Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1692772
G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, J. Zelaya, G. V. Georgiev
With the inauguration of the eighth volume, the International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation (IJDCI) starts a new cycle with important novelties and renewed ambitions. First, the journal is now offered in the Science & Technology Library package, which is an extremely attractive bundle for academic libraries, research organizations and others for being the largest collection of science and technology content of Taylor and Francis with over 500 journals, 10,000 volumes and 700,000 peer-reviewed articles. We are confident that this will imply broader visibility for the research studies published in this journal and ultimately a higher impact of design creativity research on society. The second not less important novelty of 2020 is the renewal of the editorial and steering advisory boards of the journal. Thirty-seven board members (20 in the editorial board and 17 in the advisory board) from 14 different countries and with complementary areas of focus within the design creativity and innovation domain accepted the challenge to work together toward a higher recognition of both the journal in particular and the entire field of study in general. The eighth year of IJDCI starts with the editorial by former president of the Design Society, Prof. Panos Y. Papalambros from the University of Michigan, USA. In the editorial, Prof. Papalambros shares his thoughts on the interplay between education and research. A key value of academic education is the continuous update of the courses content with the most recent outcomes of research activities and the latest studies published by scholars from all over the world. Prof. Papalambros highlights the important role of design education as a means to validate design research. The editorial offers stimulating insights and points for reflection based on his large experience in the design field. The new year also starts with IJDCI being selected among the journals proposed for the PubliER 2020 Workshop. The workshop, to be held in Troyes (France) from 29 to 31 January 2020, is dedicated to support top-end early researchers in refining their scientific academic writing skills. The aim is to enable the researchers to improve their writing and publishing capacities and to polish previously written papers so as to publish them on the most pertinent international scientific journals in their fields of study. Papers dealing with design creativity submitted to PubliER 2020 will be discussed in dedicated sessions where IJDCI editors will meet the authors to advise and guide them. Early researchers will also participate as peer reviewers for other papers participating in the same session. Eventually, the process will enable the researchers to better previously written papers and end with a top-quality product to be submitted to the journal where the resulting enhanced paper has higher chances of being accepted. Therefore, we have great expectations for 2020. After all, eight is the luckiest number in the Chinese cul
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, J. Zelaya, G. V. Georgiev","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1692772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1692772","url":null,"abstract":"With the inauguration of the eighth volume, the International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation (IJDCI) starts a new cycle with important novelties and renewed ambitions. First, the journal is now offered in the Science & Technology Library package, which is an extremely attractive bundle for academic libraries, research organizations and others for being the largest collection of science and technology content of Taylor and Francis with over 500 journals, 10,000 volumes and 700,000 peer-reviewed articles. We are confident that this will imply broader visibility for the research studies published in this journal and ultimately a higher impact of design creativity research on society. The second not less important novelty of 2020 is the renewal of the editorial and steering advisory boards of the journal. Thirty-seven board members (20 in the editorial board and 17 in the advisory board) from 14 different countries and with complementary areas of focus within the design creativity and innovation domain accepted the challenge to work together toward a higher recognition of both the journal in particular and the entire field of study in general. The eighth year of IJDCI starts with the editorial by former president of the Design Society, Prof. Panos Y. Papalambros from the University of Michigan, USA. In the editorial, Prof. Papalambros shares his thoughts on the interplay between education and research. A key value of academic education is the continuous update of the courses content with the most recent outcomes of research activities and the latest studies published by scholars from all over the world. Prof. Papalambros highlights the important role of design education as a means to validate design research. The editorial offers stimulating insights and points for reflection based on his large experience in the design field. The new year also starts with IJDCI being selected among the journals proposed for the PubliER 2020 Workshop. The workshop, to be held in Troyes (France) from 29 to 31 January 2020, is dedicated to support top-end early researchers in refining their scientific academic writing skills. The aim is to enable the researchers to improve their writing and publishing capacities and to polish previously written papers so as to publish them on the most pertinent international scientific journals in their fields of study. Papers dealing with design creativity submitted to PubliER 2020 will be discussed in dedicated sessions where IJDCI editors will meet the authors to advise and guide them. Early researchers will also participate as peer reviewers for other papers participating in the same session. Eventually, the process will enable the researchers to better previously written papers and end with a top-quality product to be submitted to the journal where the resulting enhanced paper has higher chances of being accepted. Therefore, we have great expectations for 2020. After all, eight is the luckiest number in the Chinese cul","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1692772","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45965071","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1662735
E. Wilson, Leigh Thompson, Brian J. Lucas
ABSTRACT We explored how impression management influences creative idea generation in the design thinking process. Specifically, we examined the effect of recalling and recounting embarrassing versus prideful stories on creative idea generation. In Experiment 1, people who shared an embarrassing incident were more creative in a subsequent brainstorming task than were people who described a moment of pride. In Experiment 2, we extended this investigation to study brainstorming teams, and found that teams of senior managers who revealed an embarrassing incident generated a greater volume and variety of ideas in a subsequent group brainstorming session than did teams that shared a moment of pride. We considered the practical implications of our findings for the managers and their teams in the design thinking process.
{"title":"Pride and Pratfalls:Recounting Embarrassing Stories Increases Creativity","authors":"E. Wilson, Leigh Thompson, Brian J. Lucas","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1662735","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1662735","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We explored how impression management influences creative idea generation in the design thinking process. Specifically, we examined the effect of recalling and recounting embarrassing versus prideful stories on creative idea generation. In Experiment 1, people who shared an embarrassing incident were more creative in a subsequent brainstorming task than were people who described a moment of pride. In Experiment 2, we extended this investigation to study brainstorming teams, and found that teams of senior managers who revealed an embarrassing incident generated a greater volume and variety of ideas in a subsequent group brainstorming session than did teams that shared a moment of pride. We considered the practical implications of our findings for the managers and their teams in the design thinking process.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1662735","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45764153","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1651675
Mo Chen, Ivan Mata, G. Fadel
ABSTRACT The identification, selection, and consideration of appropriate affordances during the preliminary design phase of a product play a critical role in the process of Affordance Based Design (ABD). A design tool named Affordance Based Interactive Genetic Algorithm (ABIGA) evolves products by having designers identify, and then users assess the affordance qualities of virtual prototypes. Affordances are defined to be perceived interactions, both positive and negative, primarily between the user and the artifact. In order to achieve a successful product evolution, guidelines are proposed to help designers in the setting up of experiments related to user-centered design and ABD specifically. It was found that the existence of conflicting affordances would result in a slower evolution when compared with one that did not have such conflicts. Meanwhile, it was observed that virtual presentation does influence the users’ judgments. From these observations, hypotheses and multiple experiments, these guidelines are discussed and critiqued to provide designers with insight into how to control user-centered experiments.
{"title":"Interpreting and tailoring affordance based design user-centered experiments","authors":"Mo Chen, Ivan Mata, G. Fadel","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1651675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1651675","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The identification, selection, and consideration of appropriate affordances during the preliminary design phase of a product play a critical role in the process of Affordance Based Design (ABD). A design tool named Affordance Based Interactive Genetic Algorithm (ABIGA) evolves products by having designers identify, and then users assess the affordance qualities of virtual prototypes. Affordances are defined to be perceived interactions, both positive and negative, primarily between the user and the artifact. In order to achieve a successful product evolution, guidelines are proposed to help designers in the setting up of experiments related to user-centered design and ABD specifically. It was found that the existence of conflicting affordances would result in a slower evolution when compared with one that did not have such conflicts. Meanwhile, it was observed that virtual presentation does influence the users’ judgments. From these observations, hypotheses and multiple experiments, these guidelines are discussed and critiqued to provide designers with insight into how to control user-centered experiments.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1651675","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44416428","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1690963
P. Papalambros
Validation of design research results has been an ongoing challenge. Validating is defined as ‘supporting or corroborating on a sound or authoritative basis’ or ‘recognizing, establishing, or illustrating the worthiness or legitimacy of (something)’ (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). In scientific research we validate theory and results through observation, experimentation, and repeatability. What about design research? Much of our published work in design research struggles to claim validation if it even acknowledges such a need explicitly. When I propose a methodology for how a large design organization should conduct its design operations, how could I validate my proposal? Scientifically speaking, I should observe the organization in operation with and without using my method over a period of time and on several projects (to avoid one positive result being a fluke), and then compare the quality of the resulting designs. There is no chance I would find a company to agree to that, even if I paid them.Well, I could use some students, set up a controlled experiment, and observe the results. I could use acknowledged statistical metrics to confirm I conducted things right, although a convincing statistical significance is becoming much tighter (e.g., Benjamin et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41562-017-0189-z) and student experiments tend to be tainted by suspicions of convenience and expediency. I could at least work on repeatability so others can try my methods and hopefully get the same results. Alas, for quite some time now our research studies employ much too complicated computational models and methods to be able to describe them in a reasonably long paper and ‘supplementary material’ repositories are woefully sparsely used. Plus, graduate students who hold the keys to the codes move on and the new ones always want to start from scratch. These are legitimate ‘explanations’ and there are of course notable exceptions. But when it comes to design methods, research validation is really, really hard. And so, over the years I developed a very simple criterion on whether a method (mine or anybody else’s) is valid. I ask the question: ‘Can I honestly use it in my design course?’ and if I do, ‘Would my students honestly use it?’ I emphasize honestly because I want to make sure I will put this method in my syllabus believing that I will not waste my students' time, and that my students will use it because they perceive its value rather than just making me happy and claiming their deserved grade. The results are usually quite evident at the end of the course or even earlier, whether I ask the students or not. Students have ways of telling teachers quite clearly what they think – a kind of body language that experienced teachers quickly recognize. When I judge the results as positive, then I will try the method again next time I teach the course. Over time the method becomes part of my design teaching toolkit. The method has been validated! While
设计研究结果的验证一直是一个持续的挑战。验证被定义为“在可靠或权威的基础上支持或确证”或“承认、确立或说明(某事)的价值或合法性”(韦氏在线词典)。在科学研究中，我们通过观察、实验和可重复性来验证理论和结果。那么设计研究呢?我们在设计研究方面发表的许多工作，即使明确承认这种需要，也很难得到验证。当我提出一个大型设计组织应该如何进行设计操作的方法时，我如何验证我的建议?科学地说，我应该在一段时间和几个项目中观察组织在使用和不使用我的方法的情况下的运行情况(避免一个积极的结果是侥幸)，然后比较最终设计的质量。即使我付钱给他们，我也不可能找到一家同意这样做的公司。我可以找一些学生，做一个对照实验，然后观察结果。我可以使用公认的统计指标来确认我所做的事情是正确的，尽管令人信服的统计显著性正变得越来越紧密(例如，Benjamin et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10)。1038/s41562-017-0189-z)和学生的实验往往被怀疑为方便和权宜之计。我至少可以研究可重复性，这样其他人就可以尝试我的方法，并希望得到相同的结果。唉，很长一段时间以来，我们的研究使用了太复杂的计算模型和方法，无法在一篇相当长的论文中描述它们，而且“补充材料”库的使用也很少。此外，掌握密码钥匙的研究生会继续前进，而新生总是想从头开始。这些都是合理的“解释”，当然也有明显的例外。但当涉及到设计方法时，研究验证真的非常非常困难。因此，多年来，我制定了一个非常简单的标准来判断一个方法(我的或其他人的)是否有效。我问自己:‘我能在我的设计课程中诚实地使用它吗?’如果我这样做了，‘我的学生会诚实地使用它吗?我之所以强调诚实，是因为我想确保我将把这种方法写入我的教学大纲，我相信我不会浪费学生的时间，我的学生会使用它，因为他们认识到它的价值，而不仅仅是让我高兴，并要求他们应得的分数。无论我是否问过学生，结果通常在课程结束甚至更早的时候就很明显了。学生有办法很清楚地告诉老师他们的想法——一种有经验的老师很快就能识别的肢体语言。当我判断结果是积极的，那么我将在下次教这门课时再次尝试这种方法。随着时间的推移，这种方法成为我设计教学工具包的一部分。该方法已经过验证!虽然我声称没有科学依据，但以上确实对我作为一名教学实践者有所帮助。但这里有一个更广泛的问题。如果学科是知识的创造和传播，那么什么构成了作为学科的设计中的知识主体?研究是知识的产生，教学是知识的传播。大概我们所教的一定是定义知识主体的指南。具有悠久历史的学科领域都有完善的教材，并被普遍接受和教授。我想到了热力学或古典文学(尽管后者正日益受到挑战)。在设计领域显然不是这样，我们没有涵盖基础知识的真正的“规范”教科书。此外，直到最近，设计讲师大多是行业从业者，将他们丰富的经验带入课堂，从学术生涯教授那里减轻了教学设计的负担。同样，也有例外，特别是在某些国际设计创意与创新杂志2020年，第8卷，第2期。1,3 - 4 https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1690963
{"title":"Design teaching as design research validation","authors":"P. Papalambros","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1690963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1690963","url":null,"abstract":"Validation of design research results has been an ongoing challenge. Validating is defined as ‘supporting or corroborating on a sound or authoritative basis’ or ‘recognizing, establishing, or illustrating the worthiness or legitimacy of (something)’ (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). In scientific research we validate theory and results through observation, experimentation, and repeatability. What about design research? Much of our published work in design research struggles to claim validation if it even acknowledges such a need explicitly. When I propose a methodology for how a large design organization should conduct its design operations, how could I validate my proposal? Scientifically speaking, I should observe the organization in operation with and without using my method over a period of time and on several projects (to avoid one positive result being a fluke), and then compare the quality of the resulting designs. There is no chance I would find a company to agree to that, even if I paid them.Well, I could use some students, set up a controlled experiment, and observe the results. I could use acknowledged statistical metrics to confirm I conducted things right, although a convincing statistical significance is becoming much tighter (e.g., Benjamin et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41562-017-0189-z) and student experiments tend to be tainted by suspicions of convenience and expediency. I could at least work on repeatability so others can try my methods and hopefully get the same results. Alas, for quite some time now our research studies employ much too complicated computational models and methods to be able to describe them in a reasonably long paper and ‘supplementary material’ repositories are woefully sparsely used. Plus, graduate students who hold the keys to the codes move on and the new ones always want to start from scratch. These are legitimate ‘explanations’ and there are of course notable exceptions. But when it comes to design methods, research validation is really, really hard. And so, over the years I developed a very simple criterion on whether a method (mine or anybody else’s) is valid. I ask the question: ‘Can I honestly use it in my design course?’ and if I do, ‘Would my students honestly use it?’ I emphasize honestly because I want to make sure I will put this method in my syllabus believing that I will not waste my students' time, and that my students will use it because they perceive its value rather than just making me happy and claiming their deserved grade. The results are usually quite evident at the end of the course or even earlier, whether I ask the students or not. Students have ways of telling teachers quite clearly what they think – a kind of body language that experienced teachers quickly recognize. When I judge the results as positive, then I will try the method again next time I teach the course. Over time the method becomes part of my design teaching toolkit. The method has been validated! While","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1690963","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44239861","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2018.1473810
Lisa Scharoun, R. Davey, T. Cochrane, G. Mews
ABSTRACT Establishing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is essential in assuring a child’s health and wellbeing over the life-course. Of national concern in Australia is the fact that nearly three in every 10 children and young people are overweight or obese. Childhood overweight/obesity is also a global concern. The energy deficit needed to reverse the trend in childhood obesity may be quite small for most children however that intervention should start early and be sustained. Children can be active participants in creating new social norms for society but this is not often recognized. Society tends to position children as passive spectators and/or gives them superficial roles in creating artifacts for use in schools and other institutions such as health care centers. In order to support healthy lifestyle change in primary school settings, a Physical Activity and Lifestyle Management (PALM) report card system for progression, monitoring and reporting of anthropometric achievement standards for children has been proposed. In order for this system to be an effective communication tool it needed to be designed in a way that would not only be visually appealing and easy to use but would also allow parents and children to take a sense of ownership of the design and enable it to be accepted by the wider community. This paper describes and discusses the co-design approach that enabled children and designers to develop the PALM card and to provide some understanding of children’s perceptions of healthy habits and behaviors.
{"title":"Designing healthy futures: involving primary school children in the co-design of a health report card","authors":"Lisa Scharoun, R. Davey, T. Cochrane, G. Mews","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2018.1473810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1473810","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Establishing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is essential in assuring a child’s health and wellbeing over the life-course. Of national concern in Australia is the fact that nearly three in every 10 children and young people are overweight or obese. Childhood overweight/obesity is also a global concern. The energy deficit needed to reverse the trend in childhood obesity may be quite small for most children however that intervention should start early and be sustained. Children can be active participants in creating new social norms for society but this is not often recognized. Society tends to position children as passive spectators and/or gives them superficial roles in creating artifacts for use in schools and other institutions such as health care centers. In order to support healthy lifestyle change in primary school settings, a Physical Activity and Lifestyle Management (PALM) report card system for progression, monitoring and reporting of anthropometric achievement standards for children has been proposed. In order for this system to be an effective communication tool it needed to be designed in a way that would not only be visually appealing and easy to use but would also allow parents and children to take a sense of ownership of the design and enable it to be accepted by the wider community. This paper describes and discusses the co-design approach that enabled children and designers to develop the PALM card and to provide some understanding of children’s perceptions of healthy habits and behaviors.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2018.1473810","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44949882","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 : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1646385
G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, G. V. Georgiev, J. Zelaya
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"G. Cascini, Y. Nagai, G. V. Georgiev, J. Zelaya","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1646385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1646385","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1646385","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47820643","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 : 2019-08-19DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1646387
G. Goldschmidt
In 1983 Howard Gardner (1983/2011) first published ‘Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences’. His view that intelligence can take many forms and is contingent on particular disciplines and on socio-cultural circumstances was revolutionary and had a lasting influence on the study of intelligence. This theory shuttered the former belief that intelligence is innate, and that it can be universally measured in the form of a standard IQ score. Gardner listed seven (later the list was extended to nine) basic types of intelligence, which translate into learning styles: visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal (later dubbed emotional or social intelligence), intrapersonal, linguistic and logical-mathematical. Gardner, who is a prominent creativity researcher as well, did not come up with a similarly innovative theory of creativity; instead, he demonstrated extraordinary creativity in a range of different disciplines. A generation ago the study of creativity was largely descriptive and included much anecdotal material. In parallel, assessments of creativity continued to emphasize divergent thinking, as proposed by Guilford (1950) and evident in fluency, flexibility and originality (later elaboration was added), for which Torrance (1974) developed the most prevalent creativity tests. There are many offshoots of the original 1970s’ tests, but they continue to rest on the same principles. Two main factors have changed creativity theories in more recent times. First, artificial intelligence (AI), which has become a strong simulation and development tool in studies of intelligence, has been instrumental also in creativity research. One of the first scholars to illuminate the role of AI in analyzing as well as generating creative ideas is Margaret Boden, who distinguishes between two levels of creativity. The first is connectionist, whereby familiar ideas are combined in novel ways. A higher level of creativity is achieved by “mapping, exploration and transformation of conceptual spaces” (Boden, 1991/2004). AI models can “help define a space”, and show how it is navigated when acts of mapping, exploration and transformation are performed. When this theory was first presented, AI tools could only explore spaces. Today we have tools that can also transform them, thus assisting in the production of creative ideas. The second factor that has a profound impact on creativity research is neurological and neurocognitive sciences, which have, in recent years, been able to expand creativity research from the realm of cognition and the mind into the realm of the brain. In particular, the combinatorial theories of creativity which talk about associations of ideas can now be demonstrated in terms of patterns of neural connections in the brain, with the help of contemporary imaging technologies such as fMRI (e.g., Ellamil, Dobson, Beeman, & Christoff, 2012; Gabora, 2010; Goel, 2014; Lazar, 2018). This line of research has helped weaken the hithe
{"title":"Design creativity research: recent developments and future challenges","authors":"G. Goldschmidt","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1646387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1646387","url":null,"abstract":"In 1983 Howard Gardner (1983/2011) first published ‘Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences’. His view that intelligence can take many forms and is contingent on particular disciplines and on socio-cultural circumstances was revolutionary and had a lasting influence on the study of intelligence. This theory shuttered the former belief that intelligence is innate, and that it can be universally measured in the form of a standard IQ score. Gardner listed seven (later the list was extended to nine) basic types of intelligence, which translate into learning styles: visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal (later dubbed emotional or social intelligence), intrapersonal, linguistic and logical-mathematical. Gardner, who is a prominent creativity researcher as well, did not come up with a similarly innovative theory of creativity; instead, he demonstrated extraordinary creativity in a range of different disciplines. A generation ago the study of creativity was largely descriptive and included much anecdotal material. In parallel, assessments of creativity continued to emphasize divergent thinking, as proposed by Guilford (1950) and evident in fluency, flexibility and originality (later elaboration was added), for which Torrance (1974) developed the most prevalent creativity tests. There are many offshoots of the original 1970s’ tests, but they continue to rest on the same principles. Two main factors have changed creativity theories in more recent times. First, artificial intelligence (AI), which has become a strong simulation and development tool in studies of intelligence, has been instrumental also in creativity research. One of the first scholars to illuminate the role of AI in analyzing as well as generating creative ideas is Margaret Boden, who distinguishes between two levels of creativity. The first is connectionist, whereby familiar ideas are combined in novel ways. A higher level of creativity is achieved by “mapping, exploration and transformation of conceptual spaces” (Boden, 1991/2004). AI models can “help define a space”, and show how it is navigated when acts of mapping, exploration and transformation are performed. When this theory was first presented, AI tools could only explore spaces. Today we have tools that can also transform them, thus assisting in the production of creative ideas. The second factor that has a profound impact on creativity research is neurological and neurocognitive sciences, which have, in recent years, been able to expand creativity research from the realm of cognition and the mind into the realm of the brain. In particular, the combinatorial theories of creativity which talk about associations of ideas can now be demonstrated in terms of patterns of neural connections in the brain, with the help of contemporary imaging technologies such as fMRI (e.g., Ellamil, Dobson, Beeman, & Christoff, 2012; Gabora, 2010; Goel, 2014; Lazar, 2018). This line of research has helped weaken the hithe","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1646387","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45101058","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 : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2018.1465477
C. Liang, Yuhsuan Chang, C. Liang
Abstract Designers value imaginative capacity and consider it the basis for cultivating creative ideas, but research on designer imagination is scant. Prior research has indicated that pictorial representations stimulate designers to imagine how their designs look or feel when they are used. Therefore, the present study explored the types of pictorial representation that stimulate the imaginative capacity of experienced multimedia designers as well as how this is achieved. This study conducted a series of in-depth interviews focusing on 10 indicators of imaginative capacity with 20 experienced multimedia designers. The results indicate that each indicator of imaginative capacity can be stimulated by various types or combinations of pictorial representation. How these stimulations occur largely depends on design problems and needs. The potential changes in design resulting from referring to pictorial representations were considered on the basis of five facets: optimal combination, presentation intentions, user experience, client needs, and resource availability. Resource availability was identified as a key determinant of final decisions made by experienced designers.
{"title":"How can pictorial representations stimulate the imaginative capacity of experienced multimedia designers?","authors":"C. Liang, Yuhsuan Chang, C. Liang","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2018.1465477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465477","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Designers value imaginative capacity and consider it the basis for cultivating creative ideas, but research on designer imagination is scant. Prior research has indicated that pictorial representations stimulate designers to imagine how their designs look or feel when they are used. Therefore, the present study explored the types of pictorial representation that stimulate the imaginative capacity of experienced multimedia designers as well as how this is achieved. This study conducted a series of in-depth interviews focusing on 10 indicators of imaginative capacity with 20 experienced multimedia designers. The results indicate that each indicator of imaginative capacity can be stimulated by various types or combinations of pictorial representation. How these stimulations occur largely depends on design problems and needs. The potential changes in design resulting from referring to pictorial representations were considered on the basis of five facets: optimal combination, presentation intentions, user experience, client needs, and resource availability. Resource availability was identified as a key determinant of final decisions made by experienced designers.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2018.1465477","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44113550","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 : 2019-06-17DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1628664
J. Gero, R. Yu, J. Wells
ABSTRACT This paper presents results from a study exploring the relationship between design education and creative design cognition in high school students. Data from coded protocols of high school students with and without design education serve as the source. Audio/video recordings of student pairs engaged in a design task captured both their design approach and their concurrent design conversation. Following a verbal protocol methodology, videos were coded using the Function-Behaviour-Structure ontology coding scheme. This coding scheme was augmented by two further codes ‘new’ and ‘surprising’ as the basis for measuring design creativity. Results revealed significant differences between the two cohorts in creative design cognition, while no significant differences in general design cognition were found.
{"title":"The effect of design education on creative design cognition of high school students","authors":"J. Gero, R. Yu, J. Wells","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1628664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1628664","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper presents results from a study exploring the relationship between design education and creative design cognition in high school students. Data from coded protocols of high school students with and without design education serve as the source. Audio/video recordings of student pairs engaged in a design task captured both their design approach and their concurrent design conversation. Following a verbal protocol methodology, videos were coded using the Function-Behaviour-Structure ontology coding scheme. This coding scheme was augmented by two further codes ‘new’ and ‘surprising’ as the basis for measuring design creativity. Results revealed significant differences between the two cohorts in creative design cognition, while no significant differences in general design cognition were found.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1628664","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46793431","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 : 2019-05-25DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2019.1618736
L. Jia, N. Becattini, G. Cascini, R. Tan
ABSTRACT This paper reports an experiment that aims at providing new evidence to reinforce contradictory conclusions, as available in engineering design literature, on the effect of analogical distance on ideation performance of designers. The experiment involved 84 graduate students in Mechanical Engineering, with typical competencies on engineering design, but without any specific skill on analogy-based idea generation. The subjects were exposed to three different treatments (near-, medium-, far-field analogies) whose design performance has been compared to a control group. The observation confirms that designers not specifically trained in designing-by-analogy get benefit from sources of inspiration that share the same (sub-)functions and context of the target system, as their idea generation process lead to ideas having higher novelty and quality compared to the outcomes of subjects exposed to more distant analogies. The observed results also show that the exploration of the design space gets positively affected.
{"title":"Testing ideation performance on a large set of designers: effects of analogical distance","authors":"L. Jia, N. Becattini, G. Cascini, R. Tan","doi":"10.1080/21650349.2019.1618736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1618736","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reports an experiment that aims at providing new evidence to reinforce contradictory conclusions, as available in engineering design literature, on the effect of analogical distance on ideation performance of designers. The experiment involved 84 graduate students in Mechanical Engineering, with typical competencies on engineering design, but without any specific skill on analogy-based idea generation. The subjects were exposed to three different treatments (near-, medium-, far-field analogies) whose design performance has been compared to a control group. The observation confirms that designers not specifically trained in designing-by-analogy get benefit from sources of inspiration that share the same (sub-)functions and context of the target system, as their idea generation process lead to ideas having higher novelty and quality compared to the outcomes of subjects exposed to more distant analogies. The observed results also show that the exploration of the design space gets positively affected.","PeriodicalId":43485,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21650349.2019.1618736","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45937226","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：