Advertisement

Designing with and for the Crowd: A Cognitive Study of Design Processes in NatureNet

  • Stephen MacNeilEmail author
  • Sarah Abdellahi
  • Mary Lou Maher
  • Jin Goog Kim
  • Mohammad Mahzoon
  • Kazjon Grace
Conference paper

Abstract

NatureNet is a citizen science project that, in addition to collecting biodiversity data, invites end-users to contribute design ideas to guide the its future design and development. This paper presents the NatureNet model of crowdsourcing design, then compares an analysis of the design process to published analyses of traditional face-to-face design processes. The protocol analysis approach is used to segment and code the design ideas submitted to NatureNet.

References

  1. 1.
    Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magaz 14(6):1–4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher ML, Paulini M, Murty P (2011) Scaling up: from individual design to collaborative design to collective design. In: Design computing and cognition ‘10. Springer Netherlands, pp 581–599Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ponsonby AL, Mattingly K (2015) Evaluating new ways of working collectively in science with a focus on crowdsourcing. EBioMedicine 2(7):627–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kittur A (2010) Crowdsourcing, collaboration and creativity. ACM Crossroads 17(2):22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan J, Dow S, Schunn C (2014, Feb) Conceptual distance matters when building on others’ ideas in crowd-collaborative innovation platforms. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, pp 141–144Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan J, Dang S, Dow SP (2016, Feb) Improving crowd innovation with expert facilitation. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, pp 1223–1235Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu A, Huang SW, Bailey B (2014, Feb) Voyant: generating structured feedback on visual designs using a crowd of non-experts. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, pp 1433–1444Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Valentine MA, Retelny D, To A, Rahmati N, Doshi T, Bernstein MS (2017, May) Flash organizations: crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3523–3537Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lasecki WS, Kim J, Rafter N, Sen O, Bigham JP, Bernstein MS (2015) Apparition: crowdsourced user interfaces that come to life as you sketch them. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1925–1934Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu H, Corney J, Grant M (2014) Crowdsourcing measures of design quality. In: ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering. ASMEGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maher ML, Preece J, Yeh T, Boston C, Grace K, Pasupuleti A, Stangle A (2014, Feb) NatureNet: a model for crowdsourcing the design of citizen science systems. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, pp 201–204Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poetz MK, Schreier M (2012) The value of crowdsourcing: can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? J Prod Innov Manag 29(2):245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang G, Quinn AJ (2017, June) BlueSky: crowd-powered uniform sampling of idea spaces. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity and cognition. ACM, pp 119–130Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu L, Nickerson JV (2011, May) Cooks or cobblers?: crowd creativity through combination. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1393–1402Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dontcheva M, Morris RR, Brandt JR, Gerber EM (2014, April) Combining crowdsourcing and learning to improve engagement and performance. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3379–3388Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahmed F, Fuge M (2017) Capturing winning ideas in online design communities. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. ACM, pp 1675–1687Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grace K, Maher ML, Preece J, Yeh T, Stangle A, Boston C (2015) A process model for crowdsourcing design: a case study in citizen science. In: Design computing and cognition ‘14. Springer, pp 245–262Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Purcell T, Gero J, Edwards H, McNeill T (1996) The data in design protocols: the issue of data coding, data analysis in the development of models of the design process. Cross et al 153:151–168Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magaz 11(4):26Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2014) The function-behavior-structure ontology of design. In: An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, London, pp 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U, Williams C (2014) Does designing have a common cognitive behavior independent of domain and task: a meta-analysis of design protocols. In: International conference on human behavior in designGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U, Pourmohamadi M (2014) Commonalities across designing: empirical results. In: Design computing and cognition ‘12. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–281Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gero JS, Jiang H, Williams CB (2013) Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques. Int J Des Creat Innov 1(4):196–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jiang H, Gero JS, Yen CC (2014) Exploring designing styles using a problem–solution division. In: Design computing and cognition ‘12. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 79–94Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2009). Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information in design protocol studies. In About: Designing. Analysing Design Meetings (pp. 213–229). CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu R, Gero J, Gu N (2013, July) Impact of using rule algorithms on designers’ behavior in a parametric design environment: preliminary result from a pilot study. In: International conference on computer-aided architectural design futures. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams CB, Lee Y, Gero J, Paretti MC (2013, Aug) Exploring the effects of the design prompt on students’ design cognition. In: ASME 2013 International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. ASMEGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang J, Dasgupta A, Ghosh A, Manning J, Sanders M (2014, Mar) Superposter behavior in MOOC forums. In: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. ACM, pp 117–126Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen MacNeil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah Abdellahi
    • 1
  • Mary Lou Maher
    • 1
  • Jin Goog Kim
    • 1
  • Mohammad Mahzoon
    • 1
  • Kazjon Grace
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations