Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:26:05.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Philip Cash ,
Jaap Daalhuizen ,
Dagny Valgeirsdottir  and
Robin Van Oorschot

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.

Design research faces a critical 'impact gap' where the potential for scientific and practical impact is yet to be fully realised. A key means of bridging this gap is the adoption of fundamental theory from other fields to support clarification and synergy in design research. In this paper we examine one of the main candidates for adoption: dual-process theory of cognition. Cognition forms a common element across much of the design literature and leads to fundamental dual-process theories of reasoning. While dual- process theory has started to be recognised in design research, its widespread recognition and potential utility have not been widely explored. Following a conceptual theory development approach we identify and logically describe interactions between dual-process theory and design research. We conclude the paper with a proposition of a design research framework with a core rooted in dual-process theory, and based on this, an agenda for theory-driven design research. This contributes to the debate on how to improve impact, and theoretical and scientific rigour in design research, and provides a concrete agenda for discussion and development within the community.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign methodologyDesign theoryDual-process theoryDesign activity
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1373 - 1382
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

Alexander, C. (1971), “State of art in design methodology: interview with C. Alexander”, DMG Newsletter, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M. (2003), “Improving design methods usability by a mindset approach”, In: Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Human Behaviour in Design, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 209–218.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M. (2011), “45 years with design methodology”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 293–332.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Thorp Hansen, C. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Springer, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19839-2.Google Scholar
Augello, A., Infantino, I., Lieto, A., Pilato, G., Rizzo, R. and Vella, F. (2016), “Artwork creation by a cognitive architecture integrating computational creativity and dual process approaches”, Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, Vol. 15, pp. 74–86.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Eris, O. (2014), “A Theoretical Approach to Intuition in Design: Does Design Methodology Need to Account for Unconscious Processes?”, In: Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, Springer London, London, pp. 353–370.Google Scholar
Basadur, M., Graen, G.B. and Green, S.G. (1982), “Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41–70.Google Scholar
Bedny, G.Z. and Harris, S.R. (2005), “The systemic-structural theory of activity: Applications to the study of human work”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 128–147.Google Scholar
Briggs, R.O. (2006), “On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 573–582.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2008), “Design thinking”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 2008 No. June, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016), “Carlgren rauth elmquist 2016 cim framing design thinking”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38–57.Google Scholar
Cash, P. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Vol. 56 No. May, pp. 84–119.Google Scholar
Cash, P., Hicks, B. and Culley, S. (2015), “Activity theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice”, Design Studies, Vol. 38 No. May, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Cash, P. and Kreye, M.E. (2017), “Uncertainty Driven Action (UDA) model: A foundation for unifying perspectives on design activity”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. e26, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Christensen, B.T. and Ball, L.J. (2017), “Fluctuating Epistemic Uncertainty in a Design Team as a Metacognitive Driver for Creative Cognitive Processes”, In: Christensen, B.T., Ball, L.J. and Halskov, K. (Eds.), Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, CRC Press, pp. 249–270.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2008), “Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532.Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J. (2014a), Method Usage in Design: How Methods Function as Mental Tools for Designers, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J. (2014b), Method Usage in Design, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2011), “The use of methods by advanced beginner and expert industrial designers in non-routine situations: a quasi-experiment”, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 15 No. 1/2/3, p. 54.Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J., Person, O. and Gattol, V. (2014), “A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method”, Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 133–159.Google Scholar
Ellwood, S., Pallier, G., Snyder, A. and Gallate, J. (2009), “The incubation effect: hatching a solution?”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 6–14.Google Scholar
Evans, J. and Stanovich, K.E. (2013), “Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 223–241.Google Scholar
Evans, J.S.B.T. (2006), “The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 378–395.Google Scholar
Feldhusen, J.F. (1995), “Creativity : A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 255–268.Google Scholar
Flavell, J.H. (1979), “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry”, American Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 906–911.Google Scholar
Gemser, G., De Bont, C., Hekkert, P. and Friedman, K. (2012), “Quality perceptions of design journals: The design scholars’ perspective”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 4–23.Google Scholar
Grossman, R., Friedman, S. and Kalra, S. (2017), “Teamwork processes and emergent states”, In: Salas, E., Rico, R. and Passmore, J. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, pp. 245–269.Google Scholar
Guilford, J.P. (1968), Creativity, Intelligence, and Their Educational Implications, Robert Knapp, RR Knapp San Diego, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Hay, L., Duffy, A., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L., Vuletic, T. and Grealy, M. (2017), “A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. Visser 2004, p. e10.Google Scholar
Hevner, A.R. (2007), “A three cycle view of design science research”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 87–92.Google Scholar
Jausovec, N. (1994), “The influence of metacognition on problem-solving performance”, Review of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. and Cetinkaya, M. (2013), “Design thinking : Past, present and possible futures”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
Jones, J.C. (1977), “How my thoughts about design methods have changed during the years”, Design Methods and Theories: Journal of DMG and DRS, Vol. 11 No. 1.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. and Runco, M.A. (2010), “Theories of Creativity”, In: Kaufman, J.C. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 20–47.Google Scholar
Levin, J.R. and O'Donnell, A.M. (1999), “What to do about educational research's credibility gaps?”, Issues in Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 177–229.Google Scholar
Love, T. (2002), “Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: some philosophical issues”, Design Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 345–361.Google Scholar
Mednick, S.A. (1962), “The associative basis of the creative process”, Psychological Review, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 220–232.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, R. (2018), Entrepreneurship Education through Design: Exploring Different Design Perspectives to Understand and Educate the Business Proposition Development Process in New High-Tech Ventures, TU Delft.Google Scholar
Runco, M.A. (2011), “Personal creativity”, In: Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S.R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2nd ed., Elsevier, pp. 220–223.Google Scholar
Runco, M.A. and Chand, I. (1995), “Cognition and creativity”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 243–267.Google Scholar
Runco, M.A. and Jaeger, G.J. (2012), “The standard definition of creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 92–96.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Harper Torchbooks, New York, USA.Google Scholar
von Stamm, B. (2004), “Innovation: What's design got to do with it?”, Design Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (2009), “Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory?”, In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, pp. 55–88.Google Scholar
Tan, T., Zou, H., Chen, C. and Luo, J. (2015), “Mind wandering and the incubation effect in insight problem solving”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 375–382.Google Scholar
Valgeirsdottir, D. and Onarheim, B. (2017), “Metacognition in creativity: Process awareness used to facilitate the creative process”, In: Christensen, B.T. and Ball, L.J. (Eds.), Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, CRC Press, London, UK, pp. 215–228.Google Scholar
Valgeirsdottir, D., Onarheim, B. and Li-Ying, J. (2016), “Improving creativity training: A study of designer skills”, Design Vol. 2016, Design Society, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 1175–1184.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2016), “A logical critique of the expert position in design research: beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation”, Design Science, Vol. 2 No. May, p. e7.Google Scholar
Wacker, J.G. (1998), “A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 361–385.Google Scholar
Welling, H. (2007), “Four mental operations in creative cognition: The importance of abstraction”, Creativity Research Journal, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 19 No. 2–3, pp. 163–177.Google Scholar