Advertisement

“… and not building on that”: The Relation of Low Coherence and Creativity in Design Conversations

  • Axel Menning
  • Benedikt Ewald
  • Claudia Nicolai
  • Ulrich Weinberg
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the relation between coherence and creativity in design conversations of innovation teams. Low coherent segments in a conversation can be understood as the linguistic equivalent of shifts of the focus of attention while designing. Focus shifts have a positive influence on ideational productivity. We therefore reason that low coherent speaker turns function as creative stimuli in team conversations. How this works in practice we illustrate with a case study of an innovation team observed in the wild.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the various ways in which the HPI Stanford Design Thinking Research Program has enabled this research. We also want to thank Andrea Scheer, Bastien Grasnick and Petja Ivanova for their critical contributions and Dr. Sharon Nemeth for copyediting.

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “the social psychology of creativity”. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boden, D. (1990). People are talking: Conversation analysis and symbolic interaction. In H. Becker & M. McCall (Eds.), Symbolic interaction and cultural studies (pp. 244–274). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolwijn, P. T., & Kumpe, T. (1990). Manufacturing in the 1990s—productivity, flexibility and innovation. Long Range Planning, 23(4), 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botta, D., & Woodbury, R. (2012). Predicting topic shift locations in design history. Research in Engineering Design, 24(3), 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockhoff, K. (1999). Forschung und Entwicklung: Planung und Kontrolle. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1958). Creativity/fluency scales. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  9. Crilly, N. (2015). Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers. Design Studies, 38, 54–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. De Bono, E. (1968). New think: The use of lateral thinking in the generation of new ideas. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  12. Dong, A. (2004). Quantifying coherent thinking in design: A computational linguistics approach. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design computing and cognition ‘04 (pp. 521–540). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Design Studies, 26(5), 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong, A., & Macdonald, E. (in press). From observations to insights: the hilly road to value creation. In L. J. Ball & B. T. Christensen (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Co-Creation: Proceedings of DTRS11. Taylor & Francis/Belkema-CRC Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Endrejat, P. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Über innovationsverhindernde und innovationsfördernde Denkweisen. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 47(3), 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Georgsdottir, A. S., Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (2003). The role of flexibility in innovation. In L. V. Shavinima (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 180–190). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 44–50). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  20. Grosz, B. J., Weinstein, S., & Joshi, A. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225.Google Scholar
  21. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Howard-Jones, P. A., & Murray, S. (2003). Ideational productivity, focus of attention, and context. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2/3), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997, April). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lautenbacher, T. H. (2011). Die Entwicklung von Geschäftsideen: ein Leitfaden zur systematischen Erzeugung, Bewertung und Auswahl von Ideen für neue Geschäftsfelder im Rahmen des Internal Corporate. Venturing: VDM Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menning, A., Scheer, A., Meier, B., & Nicolai, C. (2015). Designing as weaving topics: Coding topic threads in conversations. In V. Popovic, A. L. Blackler, D. Luh, N. Nimkulrat, B. Kraal, & N. Yukari (Eds.), Proceedings of IASDR 2015 (pp. 1460–1468). Australia: Brisbane.Google Scholar
  32. Menning, A., Scheer, A., & Nicolai, C. (2016). The topic markup scheme and the knowledge handling notation: Complementary instruments to measure knowledge creation in design conversations. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 291–307). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Menning, A., Grasnik, B. M., Ewald, B., Dobrigkeit, F., & Nicolai, C. (in press). Combining computational and human analysis to study low coherence in design conversations. In L. J. Ball & B. T. Christensen (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Co-Creation: Proceedings of DTRS11. Taylor & Francis/Belkema-CRC Press.Google Scholar
  34. Michalko, M. (2010). Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking techniques. USA: Potter/TenSpeed/Harmony.Google Scholar
  35. Mullis, K. (1993). Nobel Prize lecture. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1993/mullis-lecture.html
  36. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oak, A. (2013). “As you said to me I said to them”: Reported speech and the multi-vocal nature of collaborative design practice. Design Studies, 34(1), 34–56. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ogilvie, T., & Liedtka, J. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking toolkit for managers. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(October), 656.Google Scholar
  40. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1964). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  42. Schön, D. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 137–163). London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tanskanen, S. K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomke, S. H. (1997). The role of flexibility in the development of new products: An empirical study. Research Policy, 26(1), 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Dijk, T. A. (1977a). Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(3), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Dijk, T. A. (1977b). Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 3–32). New York, London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  48. Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel Menning
    • 1
  • Benedikt Ewald
    • 1
  • Claudia Nicolai
    • 1
  • Ulrich Weinberg
    • 1
  1. 1.HPI School of Design Thinking, Hasso Plattner Institute for Software Systems EngineeringPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations