Advertisement

How task constraints affect inspiration search strategies

  • Michael Mose BiskjaerEmail author
  • Bo T. Christensen
  • Morten Friis-Olivarius
  • Sille J. J. Abildgaard
  • Caroline Lundqvist
  • Kim Halskov
Article

Abstract

Searching for sources of inspiration is central to creative design; however, we have limited knowledge of individual inspiration search strategies in response to varying levels of task constraints. We studied 39 high-school students’ inspiration search strategies using Google Images. Low task constrainedness led to divergent search marked by quick iterations, limited design task usage, and a heterogeneous image set. Intermediate constrainedness prompted in-depth, on-task exploration characterized by slow and careful iterations with more search result examination, extensive design task usage, and homogenous images. High constrainedness led to flexible bracketing with quick, flexible design task use, ending with heterogeneous images. Images from the intermediately and highly constrained conditions generated more ideas and were perceived as more inspiring (relative to low) in a new group of students. We discuss the idea of a ‘sweet spot’ of constrainedness in an inspiration search process in design and consider implications for design research and future work.

Keywords

Sources of inspiration Search strategy Constraints Google Images Quantitative study Sweet spot 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the teachers and students from Ørestad High School, Copenhagen. This research was funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark (Grant 1311-00001B, CIBIS) and the Velux Foundations Grant: Digital Tools in Collaborative Creativity.

References

  1. An, D., & Youn, N. (2018). The inspirational power of arts on creativity. Journal of Business Research, 85, 467–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.025.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, M. J. (1979). Information search tactics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 30(4), 205–214.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630300406.Google Scholar
  3. Bates, M. J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing and Management, 26(5), 575–591.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(90)90103-9.Google Scholar
  4. Beaudouin-Lafon, M., & Mackay, W. (2003). Prototyping tools and techniques. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook (2nd ed., pp. 1017–1040). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Biskjaer, M. M. (2013). Self-imposed creativity constraints. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
  6. Biskjaer, M. M., Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2014). A constraint-based understanding of design spaces. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’14) (pp. 453–462). New York: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598533.
  7. Biskjaer, M. M., & Halskov, K. (2014). Decisive constraints as a creative resource in interaction design. Digital Creativity, 25(1), 27–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.855239.Google Scholar
  8. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1990).Google Scholar
  9. Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: Towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(3), 176–186.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00307.x.Google Scholar
  10. Bruton, D. (2011). Learning creativity and design for innovation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 321–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9122-8.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.Google Scholar
  12. Chan, J., Dow, S. P., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration? Design Studies, 36, 31–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.001.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, W. (2016). Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 461–487.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9315-2.Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2016). Creative analogy use in a heterogeneous design team: The pervasive role of background domain knowledge. Design Studies, 46, 38–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.07.004.Google Scholar
  15. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142.Google Scholar
  16. Crilly, N., & Cardoso, C. (2017). Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in design? Design Studies, 50, 1–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.02.001.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial, Modern Classics.Google Scholar
  19. Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9.Google Scholar
  20. Debowski, S. (2001). Wrong way: Go back! An exploration of novice search behaviours while conducting an information search. The Electronic Library, 19(6), 371–382.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470110411991.Google Scholar
  21. Dorst, K. (1997). Describing design: A comparison of paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology Press, Delft, Belgium.Google Scholar
  22. Dove, G., Hansen, N. B., & Halskov, K. (2016). An argument for design space reflection. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on humancomputer interaction (NordiCHI ‘16). New York: ACM, article. no. 17.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971528.
  23. Eastman, C. M. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’69) (pp. 669–690). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Eckert, C., & Stacey, M. (2000). Sources of inspiration: A language of design. Design Studies, 21(5), 523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00022-3.Google Scholar
  25. Eckert, C., & Stacey, M. (2002). Fortune favours only the prepared mind: Why sources of inspiration are essential for continuing creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00080.Google Scholar
  26. Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 108–119.  https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759803700202.Google Scholar
  28. Goel, V. (1992). Comparison of well-structured and ill-structured task environments and problem spaces. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 844–849). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Gonçalves, M. (2016). Decoding designers’ inspiration process. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, 35(1), 29–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.09.001.Google Scholar
  31. Halskov, K. (2010). Kinds of inspiration in interaction design. Digital Creativity, 21(3), 186–196.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2010.502236.Google Scholar
  32. Halskov, K., & Dalsgaard, P. (2007). The emergence of ideas: The interplay between sources of inspiration and emerging design concepts. CoDesign, 3(4), 185–211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701607404.Google Scholar
  33. Harlan, M. A., Bruce, C., & Lupton, M. (2012). Teen content creators: Experiences of using information to learn. Library Trends, 60(3), 569–587.  https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2012.0001.Google Scholar
  34. Harms, M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Derrick, D. C. (2018). The role of information search in creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.  https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000212.Google Scholar
  35. Helms, M., Vattam, S. S., & Goel, A. K. (2009). Biologically inspired design: Process and products. Design Studies, 30(5), 606–622.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.04.003.Google Scholar
  36. Herring, S. R., Chang, C.-C., Krantzler, J., & Bailey, B. P. (2009). Getting inspired! Understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’09) (pp. 87–96). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518717.
  37. Hsiao, S. W., Wang, M. F., & Chen, C. W. (2017). Time pressure and creativity in industrial design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 271–289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9343-y.Google Scholar
  38. Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2004). The effects of type and level of personal involvement on information search and problem solving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(8), 1709–1729.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02794.x.Google Scholar
  39. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F.Google Scholar
  40. Jarmusch, J. (2013). Things I’ve learned. Movie Maker Magazine [online edition], June 5, 2013. https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/series/things_learned/jim-jarmusch-5-golden-rules-of-moviemaking/. Accessed November 21, 2017.
  41. Jörgensen, C., & Jörgensen, P. (2005). Image querying by image professionals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1346–1359.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20229.Google Scholar
  42. Joyce, C. K. (2009). The blank page: Effects of constraint on creativity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  45. Koch, J., László, M., Lucero, A., & Oulasvirta, A. (2018). Surfing for inspiration: Digital inspirational material in design practice. In Proceedings of the 2018 design research society conference (DRS’18). University of Limerick, Ireland, June 25–28, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.352.
  46. Kuzminykh, A., & Lank, E. (2016). People searched by people: Context-based selectiveness in online search. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’16) (pp. 749–760). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901853.
  47. Linder, R., Snodgrass, C., & Kerne, A. (2014). Everyday ideation: All of my ideas are on Pinterest. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’14) (pp. 2411–2420). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557273.
  48. Lomas, J. D., Koedinger, K., Patel, N., Shodhan, S., Poonwala, N., & Forlizzi, J. L. (2017). Is difficulty overrated? The effects of choice, novelty and suspense on intrinsic motivation in educational games. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’17) (pp. 1028–1039). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025638.
  49. Lucero, A. (2012). Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting, and directing: How design mood boards work. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’12) (pp. 438–447). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318021.
  50. Luo, S. J., & Dong, Y. N. (2017). Role of cultural inspiration with different types in cultural product design activities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 499–515.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9359-y.Google Scholar
  51. MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Belotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human–Computer Interaction, 6(3–4), 201–250.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_2.Google Scholar
  52. Maher, M., & Tang, H.-H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0016-y.Google Scholar
  53. Makri, S., & Warwick, C. (2010). Information for inspiration: Understanding architects’ information seeking and use behaviors to inform design. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1745–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21338.Google Scholar
  54. Marsh, R. L., Ward, T. B., & Landau, J. D. (1999). The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task. Memory & Cognition, 27(1), 94–105.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201216.Google Scholar
  55. McDonnell, J. (2011). Impositions of order: A comparison between design and fine art practices. Design Studies, 32(6), 557–572.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.003.Google Scholar
  56. Mete, F. (2006). The creative role of sources of inspiration in clothing design. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 18(4), 278–293.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09556220610668509.Google Scholar
  57. Mougenot, C., Bouchard, C., Aoussat, A., & Westerman, S. (2008). Inspiration, images and design: An investigation of designers’ information gathering strategies. Journal of Design Research, 7(4), 331–351.  https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2008.026987.Google Scholar
  58. Moxley, J. H., Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., & Krampe, R. T. (2012). The role of intuition and deliberative thinking in experts’ superior tactical decision-making. Cognition, 124(1), 72–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.005.Google Scholar
  59. Mumford, M. D., Blair, C., Dailey, L., Leritz, L. E., & Osburn, H. K. (2006). Errors in creative thought? Cognitive biases in a complex processing activity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(2), 75–109.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01267.x.Google Scholar
  60. Oleynick, V. C., Thrash, T. M., LeFew, M. C., Moldovan, E. G., & Kieffaber, P. D. (2014). The scientific study of inspiration in the creative process: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8(article 436), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00436.Google Scholar
  61. Onarheim, B. (2012a). Creativity from constraints in engineering design: Lessons learned at Coloplast. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323–336.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.631904.Google Scholar
  62. Onarheim, B. (2012b). Creativity under constraints: Creativity as balancing ‘constrainedness. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ph.D. School of Economics and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.Google Scholar
  63. Onarheim, B., & Wiltschnig, S. (2010). Opening and constraining: Constraints and their role in creative processes. In Proceedings of the first conference on creativity and innovation in design (DESIRE’10) (pp. 83–89). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  64. Paraskevopoulos, F., Taramigkou, M., Bothos, E., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2014). Creative user centric inspirational search. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI’14) (pp. 25–28). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559184.2559201.
  65. Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 366–387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2.Google Scholar
  66. Perkins, D. N. (1994). Creativity: Beyond the Darwinian paradigm. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Petre, M., Sharp, H., & Johnson, J. (2006). Complexity through combination: An account of knitwear design. Design Studies, 27(2), 183–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.07.003.Google Scholar
  68. Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1992). Effects of examples on the results of a design activity. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 82–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90026-C.Google Scholar
  69. Quintana, M. G. B., Pujol, M. C., & Romaní, J. R. (2012). Internet navigation and information search strategies: How children are influenced by their participation in an intensive ICT project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 513–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9158-4.Google Scholar
  70. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O’Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9–23.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1001_2.Google Scholar
  71. Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelley & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments and optimality (pp. 282–315). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.Google Scholar
  73. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2005). Information, inspiration and co-creation. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference of the european academy of design, University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  74. Santulli, C., & Langella, C. (2011). Introducing students to bio-inspiration and biomimetic design: A workshop experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 471–485.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9132-6.Google Scholar
  75. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  76. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G.Google Scholar
  77. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090605.Google Scholar
  78. Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar
  79. Setchi, R., & Bouchard, C. (2010). In search of design inspiration: A semantic-based approach. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 10(3), 031006.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3482061.Google Scholar
  80. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8.Google Scholar
  81. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1969).Google Scholar
  82. Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.). (1989). Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 7). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sio, U. N., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies, 39, 70–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.04.004.Google Scholar
  84. Sosa, R., Vasconcelos, L. A., & Cardoso, C. C. (2018). Design briefs in creativity studies. In DS 89: Proceedings of The fifth international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2018) (pp. 403–410). University of Bath, Bath, UK. The Design Society. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/40713/design+briefs+in+creativity+studies.
  85. Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2010). Reshaping the box: Creative designing as constraint management. International Journal of Product Development, 11(3), 241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2010.03396.Google Scholar
  86. Stronge, A. J., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2006). Web-based information search and retrieval: Effects of strategy use and age on search success. Human Factors, 48(3), 434–446.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606804.Google Scholar
  87. Taghavi, M., Patel, A., Schmidt, N., Wills, C., & Tew, Y. (2012). An analysis of web proxy logs with query distribution pattern approach for search engines. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 34(1), 162–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2011.07.001.Google Scholar
  88. Teigen, K. H. (1994). Yerkes–Dodson: A law for all seasons. Theory & Psychology, 4(4), 525–547.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354394044004.Google Scholar
  89. Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–889.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.871.Google Scholar
  90. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.Google Scholar
  91. Vandenbosch, B., & Gallagher, K. (2004). The role of constraints. In R. J. Boland Jr. & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 198–202). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Verplanken, B. (1993). Need for cognition and external information search: Responses to time pressure during decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(3), 238–252.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1993.1017.Google Scholar
  93. Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2013). Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design. Design Studies, 34(5), 515–542.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.002.Google Scholar
  94. Wu, Q., & Wang, Y. (2015). To explore the effect of sub consciousness on Sudden Moments of Inspiration (SMI) in the sketching process of industrial design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 563–584.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9326-z.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Digital CreativityAarhus UniversityAarhus NDenmark
  2. 2.Department of MarketingCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations