Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T22:22:44.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A SPECTRUM OF STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE TAKING IN EARLY-STAGE DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Elizabeth Rieken ,
Kathleen Bond ,
Rachel Moore Best ,
Grace Burleson  and
Eric Reynolds Brubaker
Elizabeth Rieken
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center;
Kathleen Bond
Affiliation:
The Human Factor
Rachel Moore Best
Affiliation:
The Human Factor
Grace Burleson
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center;
Eric Reynolds Brubaker*
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center;
*
Brubaker, Eric Reynolds, NASA, United States of America, eric.r.brubaker@nasa.gov

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Stakeholder perspective taking is a critical skill in early-stage problem exploration and framing. We examined stakeholder perspective taking within an early-stage design team of engineers at NASA to begin to understand in what ways and under what conditions designers adopt stakeholder perspectives in the context of professional engineering organizations. Our findings identify a spectrum of perspective taking during problem framing deliberations that ranges from (1) fully taking the stakeholder's point of view (POV), (2) interpreting the stakeholder's POV using the designer's POV, (3) implanting the stakeholder's POV into the designer's POV, to (4) fully taking the designer's own POV. We also identify and describe conditions that appeared to encourage or hinder perspective taking in this setting. These findings are significant because they suggest ways to gauge and encourage the skill of stakeholder perspective taking among professional engineers working on real-world design challenges with societal implications.

Keywords

Perspective takingUser centred designEarly design phasesDesign practiceProfessional engineers
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 395 - 404
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Atkins, L., Francis, J., Islam, R., O'Connor, D., Patey, A., Ivers, N., Foy, R., Elidh, M.D., Colquhoun, H., Grimshaw, J.M., Lawton, R., and Michie, S. (2017). “A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems”, Implementation science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, N. (2007) Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer, London, UK.Google Scholar
Davis, R. et al. (2015), “Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review”, Health Psychology Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 323–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricke, D.G. (1996), “Successful Individual Approaches in Engineering Design”, R. in Eng. Des., 8(3), p.151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, A.M. and Berry, J.W. (2011), “The Necessity of Others is The Mother of Invention: Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), pp. 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ge, X., Leifer, L., & Shui, L. (2021). Situated emotion and its constructive role in collaborative design: A mixed-method study of experienced designers. Design Studies, 75, 101020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, J. L., Beever, J., Zoltowski, C. B., Kisselburgh, L., Brightman, A. O. (2019), “Enhancing engineering students' ethnical reasoning: Situating reflexive principlism within SIRA framework”,J. of Eng. Edu., 108(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, J. L., Strobel, J., and Brightman, A. O. (2017), “The development of empathic perspective-taking in an engineering ethics course”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 106 No. 4, pp. 534–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., and Wood, K. L. (2008), ”Analogies and Metaphors in Creative design”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 283–294.Google Scholar
Heylighen, A. and Dong, A. (2019), “To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design”, Design Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoever, I.J, van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P., and Barkema, H.G., (2012), “Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential”, J. Applied Psychology, Vol. 97, pp. 982–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouprie, M. and Visser, F.S. (2009), “A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820902875033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lansing, S., Thurner, S., Chung, N.N., Coudurier-Curveur, A., Karakaş, C., Fesenmyer, K.A., and Chew, L.Y. (2017) “Adaptive self-organization of Bali's ancient rice terraces”, Pro. of the National Academy of Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.W., Daly, S.R., Huang-Saad, A., Rodriguez, G., Seifert, C. (2020) “Cognitive strategies in solution mapping: How engineering designers identify problems for technological solutions”, Design Studies, Vol. 71, p.100967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Lawton, R., Parker, D., Walker, A. (2005), “Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach”, Qua. & Saf. in Healthcare, 14(1).Google ScholarPubMed
Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Pub.Google Scholar
Patton, B., and Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies. 32(6), 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Routledge.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F., & Henze, L. (2016). Surprises are the benefits: Reframing in multidisciplinary design teams. Design Studies, 47, 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumpf, S. C., & McDonnell, J. T. (2002). Talking about team framing: Using argumentation to analyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes. Design Studies, 23(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surma-aho, A. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2022), ”Conceptualization and Operationalization of Empathy in Design Research’, Design Studies, 78, p. 101075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surma-aho, A., Björklund, T. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2022) ‘User and stakeholder perspective taking in novice design teams’, Design Science, Vol 8 No. 24. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2022.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkema, R.J., (1983), “Problem Formulation in Planning and Design”, Management Science Vol. 29, p.639–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar