Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 243 - 262 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297 İndeks Tarihi: 19-10-2022

Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness

Öz:
The Controlled Input Method is a brainstorming technique that adopts both a nominal and an interactive approach, which has been indicated in the literature as making creative group discussion sessions effective. A brainstorming session using the Controlled Input Method was carried out as the initial stage of the design process of a graduate-level design project in an educational setting. The brainstorming session was found effective in terms of productivity. The documentation of the session was qualitatively and quantitatively analysed for identifying the factors contributing to the session’s effectiveness. The analyses revealed seven discussion topics on the problem area, three solution areas gathering design ideas, seven statement types used in the documentation, and two problem frames situating the discussions, contributing to the identification of fifteen strategies used in collective design reasoning. The strategies are discussed in terms of content creation, problem exploration and idea generation as functions of design reasoning, and in reference to divergence, convergence, quantity, situatedness, and goal-orientedness, as indicators of effectiveness.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • J. (2019). The Double Diamond: A universally accepted depiction of the design process. Design Council UK, News & Opinion. Retrieved on December 2020 from: www.designcouncil. org.uk/news-opinion/double- diamond-universally-accepted-depiction- design-process
  • Björklund, T.A. (2013). Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices. Design Studies, 34(2), 135-160.
  • Bonnardel, N., & Didier, J. (2020). Brainstorming variants to favor creative design. Applied Ergonomics, 83(2020) 102987.
  • Brereton, M., Cannon, D., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (1996). Collaboration in Design Teams: How Social Interaction Shapes the Product. In N. Cross, H.
  • Christiaans & K. Dorst (Eds.) Analysing Design Activity (pp. 319-341). Chichester: Wiley.
  • Carroll, M., Cavagnaro, L.B., & Goldman, S. (2012). Design Thinking. In S. Garner & C. Evans (Eds.) Design and Designing: A Critical Introduction (pp. 20-31). London: Berg.
  • Cramer-Petersen, C.L., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2016). Argumentation and reasoning in design: An empirical analysis of the effects of verbal reasoning on idea value in group idea generation. In: Proceedings of International Design Conference Design 2016 (pp. 957-966). 16-19 May 2016, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
  • Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking. Oxford: Berg.
  • Cross, N., & Clayburn Cross, A. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143-170.
  • Daalhuizen, J., Person, O., & Gattol, V. (2014). A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method. Design Studies, 35(2), 133-159.
  • Darke, J. (1984). The Primary Generator and the Design Process. In N. Cross (Ed.) Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 175-188). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Denis, A.R., & Valacich, J.S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531-537.
  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392-403.
  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497-509.
  • Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Design Studies, 26(5), 445-461.
  • Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of the problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
  • Dujak, D., Ferencic, M., & Franjkovic, J. (2014). Retail ready packaging - What’s in it for food manufacturers? In: Proceedings of The 14th International Scientific Conference Business Logistics in Modern Management (pp. 31-42). Osijek, Croatia.
  • Eisele, P. (2012). Improving performance in groups: Effects of two different goal-setting strategies and feedback on brainstorming performance. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 13(1, 2), 45-57.
  • Faure, C. (2004). Beyond brainstorming: Effects of different group procedures on selection of ideas and satisfaction with the process. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 13-34.
  • Furnham, A., & Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality differences and group versus individual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(1), 73-80.
  • Gray, C.M., McKilligan, S., Daly, S.R., Seifert, C.M., & Gonzalez, R. (2019). Using creative exhaustion to foster idea generation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 177-195.
  • Gause, D.C., & Weinberg, G.M. (1989). Exploring Requirements: Quality before Design. New York: Dorset House Publishing.
  • Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115-122.
  • Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies, 16(2), 189-209.
  • Goldschmidt, G., & Weil, M. (1998).
  • Content and structure in design reasoning. Design Issues, 14(3), 85-100.
  • Harvey, S., & Kou, C.-Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 346-386.
  • Henningsen, D.D., & Miller Henningsen, M.L. (2013). Generating ideas about the uses of brainstorming: Reconsidering the losses and gains of brainstorming groups relative to nominal groups. Southern Communication Journal, 78(1), 42-55.
  • Kazakci, A.O., Gillier, T., Piat, G., & Hatchuel, A. (2015). Brainstorming vs. Creative Design Reasoning: A Theory- Driven Experimental Investigation of Novelty, Feasibility and Value of Ideas. In J. Gero & S. Hanna (Eds.) Design Computing and Cognition ‘14 (pp. 173-188). Springer, Cham.
  • Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K., Bianchi, G., & de Pavia, V.T. (2010). Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 453-476.
  • Krippendorf, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27(5), 527-548.
  • Kurtzberg, T.R., & Amabile, T.M. (2000-2001). From Guildford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3&4), 285-294.
  • Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 175-184.
  • Lawson, B. (2000). How Designers Think (3rd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.
  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Oxon: Architectural Press.
  • Levine, K.J., Heuett, K.B., & Reno, K.M. (2015). Re-operationalizing established groups in brainstorming: Validating Osborn’s claims. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 252-262.
  • Lloyd, P., & Oak, A. (2018). Cracking open co-creation: Categories, stories, and value tension in a collaborative design process. Design Studies, 57, 93-111.
  • Matthews, B., & Heinemann, T. (2012). Analysing conversation: Studying design as social action. Design Studies, 33, 649-672.
  • McDonnell, J. (2012). Accommodating disagreement: A study of effective design collaboration. Design Studies 33, 44-63.
  • McDonnell, J. (2018). Design roulette: A close examination of collaborative decision-making in design from the perspective of framing. Design Studies, 57, 75-92.
  • McMahon, K., Ruggeri, A., Kammer, J.E., & Katsikopoulos, K.V. (2016). Beyond idea generation: The power of groups in developing ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 247-257.
  • Menning, A., Grasnick, B.M., Ewald, B., Dobrigkeit, F., & Nicolai, C. (2018). Verbal focus shifts: Forms of low coherent statements in design conversations. Design Studies, 57, 135-155.
  • Murphy, L.R., Daly, S.R., & Seifert, C.M. (2022). Idea characteristics arising from individual brainstorming and design heuristics ideation methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Published online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021- 09723-0
  • Nik Ahmad Ariff, N.S., Badke- Schaub, P., & Eris, O. (2012). Conversations around design sketches: Use of communication channels for sharing mental models during concept generation. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 27-36.
  • Oak, A. (2011). What can talk tell us about design?: Analyzing conversation to understand practice. Design Studies, 32, 211-234.
  • Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  • Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (2nd ed.). London: Springer-Verlag Limited.
  • Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573-587.
  • Paulus, P.B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 237-262.
  • Paulus, P.B., & Brown, V.R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social- motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248-265.
  • Paulus, P.B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76-87.
  • Paulus P.B., & Dzindolet, M.T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 575-586.
  • Paulus, P.B., Dzindolet, M.T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L.M. (1993).
  • Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78-89.
  • Paulus, P.B., Kohn, N.W., & Arditti, L.E. (2011). Effects of quantity and quality instructions on brainstorming. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 38-46.
  • Putman, V.L., & Paulus, P.B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 23-39.
  • Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2014). Effects of problem scope and creativity instructions on idea generation and selection. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 185-191.
  • Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244-251.
  • Romanik, R. (2013). 12 best practices for retail-ready packaging. Packaging World: Packaging News, Trends and Innovation (online magazine). Retrieved on 24 October 2013 from http://www.packworld.com/package- design/retail-ready/12-best-practices- retail-ready-packaging.
  • Roozenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamental and Methods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Savin-Baden, M., & Howell Major, C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
  • Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Avebury.
  • Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496.
  • 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.
  • Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Quarterly, 41(4), 685- 718.
  • Tovey, M. (2012). The Passport to Practice. In S. Garner & C. Evans (Eds.) Design and Designing: A Critical Introduction (pp. 5-19). London: Berg. Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B.T., & Ball, L.J. (2013). Collaborative problem- solution co-evolution in creative design. Design Studies, 34(5), 515-542.
  • Wright, I.C. (1998). Design Methods in Engineering and Product Design. London: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
  • Wodehouse, A., & Maclachlan, R. (2014). An exploratory model for understanding culture in student design team idea generation. The Design Journal, 17(4), 488-514.
APA BÖREKÇİ N (2022). Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. , 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
Chicago BÖREKÇİ Naz A.G.Z. Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. (2022): 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
MLA BÖREKÇİ Naz A.G.Z. Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. , 2022, ss.243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
AMA BÖREKÇİ N Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. . 2022; 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
Vancouver BÖREKÇİ N Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. . 2022; 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
IEEE BÖREKÇİ N "Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness." , ss.243 - 262, 2022. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
ISNAD BÖREKÇİ, Naz A.G.Z.. "Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness". (2022), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
APA BÖREKÇİ N (2022). Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
Chicago BÖREKÇİ Naz A.G.Z. Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 19, no.2 (2022): 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
MLA BÖREKÇİ Naz A.G.Z. Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.19, no.2, 2022, ss.243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
AMA BÖREKÇİ N Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; 19(2): 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
Vancouver BÖREKÇİ N Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; 19(2): 243 - 262. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
IEEE BÖREKÇİ N "Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness." A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, ss.243 - 262, 2022. 10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297
ISNAD BÖREKÇİ, Naz A.G.Z.. "Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness". A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 19/2 (2022), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2022.91297