Advertisement

Thinking Pattern in Concept Synthesis (2): Complexity of the Thinking Process

  • Toshiharu Taura
  • Yukari Nagai
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we conduct a computer simulation in order to capture the characteristics or patterns in concept synthesis, which may lead to a creative design idea. This approach employs a research framework called constructive simulation, which may be effective in investigating the generation of a concept—a process which is difficult to observe externally or internally. In the simulation, first, the virtual concept synthesis process is constructed on a semantic network by tracing the relationships between its governing concepts. Next, the relevance of the constructed process is confirmed by using its network structure. The statistical results indicate that the thinking process in which both explicit and ‘inexplicit’ concepts are ‘intricately intertwined’ may lead to a creative design idea.

Keywords

Semantic Network Thinking Process Design Idea Relevant Situation Originality Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Amabile TA (1996) Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andreasen MM (1994) Modelling—the language of the designer. J Eng Des 5:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown DC (2010) The curse of creativity. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ‘10. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cancho RFI, Solé RV (2001) The small world of human language. Proc R Soc Lond 268:2261–2265. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiu I, Shu LH (2007) Using language as related stimuli for concept generation. AI EDAM 21:103–121. doi: 10.1017/S0890060407070175 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coyne RD, Newton S, Sudweeks F (1993) A connectionist view of creative design reasoning. In: Gero JS, Maher ML (eds) Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design. Hillsdale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong A (2006) Concept formation as knowledge accumulation: a computational linguistics study. AI EDAM 20:35–53. doi: 10.1017/S0890060406060033 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1984) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fauconnier G, Turner M (2003) Polysemy and conceptual blending. In: Nerlich B, Todd Z, Herman V, Clarke DD (eds) Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. The MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finke RA, Ward TB, Smith SM (1992) Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Georgiev GV, Taura T, Chakrabarti A, Nagai Y (2008) Method of design through structuring of meanings. In: Proceedings of ASME 2008 international design engineering technical conference and computers and information in engineering conference. Brooklyn, New York, 3–6 August (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldschmidt G (1990) Linkography: assessing design productivity. In: Trappl R (ed) Cybernetics and systems 90. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 291–298 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higginbotham J (2002) On linguistics in philosophy, and philosophy in linguistics. Ling Philos 25:573–584. doi: 10.1023/A:1020891111450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kan JWT, Gero JS (2008) Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Des Stud 29:315–337. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kokotovich V (2008) Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Des Stud 29:49–69. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loewenstein G (1994) The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol Bull 116:75–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagai Y, Noguchi H (2004) An experimental study on the design thinking process started from difficult keywords: modelling the thinking process of creative design. J Eng Des 14:429–437. doi: 10.1080/09544820310001606911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagai Y, Taura T (2010) Discussion on direction of design creativity research (part 2)—research issues and methodologies: from the viewpoint of deep feelings and desirable figure. In: Taura T, Nagai Y (eds) Design creativity 2010. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagel RL, Hutcheson R, McAdams DA, Stone R (2011 online 2009) Process and event modelling for conceptual design. J Eng Des 22:145–164. doi: 10.1080/09544820903099575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okamoto J, Ishizaki S (2001) Associative concept dictionary construction and its comparison with electronic concept dictionaries. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Association for computational linguistics conference 2001. Kitakyushu, Japan, 11–14 Sept, pp 214–220Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reingold EM, Ray CA (2002) Implicit cognition. In: Nadel L (ed) Encyclopedia of cognitive science. Nature Publishing Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schilling MA (2005) A ‘small-world’ network model of cognitive insight. Creativ Res J 17:131–154. doi: 10(1080/10400419),2005,9651475 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Searle J (1975) Indirect speech acts. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, vol 3. Speech Acts. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB (2005) The large-scale structure of semantic networks: statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognit Sci 29:41–78. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taura T, Yamamoto E, Fasiha MYN, Goka M, Nagai Y, Nakashima H (2011) Trial of a constructive research method for the creative thinking process in design—constructive simulation of the concept generation process. Cognit Stud 18:329–341 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Lught R (2002) Functions of sketching in design idea generation meetings. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on creativity & cognition. Loughborough, UK, 13–16 Oct, pp 72–79. doi:  10.1145/581710.581723
  30. 30.
    Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1997) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ward TB, Patterson MJ, Sifonis CM (2004) The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativ Res J 16:1–9. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weisberg RW (1986) Creativity: genius and other myths. WH Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshiharu Taura
    • 1
  • Yukari Nagai
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.School of Knowledge ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomiJapan

Personalised recommendations