Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T14:48:40.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Looking for Inspiration: Understanding the Information Evaluation and Seeking Behavior of Novice Designers During Creative Idea Generation

Part of: Human Behaviour in Design and Design Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Nicole Damen  and
Christine Toh

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.

Information usage is a key aspect of creative cognition and has been shown to influence design outcomes. The goal of this study was to investigate the information seeking behavior of student designers while validating a previously developed “Typology of Design Information” framework. Participants were asked to use and evaluate pieces of information during the idea generation process. Results show a discrepancy between the information that participants naturally sought out and their perceived utility (helpfulness) of the information. However, individually significant relationships between perceived utility and behavior were found with features generated by participants, suggesting that even though participants' perception of the utility of information pieces and their actual behavior are not related, both constructs have an identifiable influence on design outcomes. This study advances the Typology of Design Information framework by empirically exploring the link between the types of information used by novice designers and the ideas generated, and it illustrates that participants employ complex cognitive behavior when engaging with design information to generate novel ideas.

Keywords

CreativityConceptual designDesign cognitionDesign educationInformation management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1793 - 1802
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) 2019

References

Abid, A., Shi, W. and Toh, C., A. (2018), “The Ends or the Means? Understanding How Students Use Causal and Effectual Information During Design Activities”, International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. Volume 7: 30th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
Akin, O. (1990), “Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity”, Design Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 107–113.Google Scholar
Ball, L.J., St. Bt Evans, J., Dennis, I. and Ormerod, T.C. (1997), “Problem-solving strategies and expertise in engineering design”, Thinking & Reasoning, Vol. 3, pp. 247–270.Google Scholar
Bertoni, A., Larsson, T., Larsson, J. and Elfsberg, J. (2017), “Mining data to design value: A demonstrator in early design”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Brown, V.R. and Paulus, P.B. (2002), “Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 11, pp. 208–212.Google Scholar
Christensen, B.T. and Schunn, C.D. (2009), “The role and impact of mental simulation in design”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 327–344.Google Scholar
Corsini, L. and Moultrie, J. (2017), “An exploratory study into the impact of new digital design and manufacturing tools on the design process”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. Vol 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation and Management, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1994), “Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 230–251.Google Scholar
Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C. and Wood, K. (2013), “The meaning of ‘near’ and ‘far’: the impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 135, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2014), “What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation”, Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2016), “Inspiration choices that matter: the selection of external stimuli during ideation”, Design Science, Vol. 2, available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2016.10.Google Scholar
Herring, S.R., Chang, C.-C., Krantzler, J. and Bailey, B.P. (2009), “Getting inspired!: understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Hunter, S.T., Thoroughgood, C. and Cassidy, S. (2010), “Leading innovative teams. In G. S. Ligon's (Chair), Human Resource Management Interventions for Innovation”, presented at the Symposium at the 24th annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Jansson, D. and Smith, S. (1991), “Design Fixation”, Design Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Jonides, J., Lewis, R.L., Nee, D.E., Lustig, C.A., Berman, M.G. and Moore, K.S. (2008), “The Mind and Brain of Short-Term Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 193–224.Google Scholar
Kalay, Y.E. (2006), “The impact of information technology on design methods, products and practices”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 357–380.Google Scholar
Li, H., Krishnamurthi, S. and Fisler, K. (2002), “Verifying cross-cutting features as open systems”, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 27, pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
Lumbard, K., Abid, A., Toh, C. and Germonprez, M. (2018), “Knowing and Designing: Understanding Information Use in Design Industry Through the Lens of Information Archetypes”, Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, pp. 4065–4074.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2004), “Qualitative content analysis”, in Flick, U., Kardoff, E. and Steinke, I. (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 266–269.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1956), “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information”, Psychological Review, Vol. 63, p. 81.Google Scholar
Mistree, F., Smith, W.F., Bras, B.A., Allen, J.K. and Muster, D. (1990), “Decision-based design: a contemporary paradigm for ship design”, Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 98, pp. 565–597.Google Scholar
Ogot, M. and Okudan-Kremer, G. (2004), Engineering Design: A Practical Guide, Trafford Publishing.Google Scholar
Olson, M.A. and Fazio, R.H. (2008), “Implicit and explicit measures of attitudes: The perspective of the MODE model”, Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures, Psychology Press, New York, US, pp. 19–63.Google Scholar
Osman, A. and Kazakçı, M. (2015), “Data Science As A New Frontier For Design”, presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation And Effectuation: Toward A Theoretical Shift From Economic Inevitability To Entrepreneurial Contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
Shanteau, J. (1992), “How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant?”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
Simpson, T.W. and Thevenot, H.J. (2007), “Using Product Dissection to Integrate Product Family Design Research into the Classroom and Improve Students’ Understanding of Platform Commonality”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 23, pp. 120–130.Google Scholar
Toh, C., Miller, S. and Okudan Kremer, G. (2012), “Mitigating Design Fixation Effects in Engineering Design Through Product Dissection Activities”, Proceedings of Design Computing and Cognition, presented at the Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, TX, pp. 95–113.Google Scholar
Van Aken, J.E. (2004), “Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-tested and Grounded Technological Rules”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 219–246.Google Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926), The Art of Thought, Harcourt Brace, New York.Google Scholar