Advertisement

Expanding Design Thinking with Methods from Futures Studies. Reflections on a Workshop with Chinese User Experience Students

  • Ellen De Vos
  • Xin Xin
  • Marina Emmanouil
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10919)

Abstract

Design thinking can be seen as a fundamental premise to approach solving a problem in an innovative way [1]. It is especially valuable at situations in which challenges are complex and ambiguous. Design thinking includes two distinct approaches: diverging and converging. It requires both a flexible way of understanding, to come with various ideas, and know-how to make informed decisions. These opposing activities are poured into an explanatory model. However, a rigorous design thinking process might be considered as a limitation on creative thinking. Also, the promise of a straightforward all-in-one solution for complex problems seems rather unrealistic [1]. Futures studies exceed design thinking on the aspect of the acceptance of plausible options by freeing the apparent certainties [2]. This is primarily useful at the early phase of a design thinking practice when the problem should be explored. Whether a focus on the future context of a designed product could be recognized as added value, must still be inquired. This is a reflective paper on a two-day workshop developed for User Experience students in China that applied techniques from futures studies combined with design thinking and narrative techniques. In particular, the participants were design thinking newbies used to operate in an educational context with focus on traditional lecture-based pedagogy [3].

Keywords

Design thinking Practice Novices Creativity 

References

  1. 1.
    Brown, T.: Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Visser, W.: Designing as construction of representations: a dynamic viewpoint in cognitive design research. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21(1), 103–152 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hilton, C.: Cross-disciplinary pedagogy: from Chinese fan dance to designing a bandstand. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), pp. 539–544. Aalborg, Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beijing Normal University. School of Psychology Holds Ceremony for UX Lab and User Experience and Human-Computer Interaction & Professional Postgraduate UX Enrollment Conference (2017). http://english.bnu.edu.cn/universitynews/79105.htm. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
  5. 5.
    Couger, J.D., Higgins, L.F., McIntyre, S.C.: (Un)Structured creativity in information systems organizations. MIS Q. 17(4), 375–397 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchanan, R.: Wicked problems in design thinking. Des. Issues 8(2), 5–21 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaufman, J.C., Beghetto, R.A.: Beyond big and little: the four C model of creativity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13(1), 1 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raven, P.G., Elahi, S.: The new narrative: applying narratology to the shaping of futures outputs. Futures 74, 49–61 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selin, C., Kimbell, L., Ramirez, R., Bhatti, Y.: Scenarios and design: scoping the dialogue space. Futures 74, 4–17 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svanaes D., Seland G.: Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM 2004, pp. 479–486 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Badke-Schaub, P., Roozenburg, N., Cardoso, C.: Design thinking: a paradigm on its way from dilution to meaninglessness. In: Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, pp. 19–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman D.: Design thinking. a useful myth? (2017). http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
  13. 13.
    Johansson-Söldberg, U., Woodilla, J., Çetinkaya, M.: Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity Innov. Manag. 22(2), 121–146 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Design Council: The double diamond design process model (2017). https://www.designcouncil.org.uk. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
  15. 15.
    Gill, C., Graell, M.: Teaching design thinking: evolution of a teaching collaboration across disciplinary, academic and cultural boundaries. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), pp. 34–39. Aalborg, Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, T.: Creativity: a framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. J. Technol. Educ. 17(1), 36 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niu, W., Sternberg, R.J.: The philosophical roots of Western and Eastern conceptions of creativity. J. Theoret. Philos. Psychol. 26(1–2), 18 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salovaara, A., Mannonen, P.: Use of future-oriented information in user-centered product concept ideation. In: Costabile, M.F., Paternò, F. (eds.) INTERACT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3585, pp. 727–740. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11555261_58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guemes-Castorena, D.: Megatrend methodology to identify development opportunities. In: Management of Engineering & Technology PICMET 2009 Proceedings. Portland International Conference, pp. 2391–2396 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hekkert, P., Van Dijk, M.: ViP-Vision in Design: A Guidebook for Innovators. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gatto G., Mccardle J.: The designer and the scientist: the road to inspire transdisciplinary synergies. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), pp. 468–473. Aalborg, Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Candy S.: Time machine/reverse archaeology, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 2014 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parrish, P.: Design as storytelling. TechTrends 50(4), 72–82 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McFadzean, E.: The creativity continuum: towards a classification of creative problem solving techniques. Creativity Innov. Manag. 7(3), 131–139 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bell, S.: Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. Clearing House 83(2), 39–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morgan, D., Skaggs, P.: Collaboration in the zone of proximal development. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), pp. 664–669. Aalborg, Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jin, L., Cortazzi, M.: Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Lang. Cult. Curriculum 19(1), 5–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Evenson, S.: Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM 2007, pp. 493–502 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andriopoulos, C.: Six paradoxes in managing creativity: an embracing act. Long Range Plan. 36, 375–388 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tschimmel, K.: Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation. In: ISPIM Conference Proceedings. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM) (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelley, T., Kelley, D.: Reclaim your creative confidence. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(12), 115–118 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arnone, M.P., Small, R.V., Chauncey, S.A., McKenna, H.P.: Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 59(2), 181–198 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nazli, C., Giaccardi, E., Tynan-OMahony, F., Speed, C., Caldwell, M.: Thing-centered narratives: a study of object personas. Seminar 3, 22–23 (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gosselin, D., Tindemans, B.: Thinking Futures: Strategy at the Edge of Complexity and Uncertainty. Lannoo Meulenhoff, Belgium (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao, Z., Hou, J.: The study on influencing factors of team brainstorming effectiveness. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 5(1), 181 (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Watson, R.: Mega trends and technologies 2017–2050 (2017). https://nowandnext.com/PDF/Mega%20Trends%20and%20Technologies%202017-2050%20(Print).jpg. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
  37. 37.
    Montgomery, E.P., Woebken, C.: Extrapolation Factory - Operator’s Manual, Publication version 1.0 (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bergman, A., Karlsson, J.C., Axelsson, J.: Truth claims and explanatory claims—an ontological typology of futures studies. Futures 42(8), 857–865 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Curry, A., Ward, V.: Postcards as doorways. J. Futures Stud. 18(3), 101–114 (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Folkmann, M.N.: Enabling creativity. Imagination in design processes. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity, ICDC 2010, pp. 66–72 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Firth, R., Stoltenberg, E.: Using moving image to facilitate storytelling as an ideation methodology and a platform to enhance the integration of international student cohorts within product design education. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), pp. 539–544. Aalborg, Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Arnall, T., Martinussen, E.S.: Depth of field: discursive design research through film. Form Akademisk-forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk 3(1), 100–122 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityKortrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Beijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations