the designs produced are those that are similar to existing designs and are only unique in terms of the situation they are in. However, there is value in producing designs that are considered creative in that they add significant value and change people’s perceptions and, in doing so, have the potential to change society by changing its value system. A search for the terms ‘design’ and ‘creativity’ in books over the last 200 years (using Google’s Ngram) shows that the term “design’ was well established by 1800 and its use dropped between 1800 and 1900, after which its use increased to 2000. The term ‘creativity’ only came into noticeable use from 1940 on (Figure 1). It is, therefore, not surprising that creativity research is a young field. Much of early design creativity research has focused on distinguishing design creativity from designing; typically, by attempting to determine when and how a designer was being creative while they were designing. This still remains an important area of design creativity research that deserves considerable attention. Much of the design creativity research over the last 30–40 years has focused on either cognitive studies of designers or on building computational models of creative processes, generally using artificial intelligence or cognitive models. As in other areas of design research, there has been interest in developing cognitive creativity support tools. These two paradigmatic approaches have yielded interesting and important results. Tools can be categorized along a spectrum from passive through responsive to active. Passive tools need to be directly invoked by the designer and remain unchanged by their use. A spreadsheet is an exemplary example of a general passive tool. Passive tools that support design creativity include, for example, morphological analysis and TRIZ. Responsive tools need to be directly invoked by the designer but are changed by their use and do so by learning (Gero, 1996). They aim to tailor their response to the user over time. They tend to be developed for a specific purpose and are often proprietary. Active tools interact with the designer, i.e., they respond to what the designer is doing and make proposals. More recently, there has been interest in studying creativity when the designer is using responsive and active creativity aids. These aids cover a wide spectrum. Here two new categories will be considered: artificial intelligence that supports co-creation and neuro-based creativity enhancement. These two approaches form the basis of two nascent directions that are fundamentally different to the current directions of cognitive studies and passive cognitive support tools. In addition, there have been studies with drugs that affect the brain and that anecdotally enhance creativity. Alcohol has been show","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1767885","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45393881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1771867
G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, G. V. Georgiev, J. Zelaya
In less than a quarter, the time between two consecutive issues of IJDCI, the COVID-19 outbreak has suddenly revolutionized the life of almost every human being. The daily reports by the World Health Organization depict a dramatic situation at a global level (more than 4,4 million cases and about 300 thousand deaths reported until May 15) and pictures of everyday life from all over the world are not less impressive. In a very short time, people had to radically change their habits and adapt to circumstances they were not prepared for (Figure 1). The analysis of what happened in the medical sector is out of the scope of this journal. However, it is apparent that organizations at any level (not only health-related), just like complex systems as well as simple every-day products, turned out to be unfit for the pandemic and most of the improvised solutions people put in place were largely due to individuals’ intuition and endeavor. What could be learned for improving the design of the next products, systems, organizations? What is the actual contribution of design creativity in ensuring the resilience of society and its means? Is design research well-oriented and structured to improve the humans’ capacity to cope with unexpectedness? The debate on how to face the global economic crisis that might follow is just at the beginning, but the impact is likely to go way beyond economics: we might be in the turning point of our social, political, economical, and educational life. Everything could be significantly different afterward. It is interesting to notice that the design community has been debating for many years about the speed of changes we are observing nowadays. Nevertheless, only a few science fiction writers had imagined such a sudden revolution in people daily life due to a pandemic and there is a lot to learn from this experience. This is an opportunity to turn into practice the so celebrated role of creativity in finding new solutions for the wellbeing of society, in producing responsible and sustainable design to increase the resilience of our organizations. After all, in ancient Greek, the term ‘krisis’ did not have a negative connotation compared with how the term ‘crisis’ is used in today’s languages. Krisis used to refer not only to separation, but also to reflection and assessment. To further develop this ambition, Nathan Crilly, member of the editorial Advisory Board of IJDCI, suggested the closing paragraph by Arundhati Roy in (Roy, 2020): ‘Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.’ The IJDCI journal would like to contrib
{"title":"What can we learn from COVID-19 pandemic for design creativity research?","authors":"G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, G. V. Georgiev, J. Zelaya","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2020.1771867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1771867","url":null,"abstract":"In less than a quarter, the time between two consecutive issues of IJDCI, the COVID-19 outbreak has suddenly revolutionized the life of almost every human being. The daily reports by the World Health Organization depict a dramatic situation at a global level (more than 4,4 million cases and about 300 thousand deaths reported until May 15) and pictures of everyday life from all over the world are not less impressive. In a very short time, people had to radically change their habits and adapt to circumstances they were not prepared for (Figure 1). The analysis of what happened in the medical sector is out of the scope of this journal. However, it is apparent that organizations at any level (not only health-related), just like complex systems as well as simple every-day products, turned out to be unfit for the pandemic and most of the improvised solutions people put in place were largely due to individuals’ intuition and endeavor. What could be learned for improving the design of the next products, systems, organizations? What is the actual contribution of design creativity in ensuring the resilience of society and its means? Is design research well-oriented and structured to improve the humans’ capacity to cope with unexpectedness? The debate on how to face the global economic crisis that might follow is just at the beginning, but the impact is likely to go way beyond economics: we might be in the turning point of our social, political, economical, and educational life. Everything could be significantly different afterward. It is interesting to notice that the design community has been debating for many years about the speed of changes we are observing nowadays. Nevertheless, only a few science fiction writers had imagined such a sudden revolution in people daily life due to a pandemic and there is a lot to learn from this experience. This is an opportunity to turn into practice the so celebrated role of creativity in finding new solutions for the wellbeing of society, in producing responsible and sustainable design to increase the resilience of our organizations. After all, in ancient Greek, the term ‘krisis’ did not have a negative connotation compared with how the term ‘crisis’ is used in today’s languages. Krisis used to refer not only to separation, but also to reflection and assessment. To further develop this ambition, Nathan Crilly, member of the editorial Advisory Board of IJDCI, suggested the closing paragraph by Arundhati Roy in (Roy, 2020): ‘Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.’ The IJDCI journal would like to contrib","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2020.1771867","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49405005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：